I uploaded some stuff ...

[Lord Rahvin]

I don`t agree with every particular item on your list Nicholas, but I do
*love* the idea that you have this list. It really gives the player some
idea of what to expect from your game. Awesome. It also may help future
discussions on this list.

I would very much like to see some of the additional/alternate rules you are
exploring. If you`re interested in sharing them, please feel free to email
me at lordrahvin@gmail.com. I sort of collect RPG domain systems, or
components thereof. I`m especially interested in any rules covering items
on your Philosophy list, such as things like assassination, internal strife
within your institution, bestowing and removing vassalage and law holdings,
etc.


-Lord Rahvin

[Nicholas Harrison]

*grin* It's still the regents' choice. However, these principles give players an idea of the currently prevailing philosophy -- whether temples are paying taxes at the beginning of the game. If your campaign is different (i.e. temples are paying taxes at the beginning of the game), you should note that. Otherwise, you have two players with completely different perspectives -- one saying, "The Church has never paid taxes. Your father certainly never demanded a portion of the Gods' tribute." and the other saying, "You've always paid taxes in the past. I don't know why you're less loyal than your predecessor."

I've played the game from both perspectives on many of these issues. Over the years, I've generally settled upon the following because . . . .

Temples -- In a world where the Gods show their favor in a tangible manner by granting spells, I think it's a little presumptuous for the Lord to demand a "cut" of the tribute offered by the people to the Gods. Perhaps, this income reflects more than just tithes. However, if that's the case, it can also be argued that the Lord received his "cut" of that income when he collected taxes from the provinces and from his law holdings.

At what point is he taking gold from the poor box and the soup kitchen? Players always like to say, "I'm only taking the gold that he's putting in a chest and sending off to the High Priest in another land." However, players don't have that much control over their collections. Their men take the money that they can find. And, any player worth his salt makes sure that his gold isn't in nice chests that anyone can steal.

However, like I said, it's a matter of personal preference. If it's standard for the Church to contribute 10% or 20%, I would argue that you should simply make sure that's noted. When I played a high priest, I was always adamantly opposed to giving in to the regent's extortion tactics. I took it as a terrible breach of faith -- allowing the regent to take gold offered as tribute by the peasants to the Gods. However, I had no problem whatsoever contributing to the upkeep of the realm in a more traditional and indirect fashion -- paying to employ templars that I placed under the regents' command. I just had a problem delivering chests of gold to the castle.

Charters -- This is probably the rule that I am most committed to. While the other two are personal preference, I think this is one which is an inherent issue of fairness to players who aren't running landed regents.

We're talking about property rights -- one of the basic legal principles which evolved at the earliest points in medieval history. And, Birthright is supposed to be set in a Rennaissance technology period.

Feudal society cannot evolve until the nobles, gentry, and clergy can rest safely knowing that their property rights are protected -- that the regent can't just decide to take everything away from them and give it to others.

Sure, he can still do that. But, it's not right . . . . That's all this is saying -- players' rights to the property they hold at the beginning of the game is not in question. It can be stolen, seized, or taken from them. But, the regent has no legal "right" to do so. He is violating millenia of customs and traditions.

Wizards -- This is simply personal preference. I've always found wizards to be an unbalancing aspect -- mostly because of some of the players who run them. I can remember one incident with High Mage Aelies contracting himself out to kill Mheallie Bireon because she was causing Dhoesone some trouble. Dhoesone, BTW, had decided that she wanted to arbritrarily confiscate some of the guilds' property.

Wizards are powerful. There's no question about that. The question is that, if they're so powerful, why don't they run every domain in Anuire. In a low-magic world, it would be a simple matter for them to teleport into a regent's chamber and slit his / her throat in the middle of the night.

I just have a real problem with the unbalancing aspect. So, to preserve the feel of the campaign setting, this is what I've come up with. I recently played in an awesome game where they didn't even allow players to choose wizards. And, I think that really added to the campaign. You didn't have to worry about your army being annhiliated by a dozen flying robed figures who didn't have anything better to do but get involved in the latest war, but you never really knew what the wizard was up to. So, you still had to be careful.

Personally, I can see wizards' special ties to the land granting them a form of immortality. And, I can also see an immortal's perspective being very different from that of other regents. Why do they care what happens to the people? Change is inevitable. Regents and realms come and go. Only magic and knowledge endures.

[AndrewTall]

Nicholas Harrison> I had no problem whatsoever contributing to the upkeep of the realm in a more traditional and indirect fashion -- paying to employ templars that I placed under the regents' command. I just had a problem delivering chests of gold to the castle.

Andrew> I would note that a lot of realm income is not necessarily in cash form - there's been a lot of talk on this explaining why 1 GB= 2,000gp doesn't hold true for castles etc. The church 'taxes' could easily be maintenance of armies (for example the priesthood could ask loyal followers to provide meals and shelter to the soldiers), service (road building), goods (the bishop always sends a dozen barrels of the cathedrals famous spiced ale to the lord of the manor), etc. Similarly I would consider maintenance of the poor that would otherwise be maintained by the regent could represent this taxation.

I would note that if the temple directly paid the soldiers then it could cause 'confusion' regarding who the soldiers actually served - few regents welcome private armies in their domain.

Charters: I think that property rights are key - they underpin the entire legal structure - but the main determinant of how the population responds will depend on why the regent confiscated land and what they do with it. It the previous owner had committed an act of treason, a terrible crime, etc (or at least was guilty of such in popular opinion) then any public out-cry would be reduced; similarly if the regent reassigned the land from the corrupt elder son to the upstanding younger son then any response would be muted.

A regent who simply runs a kleptocracy however will reap what they so, and in a world of miracles that might occur sooner than they expect.

I definitely agree on the up-front statements of house rules etc - I hadn't thought to include statements of politics but agree that its better to set out the world system up front than after a player has revealed the plan they've been carefully working towards for the last few levels.

[irdeggman]

There are Churches of the State (see Book of Priestcraft for how much "power" they wield).

Non landed regents (i.e., those who aren't the realm regent) are very restricted in the types of troops they can muster. This leaves the defense of the land, people and all holdings within the province to the landed regent.

The landed regent also pays for upkeep and maintenance on all roads that serve to transport goods that are essential for the prosperity fo the people.

In general the landed regent also pays for any maintence on ports and shipyards too.

"Taxes" is a very vague concept. Andrew got it much closer when he talked about housing and feeding troops. A GB is not a set amount of hard currency, never was. It is a booking term created to handle large amounts of various things used for exchange (food, goods, actual coinage).

Wizard's teleporting into someone's bedchamber and offing them - well that is one of the reasons we specified that "magical transportation" was unreliable in the BRCS. By using that concept it makes magic much more powerful and awe inspiring, as well as dangerous to wield.

I personnaly never let the assination domain action work as a simple dice roll. A successful dice roll created (or reflected) an opportunity which was role-played out as an encounter. If I didn't do this then my player's would be off trying to make one dice roll to kill of the Gorgon. My logic to them was that if they could do it then the NPC regents could also do it, and usually the NPC regents were much more powerful, at least at the start. Nobody wants their PC being killed off without at least getting to roll some dice of their own.

[Nicholas Harrison]

<I>There's been a lot of talk on this explaining why 1 GB = 2,000 gp doesn't hold true for castles etc.</I>

*grin* That's the other area that I've been looking at -- although I didn't post any of those "house rules" here. I've managed to get the figures to match best by making:

1 GB = 5,000 GP
1 unit = 120 men (much closer to an actual company than 200)
muster costs are squared
construction costs in GB are multiplied by 5

None of these adjustments have been play-tested. And, they probably slow down the game quite a bit (which may actually suit DMs who hate having to adjudicate twenty million wars). However, I think these adjustments get you much closer to the figures in the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Stronghold Builder's Guide.

<I>I would note that if the temple directly paid the soldiers then it could cause 'confusion' regarding who the soldiers actually served - few regents welcome private armies in their domain.</I>

They serve God, of course. Surely, no good, upstanding regent has to worry about God being against him.

<I>If the previous owner had committed an act of treason, a terrible crime, etc (or at least was guilty of such in popular opinion) then any public out-cry would be reduced; similarly if the regent reassigned the land from the corrupt elder son to the upstanding younger son then any response would be muted.</I>

I agree completely. As long as roleplaying is part of the process, players are still free to do whatever they like . . . . I just hope to cut down on players awarding all of the guild / temple holdings in their land to someone else "out of the blue".

[irdeggman]

I agree completely. As long as roleplaying is part of the process, players are still free to do whatever they like . . . . I just hope to cut down on players awarding all of the guild / temple holdings in their land to someone else "out of the blue".

You can't "award" a holding to someone else.

All "holdings" must be "invested" that is the mystical tie between the regent and the holding must be made.

A realm regent can not simply make this happen.

He also can't simply make an "investiture" happen, even the kind where all holdings are transfered from one regent to another.

The realm regent can influence holding regents via actions and decrees, but likewise he is subject to their repurcussions. Regents agitating against the realm ruler is the major action that can occur.

[Nicholas Harrison]

*grin* Nevertheless, I've seen other players decide on Turn 1 that they want to "award" all of the temple / guilds in their land to someone who has paid them off. They usually then give the affected player a season to transfer all of the holdings before they move in their troops and start trying to contest the holdings.

I think that there would be natural consequences when a player acts rashly -- above and beyond the opposing player's / NPC's reaction. (The populace grumbles, advisors start plotting against him, etc.)

[irdeggman]

*grin* Nevertheless, I've seen other players decide on Turn 1 that they want to "award" all of the temple / guilds in their land to someone who has paid them off. They usually then give the affected player a season to transfer all of the holdings before they move in their troops and start trying to contest the holdings.

I think that there would be natural consequences when a player acts rashly -- above and beyond the opposing player's / NPC's reaction. (The populace grumbles, advisors start plotting against him, etc.)

I'm thinking that your group(s) have been playing real fast and loose with the rules, based upon the posts I've read.

Unless you get a "transfer investiture" it is a long process to transfer holdings.

You can only contest one level at a time (i.e., 1 per action).

You can only raise it 1 level at a time (i.e., 1 per action) and there must first be a holding level available and the the regent trying to raise a holding must first have had to create a 0-level one first. In fact before a regent can put any RP into an action against a holding he must have at least a 0-level holding present in the province of his own. The one exception is the landed regent.

Occupying with troops - automatically lowers the loyalty of a province, regardless of whether or not it is focused on a single holding or not. In order to accomplish this the troops must first occupy the province, an act seen as oppressive by the people.

This occupation forces the realm regent to spend other actions in order to pacify the people to avoid the ramifications of a disloyal province.

[AndrewTall]

It sounds to me like his players were demanding transfers via investiture - the quick and easy way to gain holdings if the target is feeling very generous or terrified.

I would have thought that the target would respond very negatively to a flat demand to transfer holdings - quite aside from any personal ambitions, property rights, etc a holding is made up of their people and personal loyalties would have an impact for most holders.

A guild holder might agree to be bought out - assuming a 5-10% return they might want 10-20 * annual income - a very expensive proposition. I can't see a temple holder agreeing to sell out at all - duty to one's god and all that.

It might be different if the demand was that the existing regent retire and allow a specified underling to take their place - at that point the PC regent is arguing mainly against personal ambitions rather than the full weight of tradition and law.

If the Province ruler did simply say 'transfer or be crushed' I would expect the target to either migrate to a more congenial realm (possible impacts including potential population loss, reduction of local holdings to at most half size, province morale issues, etc) or take defensive measures ranging from agitate actions against the province ruler, bribing the PC's troops, or hiring mercenaries (I would suggest that you don't need the province ruler's permission to raise troops if you intend to use them against the ruler - although it would certainly escalate matters, and should be harder than usual) in extremis assassination attempts, and requests for protection from neighbouring domains might seem reasonable to the target regent.

I would suggest that when a player made the suggestion one of their minions (the chamberlain for example) pointed out the dire consequences of abandoning the rule of law...

How did you deal with it in your campaign Mr Harrison?

I would have thought that if the transfer is to another PC, say one who has been playing a non-regent and having seen the fun wants to join the party, then the best way to bring them in would either be a chat with the GM and a retirement and promotion route in which the new PC takes over an existing set of holdings or to start from scratch as a vassal to the existing regent.

[Autarkis]

Temples -- In a world where the Gods show their favor in a tangible manner by granting spells, I think it's a little presumptuous for the Lord to demand a "cut" of the tribute offered by the people to the Gods. Perhaps, this income reflects more than just tithes. However, if that's the case, it can also be argued that the Lord received his "cut" of that income when he collected taxes from the provinces and from his law holdings.

BR is a setting where the gods have alot less interaction, really only through granting spells and visions (exlcuding Ruornil and the Meodre issue.) But, on the other hand, the regents are also blessed with the blood of gods, as can be seen by their divine right to rule. Attempting to compare the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages to the fractured individual "cults" in the Anuirean setting, to me, lead to this type of thinking.

Charters -- This is probably the rule that I am most committed to. While the other two are personal preference, I think this is one which is an inherent issue of fairness to players who aren't running landed regents.

We're talking about property rights -- one of the basic legal principles which evolved at the earliest points in medieval history. And, Birthright is supposed to be set in a Rennaissance technology period.

Feudal society cannot evolve until the nobles, gentry, and clergy can rest safely knowing that their property rights are protected -- that the regent can't just decide to take everything away from them and give it to others.

Sure, he can still do that. But, it's not right . . . . That's all this is saying -- players' rights to the property they hold at the beginning of the game is not in question. It can be stolen, seized, or taken from them. But, the regent has no legal "right" to do so. He is violating millenia of customs and traditions.

This seems, to me, to be arbitrary. There are in-game mechanics to facilitate and expand on this issue. A Landed Regent can not "seize" property without expending regency points. A "Charter", to me, basically gives the guild the right to do business in the realm. Without the "Charter", the Landed Regent can't just take the holdings. They need to be contested, invested and costs a lot of regency. He can occupy them with troops, but this takes resources and has an impact on the loyalty of the province.

For the Church and the Guilds, it seems that you have been "burnt", for lack of a better word. There are in-game mechanics to deal with these issues. It is not lawful to march your troops and gain land from another regent. But regents do it, and there are ramifications. Churches/guilds being abused can quickly deliver information on troops to the landed regent's rivals, saving the rival the use of a espionage action.

There is also the fact that certain actions can result in Regency loss, specifically if it goes against the alignment of the regent.

Wizards -- This is simply personal preference. I've always found wizards to be an unbalancing aspect -- mostly because of some of the players who run them. I can remember one incident with High Mage Aelies contracting himself out to kill Mheallie Bireon because she was causing Dhoesone some trouble. Dhoesone, BTW, had decided that she wanted to arbritrarily confiscate some of the guilds' property.

Wizards are powerful. There's no question about that. The question is that, if they're so powerful, why don't they run every domain in Anuire. In a low-magic world, it would be a simple matter for them to teleport into a regent's chamber and slit his / her throat in the middle of the night.

I just have a real problem with the unbalancing aspect. So, to preserve the feel of the campaign setting, this is what I've come up with. I recently played in an awesome game where they didn't even allow players to choose wizards. And, I think that really added to the campaign. You didn't have to worry about your army being annhiliated by a dozen flying robed figures who didn't have anything better to do but get involved in the latest war, but you never really knew what the wizard was up to. So, you still had to be careful.

Personally, I can see wizards' special ties to the land granting them a form of immortality. And, I can also see an immortal's perspective being very different from that of other regents. Why do they care what happens to the people? Change is inevitable. Regents and realms come and go. Only magic and knowledge endures.

Rogues can sneak into a keep and kill a regent. Priests can raise armies of undead, treants, or monsters to crush their foes. Priests can also turn whol realms against one person, feed entire armies, increase the prosperity and level of a province, etc. You get my point.

If a Wizard is getting involved in a war, he is not cultivating his own resources or studying. And if a Wizard decides to frolick half-way across the world to do someone else's bidding, he is traveling. The world is not a Mario game where you move from one zone to another without interacting with others. Your issue seems to be with how the DM allows these things to happen.

I have only found Wizards to be unbalanced when there is nothing for them to deal with but the mundane. If there are no incursions by minions of the Shadows, angry ancient Dragons, ruins to be explored, or Elves attempting to reclaim their power from upstart humans, they begin to get bored and involve themselves in the politics of the landed regents. Landed regents have a goal, the Iron Throne in some games or the Gorgon forces in another, to have them concentrate on. Wizards, and realistically all non-landed regents, need some goal. Without them, they become nothing more than gold dispensers and destructive tools for the landed regents.

"When I drive, I always hit a tree" could lead someone to decide, "I will never drive." That is easy. The more difficult and more productive path would be "Maybe I should take a driving course to make sure I avoid trees."

Your proposed solution for issues is simply to not allow them to happen versus finding consequences for them. Avoidance is easy, resolution is not.