Opposed holding types (brainstorming)

[Lord Rahvin]

So essentially what people are saying is that holdings are based on
cultural mores and therefor those must be considered when figuring out
whether or not a holding is in opposition and thus they come down to
circumstantial considerations.

Hmm seems like there can be no "generalizations" to say holding types are in
opposition to each other then at all.

Really, think about, almost all of the arguments are actually founded in
cultural aspects.

Well, I don`t know if anyone is still really talking in terms of my original
post, but perhaps opposition is a bad description. An opposition holding is
only in opposition if one is anti-thesis to the other; both cannot exist
simultaneously if one has maximum dominance. Even if Sera or whoever was
the complete state religion of the land and had total dominance, I would
find it hard to accept that there could not be guilds as a result.

Law and lawnessness would be in opposition. The guilds vs magical elven
abundance is interesting. (So the elves have no guilds, for fear that
guilds would wipe out the source holdings?) In Oseurde, I would argue that
the true heir supposedly still has loyalty to him somewhere and these might
represent shadow anti-law holdings that will be stamped out if the regent
can firmly establish dominance through maximum law holdings. (The same
could not be said the other way around, unless the true heir somehow becomes
regent.)

[kgauck]

Poverty might be the human form of anti-guild. Abject holdings the opposite of temple holdings. In this example, lawlessness, poverty, and abjection would all be circumstances that make a realm ungovernable.

[Gman]

Quote - Lord Rahvin
"I never could come up with what would be the opposite of a Guild Holding,
but I figure the elves must have something since they have no guilds.
Likely, whatever it is, would be destroyed by the presence of Guilds."

As what constitutes a law/Guild/temple holding is not totally defined - i.e. the Regent with the Law/guild/temple holding has the POWER to effect actions in that province but how they do this is not defined it makes it difficult to say what the opposite is.

Therefore most things are going to need fleshing out and colour by the Gm.

Opposite to guild.
Free trade - individual bartering - crafting but not mass production - Laisse Faire (Spelling?) - I.e. no guild controls. No mass import/export and control over pricing (No cartel price fixing etc).

No thieves guild in some guild styles.
- individuals not part of a body and receiving no protection and paying no dues to that body.
Could be multiple small bands or groups co-operating but no one leader controlling almost everything.

Is that what we are discussing?

[AndrewTall]

I presume that you want 'negative' holdings to draw a distinction between 'easy' areas for growth (i.e. empty provinces that just need to be settled) and 'hard' areas (i.e. rugged empty provinces seething with monsters and vermin are harder to rule than the provinces once settled but abruptly emptied by plague and fear of war).


This could be accommodated in the game by undefined 'shadow' holdings filling some or all of the empty slots that would have to be contested and reduced before 'productive' holdings could be ruled up. The difficulty of doing so could be changed depending on how ingrained the DM wanted the shadow holdings to be, either increasing the DC or certain actions, or giving them phantom GB and RP to oppose the ruling of productive holdings, rule shadow holdings to the set level, etc (I'd recommend to allowing them to retain any unspent phantoms).

The decision of what shadow holdings represent could be left undefined beyond simple opposition and so tailored to the particular realm in question since it would vary from culture to culture in my view.


Otherwise examples could be:

Law:
The DM could rule that an elven realm has 50% shadow law holdings, with 5 RP an action to resist contests, and one free rule action a turn if the number of shadow levels is below half the province level and there are empty slots. This could represent the elves unwillingness to bow to a master, difficulty of spreading word amongst the disparate population, lack of understanding of what the law is, civil disobedience, corruption, apathy or any other retarding agent.

Guild:
The true enemy of guilds is in my view either lack of interest in material wealth/need for goods, or in humanistic societies corruption or outright kleptocracy - both enrich a tiny handful of people but impoverish the vast bulk of the population with an overall retarding effect on wealth (take a look at Zimbabwe over the last decade or so and weep) thereby preventing businesses that seek to create wealth from growing. Other possibilities are the various deliberate attempts by governments to impoverish the populace to encourage absolute control or satisfy some fetish but these are less common than simple corruption.

<In response to earlier posts with apologies for the ranting and politics >
Free trade would not oppose guilds - free trade inevitably encourages specialisation and responsiveness within the workforce which in turn requires cooperation and the sharing of information - and guilds are all about the co-operation leading to greater profits. Guilds in a capitalist system may differ in some respects to guilds in mercantile systems but would have similar underlying motives and methods.

I also note that guilds of a region would likely support Haelyn very strongly - for trade to flourish the merchants need a stable realm ruled by law - the law can be oppressive to a substantial degree without harming trade but MUST be certain, what markets truly abhor is anarchy, lack of respect for property rights, lack of coherent law.

Since a strong tax base (and therefore strong state) depends heavily on a strong trading base (which is also needed to create the wealth needed for a noble class) Haelyn would also likely support the guilds strongly - as long as they obey the various laws that ensure they act in 'constructive' ways. Apart from other considerations the feudal system implies mutual obligations - the miller and blacksmith offer fealty, respect, and taxes, in return the noble - and therefore Haelyn - support and defend them.

Belinik would be supported by guilds that indicated slave trading, trading of loot, etc. He is the god of might - and therefore must support guilds that produce things that reward might even as prey. Belinik's true enemies are those who shelter the weak, not merely the weak themselves. A paladin of Cuiraecen who defends maidens from raiders bent on rapine is far more heinous in Belinik's eyes than the maidens themselves, so also the merchant who bows properly and acknowledges their inferiority is welcomed by the warriors who purchase the merchants foods, axes, slaves, etc - indeed the merchant is absolutely necessary for the warriors strength to have meaning.


Temple:
Temples could be opposed by lack of piety, refusal to accept a clerical hierarchy (i.e. the god is worshiped, but none may proclaim themselves better than others in their understanding preventing formation of a political wealthy church) albeit hard to accept in a spell casting world, vows of poverty and political retreat (lots of holy people, but they don't earn wealth or influence events) or the like. To continue the elven example the DM could rule that the shadow holdings fill 100% of the province, gain 1 GB and 10 RP a turn to oppose temples/rebuild grey holdings only or aid another in doing so (but cannot retain either).

Source:
Mebhaighl has a clear opponent in awnmebhaighl, but could also be opposed by ancient monuments, terracing, etc that disrupts the natural landscape that must be removed before the mebhaighl can flow unfettered. Otherwise mebhaighl devouring wraiths are always amusing.

[Lee]

I presume that you want `negative` holdings to draw a distinction between `easy` areas for growth (i.e. empty provinces that just need to be settled) and `hard` areas (i.e. rugged empty provinces seething with monsters and vermin are harder to rule than the provinces once settled but abruptly emptied by plague and fear of war).

This could be accommodated in the game by undefined `shadow` holdings filling some or all of the empty slots that would have to be contested and reduced before `productive` holdings could be ruled up. The difficulty of doing so could be changed depending on how ingrained the DM wanted the shadow holdings to be, either increasing the DC or certain actions, or giving them phantom GB and RP to oppose the ruling of productive holdings, rule shadow holdings to the set level, etc (I`d recommend to allowing them to retain any unspent phantoms).

I think I could like this. Maybe one could institute a difficulty modifier for trying to rule into existing (uncontrolled) holdings, with a further
modifier when going above half of the available holdings. Like in a province (5), for instance: -0 for the 1st holding, -2 for the 2nd uncontrolled holding, -8 for the 3rd, -10 for the 4th, -12 for the 5th? Assuming the other holdings are uncontrolled-- if they are held by someone, then that domain must be reduced first.

Lee.