[BIRTHRIGHT] Priestly Magic in Battle (was: How have the

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 6:59 PM

Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] How have the Humans won against the elves?

[2#2414]





> The fact that a defeated human army can heal up and return

> in a few days spells victory.



This does create interesting changes in how wars are fought. The key ratio

is the number of soldiers to the number of priests, so when PC priests

accompany a single company, their ability to fundamentally alter the balance

of power is huge. Battle oriented priests, who have taken Reach Spell,

might toss off five or six cure lights plus more potent healing. If they

are anything like my players, they get around this limit by creating huge

numbers of healing "potions". [I refer to any spell storage device that

works like a potion in that anyone can use it, it is limited to spell levels

1-3, and uses the cost tables of potions.] Magical healing is even more

profound when you get away from brittle low level characters. A unit of 60

huskarlar (60 @ 3rd level, 2 @ 6th level, 1 8th level captain or jarl in

command) relies more on strategic healing to prevent combatants from

dropping, meaning that one high level priest can fundamentally alter the

odds in combat.



Given this situation, it would almost become standard to include healers in

units: don`t leave camp with it. One might assume that my huskarlar instead

has 50 3rd level warriors, 2 6th level fighters, 1 8th level fighter, 2 2nd

level priests, and 1 5th level priest. Such a unit could effectively ignore

its first hit result. The loss of combat power from exchanging 3 warriors

for the three priests doesn`t really weaken the unit`s combat power. The

sacrfice of 3 incriments of BAB and 9 hps is more than offset by all that

healing magic. Keep in mind we are changing warriors for priests, so the

calculus is different than if we changed fighters for priests, since we

would be lossing two combat feats as well.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[AngriestAngel]

there is no doubt that a high level priest can alter a combat between military units. but in my view of birthright high level NPCs are an exception and not normal. there would not exist such an elite unit like the huskarlas (maybe one or two slightly comparable ones). likewise accompaning priests would be 1. level and may have maximal 3 healing spells (2e-Wisdom).
Despite that the political system of Birthright makes it difficult to compose such mixed units, because behind every priests stands a church. A ruler would have to ally himself with one church. and maybe its is political unwise to take side for that church who has holdings in more than one realm. or it is unwise for a ruler who has more than one church in his realm.
This would reduce mixed units to a few, most would be of theocracies like Medoere and Talinie.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by AngriestAngel@Apr 4 2004, 06:22 AM
there is no doubt that a high level priest can alter a combat between military units. but in my view of birthright high level NPCs are an exception and not normal. there would not exist such an elite unit like the huskarlas (maybe one or two slightly comparable ones). likewise accompaning priests would be 1. level and may have maximal 3 healing spells (2e-Wisdom).
Despite that the political system of Birthright makes it difficult to compose such mixed units, because behind every priests stands a church. A ruler would have to ally himself with one church. and maybe its is political unwise to take side for that church who has holdings in more than one realm. or it is unwise for a ruler who has more than one church in his realm.
This would reduce mixed units to a few, most would be of theocracies like Medoere and Talinie.
Or most anywhere in the Rjurik Highlands or Vosgaard.

[AngriestAngel]

Yes, of course, Vosgaard would be THE place. but i doubt that priests of Erik would join a combat. only under special circumstances, like most other churches with exception of Cuiraecen and Belinik. an example for the urgency that would accour of such a special circumstance i mean would be the gorgon starting a rampage.

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 8:21 AM





> Or most anywhere in the Rjurik Highlands or Vosgaard.



You`re joking, right? The priests of battle and war don`t actually go to

war and fight in battles?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 6:22 AM



> there is no doubt that a high level priest can alter a combat between

> military units. but in my view of birthright high level NPCs are an

> exception and not normal.



The listed priest was 5th level and had two 2nd level buddies. Even when I

was playing 2e and subscribed to the low level theme, I wouldn`t have

regarded 5th level as "high" beyond what would be proper for a normal unit.



I will digress on level for a moment. In old school D&D one adventured

until name level, then if you built it, they would come, the leek and

retainers that is. BR presumed that a character could start as the ruler of

a realm much larger than a mere fief. Many players appreciated a setting

where you didn`t have to be high level to be important. BR is, in fact, a

low level setting, so much as it is a setting where level is not

commensurate with combat power. Never the less, in 3e, and late 2e if you

look at supplements like Sages and Specialists, level didn`t translate

directly into combat power, but could reflect other kinds of abilities.

Further, BR is a setting in which 98% of all people get a 10% bonus to xp in

2e. With all the war and opportunities for experience of one kind or

another, what mechanism keeps people from getting levels?



> there would not exist such an elite unit like the huskarlas (maybe

> one or two slightly comparable ones).



Of course they are an elite unit, I wanted to reduce the number of members

in the unit, that`s part of the point of the original post. Its not as

elite as a unit of knights, but they aren`t run of the mill yeoman either.

Certainly every realm can raise a unit of "guards" based on the permenant

establishment of warriors who surround the ruler. Or, do you mean one or two

per realm?



> likewise accompaning priests would be 1. level and may have

> maximal 3 healing spells (2e-Wisdom).



Based on what?



> Despite that the political system of Birthright makes it difficult

> to compose such mixed units, because behind every priests

> stands a church.



Every political organiztion has both an internal and an external politics.

You can find priests in a temple realm that is neutral towards its land lord

that will run the gamut from friendly to hostile to the lord. Those who are

friendly will aid it.



> A ruler would have to ally himself with one church. and maybe its

> is political unwise to take side for that church who has holdings in

> more than one realm.



Everyone is obligated to render their service. The lord who has lands in

both warring territories must fulfil obligations to both of his lords, or be

recalcitrant to one, and risk forfit of his lands. A temple has the same

obligations, although the peolpe who are expected to support the temple are

probabaly better understood as the party owed an obligation. Consider the

soldiers in question. If a temple refused them healing, they would be

regarded as having breached their duty, and the temple would lose support.

A temple of Haelyn or Cuiraecen which did so would be losing support from a

core constituancy. In terms of BR realm rules, any temple that refused such

support would be subject to a minor or major loss of regency (p. 48)

depending on the nature of the temple and the prior relations with the

landed realm.



> or it is unwise for a ruler who has more than one church in his realm.

> This would reduce mixed units to a few, most would be of

> theocracies like Medoere and Talinie.



Every realm is a mixed realm, every jurisdiction is overlapping, every lord

temporal or secular has both temporal and secular vassals and obligations.

The same could be extended to guilds as well. Cerilia is not composed of

nation-states with national religions, national economies, and national

allegences. Like a medieval world, relations will have obligations to rival

factions, comrades in one campaign will be combatants in a subsiquent one,

temples and guilds will exist in multiple realms. Such medieval

organizations were expected to fulfil their obligations irrespective of the

fact that they might be fulfiling obligations elsewhere. From a societal

point, why have temples of they don`t perform their temple function? In a

world with multiple temple organizations, you will shop around to find

someone who will perform the desired function. The realm who tries, like

William Jennings Bryan, to be neutral by helping no one will find he has

made two enemies. The far more common thing will be for guilds to sell

material to both sides, for temples to heal and minister to both sides.

Normally, guilds and temples will be expected to be even-handed, unless they

are known by prior declaration to have a greater allegience to one side, and

even then they are still obligated to perform normal service to the other

side.



Consider a war between Ghoere and Mhoried. Both Haelyn`s Aegis and the

Militant Order of Cuiraécen are in both realms. In order to maintain their

possition in both realms, each temple must perform customary service.

Certainly soldiers who worship in HA are fighting soldiers who worship in

HA, and likewise with the MOC. Some characters who have levels as priests

will have permenent service with one state or the other. The diplomatic

services of both realms no doubt have priests of Cuiraécen, and the commands

in the field and law courts at home and with the army will have priests of

Haelyn. One function that this kind of arrangement has is that it mitigates

excess violence on the part of both sides. In the same way that medievals

found it easier to commit attrocities against people of totally rival

faiths, they found it harder to do so for co-religionists.



As a matter of fact, I think that in both Mhoried and Ghoere, major parts of

the armies are actually supplied by the temples of Haelyn and Cuiraécen.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck@Apr 4 2004, 09:20 AM
----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 8:21 AM





> Or most anywhere in the Rjurik Highlands or Vosgaard.



You`re joking, right? The priests of battle and war don`t actually go to

war and fight in battles?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com


I was referring to the Rjurik and Vos not having the wide distinction between different churches that say Haelyn&#39;s do. Hence in the Rjurik highlands priests of the two different temples are more apt to work together to defend their people.

In Vosgaard, Kreisha and Belnik work together and so working together in a single unit wouldn&#39;t be uncommon either.

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 12:34 PM





> I was referring to the Rjurik and Vos not having the wide distinction

between different churches that say Haelyn`s do. Hence in the Rjurik

highlands priests of the two different temples are more apt to work together

to defend their people.



That`s fine, but the main thrust of the post was that a realm with the same

temple as an enemy realm would not get assistance by a temple that tries to

stay neutral. Certainly for this very reason Rjurk priests would be even

more reluctant to take up arms against fellow druids of the same temple. I

think you were riffing off the last line (about theocracies) and not the

other eight sentences which only support the notion that priests would aid

when fighting outsiders.



The original post focused on the cooperation of priests with the army, not

temples with each other.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 8:47 AM





> Yes, of course, Vosgaard would be THE place. but i doubt

> that priests of Erik would join a combat. only under special

> circumstances, like most other churches with exception of

> Cuiraecen and Belinik. an example for the urgency that would

> accour of such a special circumstance i mean would be the

> gorgon starting a rampage.



There is a warcard for druids. Its the only group of priests (so

identified) to get a warcard. I hardly think they are battle-shy.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck@Apr 4 2004, 06:20 PM
That`s fine, but the main thrust of the post was that a realm with the same

temple as an enemy realm would not get assistance by a temple that tries to

stay neutral. Certainly for this very reason Rjurk priests would be even

more reluctant to take up arms against fellow druids of the same temple. I

think you were riffing off the last line (about theocracies) and not the

other eight sentences which only support the notion that priests would aid

when fighting outsiders.



The original post focused on the cooperation of priests with the army, not

temples with each other.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com


True but the post I had quoted and was responding to was refering to ruler with multiple temples within his realm and getting the backing of one to support his army. Hence a mixture of different priests within a military unit.

Hence it was appropriate in this case.

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 7:41 PM





> True but the post I had quoted and was responding to was

> refering to ruler with multiple temples within his realm and

> getting the backing of one to support his army. Hence a

> mixture of different priests within a military unit.



No one mentioned the problem of putting multiple priests in one unit.

AngriestAngel was talking about a temple with warring rulers within his

realm and the relectance to support either one. The mixture he is refering

to is mixing priests and fighters in one unit, since presumably the priests

come from temples (realm HA, eg) and the solders from another realm (realm

Mhoried, eg) and presumes an alliance in his opinion.



I say priests have dual loyalties and obligations and Haelyn`s priests will

typically fight in Mhoried`s wars, even against states like Ghoere where

they will ecnounter HA on the other side.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck@Apr 5 2004, 03:50 AM
I say priests have dual loyalties and obligations and Haelyn`s priests will

typically fight in Mhoried`s wars, even against states like Ghoere where

they will ecnounter HA on the other side.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com


I agree with this. Even though they may only supply minimal support a temple in a realm will attempt to show support for the regent of the land.

The presence of any paladins on the other hand would go beyond the political and into theology or cause.