Elven Law Holdings

[Benjamin]

I've noticed that all the elven realms in Birthright are supposed to be chaotic good. Most of the realms descriptions say something along the lines that the regent doesn't take a firm hand in the realm, and the elves like it that way.

However, the first thing that almost always happens in a PBEM is that elven regents rule up their law holdings to max. Depending on which area a game is held in, this may or may not unbalance the realm. But it sure violates the feeling of chaotic good elves in my opinion.

So I would like to know if anyone has an idea for how to codify a situation to make elves not want to rule up law. I make a suggestion below. Any others?

Elven Variant to Adjusting Domain Attitude
Elves are known to be chaotic good, eschewing a regent's firm control of their lives. They don't mind a little control, but become quite angry when it becomes heavy handed. Those elves most likely to tolerate a regent's control are likely to be found in the capital province, flocking to the court and its trappings. This high level of respect in the court for their monarch provides the regent the ability to rule more firmly than elsewhere. Elves least tolerant to the regent's control will likely be found further away in the border provinces. Additionally, elves love their forests and do not like trade which harvests the natural bounty of their lands. The following chart takes these factors into account when adjusting domain attitude in elven realms.

Bonus
+5 Elven capital province

Penalty
-2 more than 25% of available law or guild holdings held in elven province
-4 more than 50% of available law or guild holdings held in elven province
-6 more than 75% of available law or guild holdings held in elven province

[Osprey]

Harsh, but very interesting...good ideas, all in all.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Benjamin wrote:



> Most of the realms descriptions say something along the lines that the

> regent doesn`t take a firm hand in the realm, and the elves like it

> that way.



That doesn`t necessarily mean the regent has low law holdings. I think it

makes more sense to say that elven regents have the power at hand to take

a firm hand in the realm for its defense at a moment`s notice should it be

needed, but choose not to exercise that power except under duress. I

think they have high law holdings, but do not use them to interfere in

their citizens` lives -- instead, they use them to prevent any outsiders

acquiring influence which would be detrimental to their people. One of

the primary functions of any elven realm ruler is to keep out human

loggers: and without high law holdings, it`s really hard under standard

rules to keep those pesky human neighbors from forming guild holdings in

your forests. High (indeed, maximum) law holdings in the hands of an elf

who knows how to show proper restraint in their use is the primary

safeguard of the freedom of the people. It`s not elves who want to reduce

the freedom of the elves -- it`s non-elves who are the main danger.



> However, the first thing that almost always happens in a PBEM is that

> elven regents rule up their law holdings to max.



Yes, because in Birthright mechanics regents with very low law holdings

are at a severe disadvantage.



> But it sure violates the feeling of chaotic good elves in my opinion.



You can`t easily be chaotic good if your refusal to develop law holdings

means intrusive outsider lawfuls can get their hands on it and start

running your lands as a police state without your consent. Elves are

smart enough to know that anarchy never lasts very long -- it is too

tempting an invitation to ambitious despots. High law holdings are just

as important for the defense of the realm as armies and wizards; IMO, the

Sidhelien recognize this, and work to ensure that law holdings are held

entirely in trustworthy hands.



> Elves are known to be chaotic good, eschewing a regent`s firm control

> of their lives. They don`t mind a little control, but become quite

> angry when it becomes heavy handed.



Right. But heavy-handedness is a description of how law holdings are

used, not how high in level they are. You can use a Law (1) in a

heavy-handed manner, or a Law (10) with great restraint.



> Additionally, elves love their forests and do not like trade which

> harvests the natural bounty of their lands.



Which is a primary reason elves need high law holdings: to prevent the

establishment of guild holdings they don`t want.



I don`t think any rules change is needed. The change I would make is to

the atlas: I think all elven realms should start out with very high law

holdings, not very low ones.





Ryan Caveney

[RaspK_FOG]

Actually, the greater the law holding, the greater the freedom of action should be, if we take elves as we should; Ryan put it quite nicely, but let me add one thing to say or two:

Which should be more desperate of control, a system with huge super-vision sub-systems, or one with a smaller supervision sub-system?
Law-holdings are not enforcers, OK?

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Benjamin" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:02 AM



> However, the first thing that almost always happens in a PBEM is

> that elven regents rule up their law holdings to max.



I assume that all holdings are owned by someone. There is no such thing as

a vacant holding. If the books say that named regents only control 2 of 5

possible law holdings, there are 3 local notables who have a single law

holding there. The new players would have to contest the law away from

their own nobility. That won`t make things happy at court.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Aurel]

Your right KGauck all law holdings in a realm should be held by someone (ie either the regent or some other noble with influence ).

But by that same token how would the mechanics work if a regent conquers a province (5/0) with a law(3) from the previous ruler.

Does he gain the rulers previous law holding(3) or can he with the help of his army invest himself with a law(5)?

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Aurel" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:27 PM





> But by that same token how would the mechanics work if a regent

> conquers a province (5/0) with a law(3) from the previous ruler.



Once he gains title to the province by force he still find the old ruler`s

friends, supporters, and office holders in the province. This presents the

conqueror with a problem. He could keep the law as he finds it, which costs

him nothing but involves some risk that at a later date the law holdings

could support the conqueror`s opponants. On the other hand, the new ruler

could attempt to replace the current office holders with his own men. This

will take time and effort (it will require a contest action) and cost him

Regency as he disrupts his own realm and attempts to restore peace. If the

conqueror has the resources it is wise to seccure the conquest by placing

his own officers in the legal offices. The more territory you conquer, the

more you must accept the continuation of the former ruler`s officers since

you cannot replace them all at once. The bigger the hunk which is bitten

off, the longer the time required to chew and digest the piece.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Nov 19 2003, 06:28 AM
Actually, the greater the law holding, the greater the freedom of action should be, if we take elves as we should;
The greater the law, the greater the freedom? An interesting though, and one I presonally disagree with quite firmly. This is not the place for an argument based on real world events though, so I&#39;ll leave this.

I think the problem with the elves is that most of their realms are unbalanced when compared to a human neighbours, especially in pbem games. Personally I balance them up making the muster costs of their units so high, and using the +8 penelty to rule province actions I mentioned in a previous thread.

Oh, and for those who asked, all the elven realms will use their current holding and province levels. The only change will be to make all elven forested provinces */9 provinces.

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by ryancaveney@Nov 18 2003, 02:02 PM
I think they have high law holdings, but do not use them to interfere in their citizens` lives -- instead, they use them to prevent any outsiders acquiring influence which would be detrimental to their people.

<snip>

But heavy-handedness is a description of how law holdings are used, not how high in level they are. You can use a Law (1) in a heavy-handed manner, or a Law (10) with great restraint.
Thanks for the comments, all&#33;

Ryan - for the most part I agree with what you are saying. There should be local elves with law holdings, but they don&#39;t show up in the listings. And yes, even elves want the regent to protect them in times of danger, but in times of peace, they want to be left alone.

The BRCS says (top right of page 89) "Law holdings represent bureaucrats, constables, taxmen, highway bandits, rebel organizations, a system of feudal lords, or any other establishments whose primary purpose is to enforce laws/whims, collect taxes/tribute, and execute justice or injustice in their regent&#39;s name. Control of a province&#39;s law holding impacts whether edicts and laws are followed, how vigorously laws and taxes are applied, the level of crime, and the general contentment of a province&#39;s citizens."

I think that pretty much means that having a high law holding is heavy handed, whether edicts are made or not. It seems to me to create a society that elves would hate.

So perhaps, to allow my attitude rules to be in effect, non-elves should be forbidden from making law holdings in elven lands? What sane elf would ever follow a human anyway? Same goes for guilds, although Tuarhieval is a rare (minor divine intervention?) event of human guilds in elven lands.

[geeman]

At 03:24 PM 11/19/2003 +0100, Benjamin wrote:



>The BRCS says (top right of page 89) "Law holdings represent

>bureaucrats, constables, taxmen, highway bandits, rebel organizations, a

>system of feudal lords, or any other establishments whose primary purpose

>is to enforce laws/whims, collect taxes/tribute, and execute justice or

>injustice in their regent`s name. Control of a province`s law holding

>impacts whether edicts and laws are followed, how vigorously laws and

>taxes are applied, the level of crime, and the general contentment of a

>province`s citizens."

>

> I think that pretty much means that having a high law holding is heavy

> handed, whether edicts are made or not. It seems to me to create a

> society that elves would hate.

>

> So perhaps, to allow my attitude rules to be in effect, non-elves should

> be forbidden from making law holdings in elven lands? What sane elf

> would ever follow a human anyway? Same goes for guilds, although

> Tuarhieval is a rare (minor divine intervention?) event of human guilds

> in elven lands.



That descriptions is written from what could be described as human-centric

POV. Where human law holdings represent a kind of feudal bureaucracy,

elven ones might represent an equivalent level of influence, but not having

the same character as a human organization. Judges might be replaced by

the sidhe equivalent of arbitrators, constables by teachers, tax collectors

by almsmen, etc. Where such a system might not work in a human realm,

amongst elves the particulars of the law holding could (and probably

should) be quite different. Law holdings represent control to be sure, but

the tone and tenor of that control isn`t dictated by the level of the law

holding any more than the products of the guild aren`t dictated by the

level of that holding, or the god worshipped by temple holdings.



It`s also important to bear in mind the difference between the alignment

system`s use of the terms "law" and "chaos" and the domain system`s use of

the word law to describe a holding. Often the nomenclature turns into

something of a trap and people see chaotic characters as being opposed not

just to law as an abstract trait, but to law as a holding simply because of

the use of the same word, when in fact the relationship of lawfulness

(alignment) to law (holding) isn`t all that direct. "Chaotic" societies

don`t necessarily have less of a respect of legalisms than "lawful"

ones. In a "chaotic" society one just hears things like the individual

proclaiming the sanctity of his rights more often than one would in a

"lawful" society, and the society at large is more likely to listen to that

argument. The culture itself doesn`t necessarily have a smaller

bureaucracy, fewer taxes, less constables. They just have a different set

of things that they enforce.



Gary

[Osprey]

So perhaps, to allow my attitude rules to be in effect, non-elves should be forbidden from making law holdings in elven lands? What sane elf would ever follow a human anyway? Same goes for guilds, although Tuarhieval is a rare (minor divine intervention?) event of human guilds in elven lands.

For a regent to forbid something is essentially to use a Law holding to issue an edict. He or she is making rules, and expecting them to be followed.

I imagine that most elven rulers do have fairly low law holdings in their lands - it represents their chaotic, hands-off approach toward their own subjects. There shouldn&#39;t be an internal need for strict systems of control, enforcement, and tax collection.

Also, in the original BR it pretty directly stated that only Lawful rulers would max out their law holdings, while neutral ones would have moderate ones and chaotic ones would have low (less than 50%) ones. Now, this might seem to put the chaotic regents at a disadvantage, but hey, let&#39;s face it: chaos and top-down control don&#39;t go well together. Lawful rulers are, by definition, best suited to this sort of hierarchical control. I think it fair to say that in general (with exceptions, of course) chaotic regents aren&#39;t the best folks for the job. Whereas lawful ones embrace the rules and apparatus necessary to facilitate one person administering to the needs and problems of the many, chaotic ones, who value personal freedom and individualism, are going to have a mountain of problems when it comes to imposing control over large numbers of people. As leaders, I think chaotics are at their best in small groups and bands, where they have personal contact with everyone they lead. Anything beyond that requires a hierarchy, beauracracy, or some other sort of system of impersonal extension of the leader&#39;s will.

I imagine most elves live in small communal groups, where everyone knows everyone else, and problems can be dealt with individually as best fits the situation, rather than by policy or edict. This strikes me as a good model for the "elven way," expecting that a group of centuries-old immortals have the wisdom to resolve difficulties within their group more effectively than any impersonal rule by a king or queen. I imagine the regent&#39;s role being more based on coordinating the large-scale stuff and foreign relations: organizing an army for realm defense, dealing with foreign emissaries, and resolving disputes between various groups/factions/communities within the realm.

As you might have noticed, I believe elves would tend to have the most democratic politics of any race or kingdom in Cerilia, which certainly fits well with their values of personal freedom, individual respect for differences (amongst elves, of course), and the descriptions of them being one of the most advanced races of Cerilia. I take this to mean they&#39;re not only technologically advanced in certain ways, but also culturally evolved more than other races, at least in ways to preserve their vaunted individual freedom.

Low levels of law holdings represents, to me, token control of an elven regent&#39;s provinces, which I do think is quite likely to be the case. Elves would resent autocratic control from a single monarch, and I think would embrace the adage, "He who rules least, rules best." Laissez faire government at its best.

However, there are a few ways to integrate higher level law holdings into this concept. The best way, I think, is to say that higher levels really represent the monarch securing the loyalty, trust, and friendship of the local elven nobility in provinces where he/she has higher levels of law. To that end, I think ruling law holdings for elves would be better represented by Diplomacy (or possibly Lead) instead of Administrate as a key skill for elven rulership. Same goes for ruling provinces, for that matter. It becomes a question of persuasion and friendship rather than establihing an efficent beauracracy. I doubt elven law would ever be incredibly swift or efficient, because, hey, what&#39;s the rush? We&#39;ve got all of eternity to resolve our differences&#33;

That&#39;s the internal picture as I see it.

Now as for dealing with outside incursion of holdings...

I think the elves have a number of ways to deal with this that aren&#39;t necessarilly well-represented by the basic domain actions.

1) Humans (and goblins, dwarves, etc.) stick out like sore thumbs in an elven realm. Do you really think they could effectively hide their presence there? I seriously doubt it...even magical means are likely to fail, as most elven regents are source regents with virtual guilds. That means the forest and its denizens keep the regent well-informed of any unnatural activity in the region.

2) Hunting down and making examples of trespassers is a specialty of the Gheallie Sidhe. Any outside establishment that wasn&#39;t protected by the elven regent would be hot target for the Wild Hunt, and wouldn&#39;t survive long outside the domain turn in which it was established. Every elven realm has its own band of Gheallie Sidhe, and most elven regents seem interested only in curbing their most extreme behavior - I take this to mean raiding and indiscriminate slaughter beyond the bounds of the elven realm, a likely provocation for war with the humans, etc.

Given these aspects, why in fact would an elven regent NEED high levels of law holdings? Protection from outside incursion seems like a flimsy excuse to me, and really more of a justification for "my elven regent wants to maximize his/her power and regency collection, and raising law holdings is the easiest way to do it." But if your regent is a mage, then the rich source holdings, plus the provinces themselves, should provide ample regency for a strong ruler with a strong bloodline without needing to resort to high levels of law as well.

-Osprey

[kgauck]

Having high law holdings in hands of one ruler is a centralized form of

government. One person has all (or most) of the legal power, whether he is

a benevolent ruler or a tyranical one. Having low law holdings means that

legal power is diffuse, distrubuted among many hands, decentralized.

[geeman]

At 12:04 PM 11/19/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>Having high law holdings in hands of one ruler is a centralized form of

>government. One person has all (or most) of the legal power, whether he is

>a benevolent ruler or a tyranical one. Having low law holdings means that

>legal power is diffuse, distrubuted among many hands, decentralized.



From what do you derive that?



Gary

[Peter Lubke]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>





> At 12:04 PM 11/19/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>

> >Having high law holdings in hands of one ruler is a centralized form of

> >government. One person has all (or most) of the legal power, whether he

is

> >a benevolent ruler or a tyranical one. Having low law holdings means

that

> >legal power is diffuse, distrubuted among many hands, decentralized.

>

> From what do you derive that?

> Gary



I agree with Kenneth in this case. The distribution of law holdings whether

assigned to regents of not is representative of the concentration of

governmental power.



But, at least prior to 3e, this has no relationship whatsoever to the

"lawful"/"neutral"/"chaotic" nature of the society. The concentration of

power determines whether the will of the controlling regent can be enforced

and to what degree -- but not the nature of that will. Of course the mutual

and homogenous chaotic nature of an elven society would not need an external

or governing body to enforce such a will - so elves do not NEED law holdings

to enforce their rules (of freedom, and individual rights before that of

society). Human chaotic societies on the other hand would be different

becuase of the heterogenous nature of any group of humans in any one place.

(Quakers and Libertarians may contradict me of course)



Of course that leaves the question of elven law holdings quite up in the

air.



I, personally think that any non-source holding in an elven province will

reduce the source potential of the province, regardless of whether it is run

by elves or not. There is a passing reference in the original rulebook to

that effect but it is not entirely clear.



Secondly, I think that the elven people would look less favorably on a

regent that reduces the magic potential of any province in their realm.

Turning this around, you could say that the people look more favorably on a

regent that preserves the magic potential - which although not quite the

same thing, is the same in relative terms. Perhaps a bonus of FGB (Fake Gold

Bars) could be given based on the remaining source potential of every

province, 0-2 = 0.0, 3-5 = 0.5, 6-8 = 1.0, 9=1.5, such bonus is given

regardless of the population of the province. Why "Fake"? - they represent

value without being portable wealth and can be used only when dealing with

other elves - in the same realm or another elf realm. (i.e. you could hire

elf mercenaries from another realm, but no other race would recognise the

"value" of your offer).



None of this gets an elf regent closer to more GB or more RP - GB being what

they are cheifly lacking with few law holdings, no temples, and few guild

holdings in the first place. But consider the nature of elf regents in the

first place, their goals are much different to the goals of human regents -

generally they will be focused on preserving the elven way of life and the

elven realm. Conquest and expansion will generally not figure. Unification

may, as may the destruction (but not conquest) of enemies.

[Peter Lubke]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Aurel" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>



> Aurel wrote:

> Your right KGauck all law holdings in a realm should be held by someone

(ie either the regent or some other noble with influence ).

>

> But by that same token how would the mechanics work if a regent conquers

a province (5/0) with a law(3) from the previous ruler.

>

> Does he gain the rulers previous law holding(3) or can he with the help

of his army invest himself with a law(5)?



As a regent gains control of a province by conquest, i.e. he has uncontested

military units in a province he does not "own", the population will

immediately move to a state of rebellion as per the rulebook (2e). Of course

the invading regents military units and his own law holdings (owner prior to

invasion) may be able to mitigate that state by ignoring some levels of

change (i.e. the original loyalty level is a factor as well). Each military

unit in the province counts as one law level for the purpose of loyalty -

and by extension it could be argued that would also apply to law claims.



No existing holdings of any regent are necessarilly affected by the initial

conquest - although any non-fortifed holdings may be suppressed or

neutralised as if they had been successfully contested. Now for the invader

to destroy such holdings he/she will require either to invest the province,

or to already have a holding, or to create a holding and then contest it out

of existence.

[teloft]

How about considering the out of control / un ruled law holding
to be still active as

when suporting/oposing acts. Ruled by the attitude of the realm.

So if there is a general feeling of "no human guild holdings" in the realm.
then it could be reasond thet the law / guild holdings of the unclamed can be added as oposed to the human guild. redusing its sucsess.

Even thow the elfs do not go by there rules law, thay migth still have some say in what hapens. not trading with the guild.


:ph34r:

Law holding represent "highway bandits" So we could have some goblin highway bandits in elven lands. (not for long) but thay will be there from time to time. contesting the lawfull taxcolectors, and law inforsments of the land.

:ph34r:

[geeman]

At 11:11 AM 11/20/2003 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:



>I agree with Kenneth in this case. The distribution of law holdings

>whether assigned to regents of not is representative of the concentration

>of governmental power.



The holding system describes the various aspects of a province in very

general, abstract terms. Law holdings represent a wide range of

controls. "Centralization" is, of course, also a general and abstract

term, but it strikes me as being a too pat to describe the difference

between high and low level law holdings as increased centralization

alone. A more efficient bureaucracy, a better equipped constabulary, more

guards, a strong judiciary, military rule, even things like an

indoctrination program that informs the population of the edicts of the law

holder could all be things that reflect a higher law holding. Those things

might be interpreted as centralization, but they needn`t necessarily be, so

I think centralization is just one of many factors that could be used to

interpret what it is that happens in a realm when the law holding increases.



In the same way a temple holding represents the control of a regent`s faith

of a realm a law holding can represent the control of a population`s legal

system. It doesn`t necessarily dictate, however, the nature of that system

as centralized, decentralized, militant, judicial, cultural, economic,

theocratic, educational, etc. Greater centralization is just one of the

possible explanations for what happens when a law holding`s level

increases. Increasing the level of a law holding might simply mean there

are more reeves in the province, not that the power of the law holder has

been centralized in any way.



>But, at least prior to 3e, this has no relationship whatsoever to the

>"lawful"/"neutral"/"chaotic" nature of the society. The concentration of

>power determines whether the will of the controlling regent can be enforced

>and to what degree -- but not the nature of that will. Of course the mutual

>and homogenous chaotic nature of an elven society would not need an external

>or governing body to enforce such a will - so elves do not NEED law holdings

>to enforce their rules (of freedom, and individual rights before that of

>society). Human chaotic societies on the other hand would be different

>becuase of the heterogenous nature of any group of humans in any one place.



One of the repetitive and fundamental problems in D&D and in the BR domain

system is the confusion of the alignment system`s law/chaos line with the

size, respect, power or influence of a legal system. In fact, many legal

systems could be interpreted as lawful or chaotic, and that in turn needn`t

have anything to do with the size of a law holding. A legal system can

have respect for the rights of the individual and grant the personnel

entrusted with its enforcement the ability to judge circumstances and

context--and thus be "chaotic" in the D&D alignment system--or it can be

designed in such a way as to place the needs of the culture itself over

that of the individual, with mandatory sentencing, a hierarchy of rights

and responsibilities, etc.--and thus be more "lawful" in the alignment

sense. Elves are often portrayed as chaotic, but that doesn`t mean their

society should have lower law holdings. In fact, the heterogeneous elves

control those who step outside the cultural norms of their society more

strictly than human realms do. In the domain system that should be

portrayed by the law holding and its effectiveness.



Gary

[Osprey]

No existing holdings of any regent are necessarilly affected by the initial
conquest - although any non-fortifed holdings may be suppressed or
neutralised as if they had been successfully contested. Now for the invader
to destroy such holdings he/she will require either to invest the province,
or to already have a holding, or to create a holding and then contest it out
of existence. [Peter Lubke]


You forgot the fact that military uits can pillage holdings in order to destroy them, once they&#39;ve occupied the province uncontested (no fighting) for a full month. One level of holding can be destroyed per unit per month of pillaging, and 1 GB is looted per level destroyed.

This amounts to sacking and burning the enemy regent&#39;s buildings, stores, offices, guard posts, etc.

Martial Law allows for each occupying unit to count as one virtual level of law holding while occupying a province, but at the same time causes a sharp negative reaction from the populace (a net loss of popularity, but those troops can make forced collections from other holdings at the start of the season to help pay their own wages or other expenses of the occupying regent).

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary schrieb:

> At 11:11 AM 11/20/2003 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

>

>> I agree with Kenneth in this case. The distribution of law holdings

>> whether assigned to regents of not is representative of the concentration

>> of governmental power.

> The holding system describes the various aspects of a province in very

> general, abstract terms. Law holdings represent a wide range of

> controls. "Centralization" is, of course, also a general and abstract

> term, but it strikes me as being a too pat to describe the difference

> between high and low level law holdings as increased centralization

> alone. A more efficient bureaucracy, a better equipped constabulary, more

> guards, a strong judiciary, military rule, even things like an

> indoctrination program that informs the population of the edicts of the law

> holder could all be things that reflect a higher law holding. Those things

> might be interpreted as centralization, but they needn`t necessarily be, so

> I think centralization is just one of many factors that could be used to

> interpret what it is that happens in a realm when the law holding

> increases.



In the extreme that could mean that a vile wizard could research a realm

spell to mindcontrol part of the population of a province and thus gain

"virtual" law holdings as this kind of control is also represented by

law holdings. ;-)

bye

Michael

[Osprey]

One of the repetitive and fundamental problems in D&D and in the BR domain
system is the confusion of the alignment system`s law/chaos line with the
size, respect, power or influence of a legal system. In fact, many legal
systems could be interpreted as lawful or chaotic, and that in turn needn`t
have anything to do with the size of a law holding. A legal system can
have respect for the rights of the individual and grant the personnel
entrusted with its enforcement the ability to judge circumstances and
context--and thus be "chaotic" in the D&D alignment system--or it can be
designed in such a way as to place the needs of the culture itself over
that of the individual, with mandatory sentencing, a hierarchy of rights
and responsibilities, etc.--and thus be more "lawful" in the alignment
sense. Elves are often portrayed as chaotic, but that doesn`t mean their
society should have lower law holdings. In fact, the heterogeneous elves
control those who step outside the cultural norms of their society more
strictly than human realms do. In the domain system that should be
portrayed by the law holding and its effectiveness.

Gary

I tend to disagree here. For one thing, the original BR rulebook and RoE distinctly Do equate levels of law with the alignment (lawful/neutral/chaotic) of the regent. So what you&#39;re saying is in direct contradiction of our base source material.

Secondly, when ONE REGENT controls ALL of the law holdings, this most definitely IS centralization of power&#33; It&#39;s one person controlling the rules, taxation, and enforcement of everyone&#33; You can paint the means of that law any way you like, but what that one regent having his initials behind maximized levels of law holdings in a province means is one thing only: the regent has complete control. And a regent is one person, who if he/she wields all of the power, is certainly representing a centralized government. How could you interpret this otherwise?

The question of whther or not law holdings should often or always be maximized in a province comes down to a simple issue: does the regent (or local nobility if we adopt Kenneth&#39;s interpretation) have total legal power and control over the general populace? I would argue that this would not be true in all cases. If it were, you&#39;d have an extremely legalistic society of control freaks, where most all aspects of life are covered by the reigning authorities/ government/ ruler.

I think of a chaotic culture as one that distinctly resents such top-down authority, and believes that individuals can handle their own problems in most cases. That&#39;s why chaotic realms would tend to have lower levels of law that weren&#39;t maximized - low levels means the law is there to handle the few legal problems that the people can&#39;t handle themselves; it trusts in the citizenry to be honest about paying their taxes (in a CG society especially), so massive beauracracies shouldn&#39;t be needed to oversee and enforce this process; and in general large administrative beauracracies are considered a waste of resources and energy better spent on other things.

Most of what I&#39;ve heard in arguments so far sounds like a whole lot of justification going on for why every regent and his mother would want to maximize their law holdings and be a competitive player in the political game. As if any fragmented world like Cerilia would be so fair and well-balanced...

C&#39;mon, face it: most chaotic rulers wouldn&#39;t focus their energies on things like law and beauracracy; it&#39;s anathema to anyone who idealizes personal freedom and individuality.

Gary said, "A legal system can have respect for the rights of the individual and grant the personnel entrusted with its enforcement the ability to judge circumstances and context--and thus be "chaotic" in the D&D alignment system."

Such a legal system would mean that the realm&#39;s regent would thus have a lower level of law holding, because he had less direct control of such a system - instead he relies on the individuals to micromanage using their own judgement. He gives up control of it to the individuals on the scene.

Maybe the problem is that folks are interpreting low levels of law as incompetent or inefficient. While that could be the case, I think it could also just mean small and not heavily involved in the affairs of the regent&#39;s subjects. They step in when absolutely necessary, but prefer to be as hands off as possible.

As for the elves controlling their own peoples&#39; trangressions, the question is how: do they do it with a legal sytem, beauracracy, or any other means that could really be called a law holding? Or is it somewhat more informal and individualized, or communally based as I suggested before? Such a system might put the majority of law holding levels in the hands of the people, but definitely NOT in the hands of the regent. I think more likely that when the people control their own law, and have a high degree of free will and self-imposed responsibility to do things like pay taxes, abide by cultural mores, and take up arms to defend their homeland, this really does represent "open" levels of law in a province. It&#39;s as decentralized as it gets, and that means no one regent, noble, etc. holds the law majority. To put it in statistical terms, when the Prince of Tuarheivel (sp?) has a law(2) in a province (5), it represents his personal influence in legal and military matters there - but the "unclaimed" levels would be held by the people themselves, without some central office, beauracracy, or muster hall. How else could you define unclaimed holdings? They certainly exist in the original RoE, to a prolific degree in chaotic realms, and we have to deal with that somehow or throw it all out the window, as it seems many want to do.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:05 PM



> I think centralization is just one of many factors that could be used to

> interpret what it is that happens in a realm when the law holding

increases.



You are reading stuff into my statement that were not there.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Peter Lubke]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>

Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 7:33 AM

Subject: Re: Elven Law Holdings [36#2101]





> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2101



> Most of what I`ve heard in arguments so far sounds like a whole lot of

justification going on for why every regent and his mother would want to

maximize their law holdings and be a competitive player in the political

game. As if any fragmented world like Cerilia would be so fair and

well-balanced...

>

> C`mon, face it: most chaotic rulers wouldn`t focus their energies on

things like law and beauracracy; it`s anathema to anyone who idealizes

personal freedom and individuality.



True. But that`s a role-playing ideal.



There`s no game advantage in pursuing any other course of action as things

stand. So, especially in PBEMs it is a losing strategy NOT to maximise law

holdings. In reality there should be a tradeoff - maximum law holdings

should give one advantage (higher taxable rates, more RP, greater law

claims) while other strategies should realize other benefits (e.g. higher

base loyalty, less exposure to certain events, whatever)



> Maybe the problem is that folks are interpreting low levels of law as

incompetent or inefficient. While that could be the case, I think it could

also just mean small and not heavily involved in the affairs of the regent`s

subjects. They step in when absolutely necessary, but prefer to be as hands

off as possible.



I agree - but again, there`s no mechanical advantage in the game for doing

so. If (for example) a realm regent could ignore "matter of law" events

because such events are not the province of his domain (i.e. we assume that

there are law holdings that are responsible), then having low law levels may

free such a regent from responding to such. (or fewer such events, whatever)





>

> As for the elves



Yeah - we`re still no closer :-)

[Peter Lubke]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>

Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 7:03 AM

Subject: Re: Elven Law Holdings [36#2101]





> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2101

>

> Osprey wrote:

>
No existing holdings of any regent are necessarilly affected by

the initial

> conquest - although any non-fortifed holdings may be suppressed or

> neutralised as if they had been successfully contested. Now for the

invader

> to destroy such holdings he/she will require either to invest the

province,

> or to already have a holding, or to create a holding and then contest it

out

> of existence.

[Peter Lubke]

>

>

> You forgot the fact that military uits can pillage holdings in order to

destroy them, once they`ve occupied the province uncontested (no fighting)

for a full month. One level of holding can be destroyed per unit per month

of pillaging, and 1 GB is looted per level destroyed.



Yep, right you are!

But per month or per turn (3 months)?

[geeman]

At 03:37 PM 11/20/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> > I think centralization is just one of many factors that could be used to

> > interpret what it is that happens in a realm when the law holding

> increases.

>

>You are reading stuff into my statement that were not there.



That post was in response to Peter`s post describing what law holdings

were. "The distribution of law holdings whether assigned to regents of not

is representative of the concentration of governmental power." Though it

did look from your post as if you were heading in the same direction....



Gary

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:49 PM





> That post was in response to Peter`s post describing what law holdings

> were. "The distribution of law holdings whether assigned to regents of

not

> is representative of the concentration of governmental power." Though it

> did look from your post as if you were heading in the same direction....



My point was that when all the holdings are in one person`s hands they are

concentrated upon one locus of power. Five sheriffs answering to one

ultimate authority rather than to five different lords. While I do not

disagree with Ryan that chaotic aligned characters will tend to be more

ginger in their routine use of authority, I think there is more to low law

holdings than that. I think that power is also more widely distributed.

The law holdings answer not just to the royal figure, but also to local

centers of authority, which for the elves are going to be noble and magical,

rather than clerical or commercial. Assuming that the books` low law

ratings in chaotic implies that the remaining law holdings are held by local

centers of power suggests a practical check on the authority of the central

authority of the realm. As Ryan suggested, during a crisis, most of those

local authorities will bow to the will of the central authority, so the

state can function.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Benjamin]

Wow&#33; Great discussions. I never expected to start such a fire storm.

One thing I would like to point out (although it is pretty obvious): elves and humans have extremely different psychologies. Rules that work well for human lands don&#39;t work for elven lands. Thus while it is in the best interest via the current rules to max out law holdings as soon as possible, I truly believe that this is the worst thing in the world for an elven realm.

[FYI, I&#39;ve thought that elves are the coolest creatures since about age 8 when I first read Tolkien, and I&#39;ve been elf-centric ever since. Thus I&#39;m trying to defend &#39;my&#39; people in BR. :P ]

I really like the arguments stating that full law holdings do not represent the actions of the regent, and so those law holdings can be unobtrusive. Granted, in a perfect society that is true. Philosophically you have a great argument that is not easily refuted. IN BR, though, the rules aren&#39;t ideal. And as someone pointed out, the game mechanics provide bonuses for maxed out law holdings because one person has all the control.

Chaotic societies disdain one person being in control. Thus they would chafe at maxed out law holdings. They much more prefer doing things their own way without someone butting in, sticking their nose into it, bossing them around, etc. Think of the American Old West - law was made by who could draw their gun the fastest. When something aggregious happened, the sheriff or federal marshal might ride into town to straighten things out, but often the locals took care of things. I see elven society much the same way. (But elves would use more subtle means and homogenous goals to bring people into line.)

Which is why I suggested we give elven lands bonuses (and penalties) for having lower law levels. Now people who are big Mhoried and Coeranys fans may wish these rules to apply to them. However, I think humans, having a different psyche, are just fooling themselves. Perhaps the Mhor thinks he should let things go, but deep down humans like to have a sense of security. So the Mhor is playing a dangerous game, because humans are often willing to follow another regent, and thus the Mhor&#39;s influence could quickly be subverted by Alamie, Ghoere or the Gorgon.

But as someone else pointed out, the Ghaele Sidhe will pretty much prevent non-elven holdings within an elven land. I think that should be codified to mean that a non-elven regent cannot create a holding in an elven land unless given a royal dispensation for each holding. Thiswould allow my proposed rules on attitude to take effect. Elven regents won&#39;t have to worry about human holdings taking over without special permission to make holdings, and would give them bonuses for being nontyrannical.