Unblooded Regents

[Magian]

A couple of sources have brought me to this conclusion.

Solmyr`s rule about the highest law holding is ruler of province and Ian`s
rule of unblooded regents in Anduria.

What I have been thinking is that unblooded regents are possible anywhere
even in Cerilia. They however can only rule over law holdings(temple and
guild are possible also) signifying their power over the people and giving
the highest law holder the taxes. Perhaps with some penalties for other law
holders who oppose. The province investiture simply does not exist for
unblooded regents since they do not have a tie to the land.

Why am I bringing this up? Other lands than Cerilia do exist and possible
rules for how they maintain order would be nice to look into. Also I am
begining to expand into other settings as part of my campaign.

How about true magic and sources? I would say they remain under Ian`s rules
with one exception. Like elves certain cultures could tap into true magic
but not delve into the source and realm magic level until they are blooded.
So those of us who see the Magian as a normal wizard from a distant land can
explain his mastery of it and his compulsion to learn more about this
bloodline and realm magic stuff. This would also bring about a balancing
force if the wizards of Cerilia make a massive exodus to other continents in
order to grab the vast expanses of untouched sources. Indigenous Archmages
would catch on to this phenomena and work to preserve their own power.

I await comments on this potentially heretical post.

ciao

__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

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

[Ariadne]

Example temple holding: To become a temple regent, a potential regent must do something outstanding for his church (I think). Further he must be accepted by his god (thats why I can't understand the investure of Taril Herad) and he should be blooded.

From this aspect there can be a window for unblooded regents, if they are skilled. But they wouldn't ever get regency points (for game terms). In my oppinion this symbolises that he would be never accepted by commoners and other priests (as regent). So if he is skilled and accepted by his god, his deity would arrange a bloodline for him...

[Lord Eldred]

Why couldn't unblooded regents earn regency points? I have argued before about this that regency points are like political clout. It is not some sort of magic. It is clout you can choose to spend or build up. You shouldn't have to be blooded to earn political clout. you should just have a vehicle to spend it through such as being a law holder or guild holder.

Further more why couldn't a unblooded regent take power of a country through a peoples revolution? Thus becoming a province ruler?

[geeman]

At 02:39 PM 7/19/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

>Why couldn`t unblooded regents earn regency points? I have argued before
>about this that regency points are like political clout. It is not some
>sort of magic. It is clout you can choose to spend or build up. You
>shouldn`t have to be blooded to earn political clout. you should just
>have a vehicle to spend it through such as being a law holder or guild holder.

The Rulebook describes regency as a "mystical power that regents derive
from their stewardship" (p32) and the BR domain rules are written under the
assumption that RP really is some sort of magic. That doesn`t mean you
couldn`t reinterpret RP as political clout, of course, but there are
several issues you should probably take into consideration in doing so.

1. Source holdings. Even given the magical power interpretation of RP
source holdings are kind of hinky. Going with a purely political version
of RP puts sources in an even stranger situation, though. Sources
represent the non-population based aspect of realms, so if RP represent
political clout then it might make sense to reinterpret what source
holdings do, who controls them, what they generate for the regent who does
control them and generally their role in the domain system, because it`s
hard to picture the control of animals, rocks and plant life of a source(5)
generating the same amount of political clout that a law(5) does.

2. Realm spells. It`s hard to picture political clout being required to
empower a domain level magical spell, so a bit of reinterpretation is
needed here too. You could probably just do away with RP costs and
maintain the holding level, GB costs and time required and most realm
spells would be fine, though a few might need GB costs added to them or
their current GB cost increased, and keeping some realm spells as is (the
Alchemy spell, in particular) wouldn`t make buckets of sense.

3. Investiture. In the BR domain rules investiture can transfer RP from
one regent to another without any dissipation, which doesn`t really fit the
political clout interpretation. The mundane system of favors, allegiances,
etc. aren`t as transferrable as mystical power derived through a divine
bloodline connection to the land. Vassalage agreements and investing an
heir with one`s RP should both be either eliminated or penalized
somehow. That is it "costs" 2RP to transfer 1RP to another
regent. Something like that.

4. Bloodlines. If no bloodline is required to rule then what is the role
of a bloodline? Further, what is a bloodline if one can spend RP to
improve it? If RP are represented by political clout rather than magical
energy AND they can still increase bloodline strength then should
bloodlines have magical powers associated with them? Should a system of
bloodlines be used at all if one is going with the political clout
interpretation of RP?

5. Bloodtheft. "If a scion or regent dies as a result of another blooded
character piercing him through the hear, the victim`s heir assumes his
domain, but the victim`s Regency Points are lost." Stabbing one through
the heart really doesn`t have anything to do with political clout except in
the kind of ancillary, "et tu Brute" adventure level kind of way. Take the
way bloodtheft works with RP into consideration if going with the political
clout version of RP.

6. RP and GB. In a few occasions RP and GB are used interchangeably and
you may want to take into consideration whether or not you can still spend
RP to maintain troops, for instance, rather than GB. This one`s a little
iffy, since you could certainly view the RP spent as being used to call in
enough favors to maintain a unit of soldiers for a domain turn, but some
people may have trouble with the concept that 200 men are "eating"
political favors for three months.

There are a few other weird issues that will likely pop up if using a
political clout interpretation of RP, and if you DM players who are of the
"go along, get along" disposition and don`t question the why`s and
wherefore`s behind the rules then you may not need to even bother with any
of the above issues.

>Further more why couldn`t a unblooded regent take power of a country
>through a peoples revolution? Thus becoming a province ruler?

He could. He couldn`t be invested with those provinces or holdings, nor
could he collect RP (or GB presumably) from them without some
reinterpretation of the system. What you`re talking about is probably best
expressed by provinces and holdings being "neutralized" (generating no
RP/GB for the blooded regent) per the Great Captain or Heresy random
event. The Unrest or Rebellion event could similarly be used.

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.

[Birthright-L]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Gary wrote:
> >Further more why couldn`t a unblooded regent take power of a country
> >through a peoples revolution? Thus becoming a province ruler?
>
> He could. He couldn`t be invested with those provinces or holdings, nor
> could he collect RP (or GB presumably) from them without some
> reinterpretation of the system. What you`re talking about is probably best
> expressed by provinces and holdings being "neutralized" (generating no
> RP/GB for the blooded regent) per the Great Captain or Heresy random
> event. The Unrest or Rebellion event could similarly be used.

He could hold and tax them with military units- occupied provinces can be
taxed, using the occupier`s military units as law holdings. I don`t
remember the rule exactly, but it`s something like that. So GB, but no
RP.

If he were really destined for great things, the land`s choice would be
the way out for him.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
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 04:46 PM 7/19/2002 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:

>He could hold and tax them with military units- occupied provinces can be
>taxed, using the occupier`s military units as law holdings. I don`t
>remember the rule exactly, but it`s something like that. So GB, but no RP.

That`s true. Conquest and Occupation. Each unit represents a level of a
law holding for the purpose of collecting GB. At least, that`s the way it
would appear to work. The Rulebook doesn`t say it as neatly as that. It
says "the occupying forces serve as a temporary law holding equal to the
number of units present" and "As long as the conqueror occupies the
province with at least one unit, he can perform taxation and replace the
ruler in all respects but he _cannot_ collect regency until he invests the
province" p66-67.

>If he were really destined for great things, the land`s choice would be
>the way out for him.

That`s a possibility. I`ve never really used the Land`s Choice myself, and
I`m under the impression that it`s more of a random kind of thing than a
reward to the successful rebel, though I kind of like the idea and it does
fit into a couple of ideas I had regarding the interaction of the adventure
level and the realm level.

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.

[kgauck]

A political interpretation of regency doesn`t lead to unblooded rulers if
one regards the whole relationship between a ruler and the people as being
sacred. Politics itself is a sacred art infused with the mandate of heaven.
While modern thought might view politics, government, learning, economics,
&c as secular and totally without a divine componant, BR with its
bloodlines, regency, and mebhaighl supports the interpretation that
rulership is divine. When the ruler steps before his court and wins their
approval, this is a sacred act. It is because of his divine essence that he
is capable of attracting support in the first place. Politics is impossible
without nobility because its not mediated by divinity. Describing it as
magical, or a mystical energy doesn`t mean we have to exclude day to day
things as a part of that. This divine power can be in all things.

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.

[kgauck]

I interpret the land`s choice as being an in-setting description for the
transfer of an abandon bloodline by investiture to any but-for-a-bloodline
legitimate ruler. I have pulled a bloodline out of my hat when I thought it
was better to make an established character blooded than to leave them
unblooded. I used a few quests and visions to add weight to this
investiture. I would never allow any random assignment of bloodlines as a
part of land`s choice. That`s altogether the very essence of democracy.

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.

[Magian]

>From: Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
>This divine power can be in all things.

Careful Kenneth you are getting philosophical. You may get your head bit
off.

ciao,

Paul

__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

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

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by geeman

At 02:39 PM 7/19/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

>Why couldn`t unblooded regents earn regency points? I have argued before
>about this that regency points are like political clout. It is not some
>sort of magic. It is clout you can choose to spend or build up. You
>shouldn`t have to be blooded to earn political clout. you should just
>have a vehicle to spend it through such as being a law holder or guild holder.

The Rulebook describes regency as a "mystical power that regents derive
from their stewardship" (p32) and the BR domain rules are written under the
assumption that RP really is some sort of magic. That doesn`t mean you
couldn`t reinterpret RP as political clout, of course, but there are
several issues you should probably take into consideration in doing so.

1. Source holdings. Even given the magical power interpretation of RP
source holdings are kind of hinky. Going with a purely political version
of RP puts sources in an even stranger situation, though. Sources
represent the non-population based aspect of realms, so if RP represent
political clout then it might make sense to reinterpret what source
holdings do, who controls them, what they generate for the regent who does
control them and generally their role in the domain system, because it`s
hard to picture the control of animals, rocks and plant life of a source(5)
generating the same amount of political clout that a law(5) does.

Political clout can come from magic power. A source holding gives more than just control of animals, rocks and plant life. It gives the owner a source of power. That source of power gives the owner political clout. Just as the law holding is really a source of physical power for the owner which translates into political clout. Thus I would argue both give the same amount of regency or political clout.

Orginally posted by geeman
2. Realm spells. It`s hard to picture political clout being required to
empower a domain level magical spell, so a bit of reinterpretation is
needed here too. You could probably just do away with RP costs and
maintain the holding level, GB costs and time required and most realm
spells would be fine, though a few might need GB costs added to them or
their current GB cost increased, and keeping some realm spells as is (the
Alchemy spell, in particular) wouldn`t make buckets of sense.

Perhaps you are right. One way to handle it is to eliminate the use of regency in casting spells. Or you could view the casting of realm spells differently. They take time and effort. One argument could be while you are spending the time and effort on casting the spell you are not maintaining your political clout and thus you lose some. Or you have to spend some of your clout to get the spell done such as using it as part of the Demagogue spell to increase loyalty. I don't see it as a stretch. In fact it is a better logical explanation than what is given when you interpret R.P. as some sort of magical substance.

Orginally posted by geeman
3. Investiture. In the BR domain rules investiture can transfer RP from
one regent to another without any dissipation, which doesn`t really fit the
political clout interpretation. The mundane system of favors, allegiances,
etc. aren`t as transferrable as mystical power derived through a divine
bloodline connection to the land. Vassalage agreements and investing an
heir with one`s RP should both be either eliminated or penalized
somehow. That is it "costs" 2RP to transfer 1RP to another
regent. Something like that.

You need to start thinking outside of the box. If magic can make a person look differently and magic can charm people, than magic can transfer someones political clout from one person to another. In your example, people suddenly think the allegiance is with me instead of you when the R.P. transfers. Vassalage is the ultimate example of how this really works. The vassal says I will let you use the favors people owe me instead of me using them myself.

Orginally posted by geeman
4. Bloodlines. If no bloodline is required to rule then what is the role
of a bloodline? Further, what is a bloodline if one can spend RP to
improve it? If RP are represented by political clout rather than magical
energy AND they can still increase bloodline strength then should
bloodlines have magical powers associated with them? Should a system of
bloodlines be used at all if one is going with the political clout
interpretation of RP?

A blooded regent has certain advantages that an unblooded regent can't claim. They have certain powers that their bloodline brings. They have a claim on the rule of land based on their bloodline, just as kings and queens of old. They have the ability to gain regency just because they are a descendant of someone. They also can gain it like the unblooded would have to through their domain power (domain power is their ability to influence through holdings). Unblooded rulers can only gain regency through domain holdings. The one rule that has to be changed based on this interpretation is that r.p. is the samller of bloodline score or domain power. I would argue it should be the larger to give the blooded the advantage.

As far as increasing your bloodline. First I would ask you how you think the whole process works? My explanation is that you can spend regency to make people think your family was a lot more powerful or respected than they really were thus generating more support for you and thus increasing your ability to generate regency points. Another possible explanation is that it is a magic ritual. I don't believe that any normal soul can perform this ritual. So you have to use your political clout with the person who can perform the ritual to have it done.

Orginally posted by geeman
5. Bloodtheft. "If a scion or regent dies as a result of another blooded
character piercing him through the hear, the victim`s heir assumes his
domain, but the victim`s Regency Points are lost." Stabbing one through
the heart really doesn`t have anything to do with political clout except in
the kind of ancillary, "et tu Brute" adventure level kind of way. Take the
way bloodtheft works with RP into consideration if going with the political
clout version of RP.

Actually it makes more sense if you think of it my way. If regency points are some sort of magic tied to the bloodline, why does it get lost when someone steals your bloodline. Shouldn't the regency transfer with it? Now in my interpretation it makes sense. When a guy is dead, he can't spend his political clout anymore. All agreements are off with anyone they had clout with!

Orginally posted by geeman
6. RP and GB. In a few occasions RP and GB are used interchangeably and
you may want to take into consideration whether or not you can still spend
RP to maintain troops, for instance, rather than GB. This one`s a little
iffy, since you could certainly view the RP spent as being used to call in
enough favors to maintain a unit of soldiers for a domain turn, but some
people may have trouble with the concept that 200 men are "eating"
political favors for three months.

Not if you are calling in political favors to have the men fed!

Orginally posted by geeman
There are a few other weird issues that will likely pop up if using a
political clout interpretation of RP, and if you DM players who are of the
"go along, get along" disposition and don`t question the why`s and
wherefore`s behind the rules then you may not need to even bother with any
of the above issues.

I think you answered it yourself.