Unblooded regents

[Bearcat]

>Actually, to rule a Level 0 holding to Level 1 requires 1 GB and 1 RP.
Unblooded >characters can't
>gain Regency Points, so that makes any holding past 0 - true show of
strength - >impossible. Unless,
>of course, some rules after the boxed set have altered the original.

Actually, it doesn't:

"Ruling a Holding from level 0 to level 1 costs 1 GB; no RPs must be
spent"
-Rulebook, pg. 59, paragraph 5, last sentence

Bearcat
lcgm@elogica.com.br
Come visit Bearcat's Birthright Homepage at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6204

[Bearcat]

>Just a question - just how many 'failed attempts at bloodtheft' would you
>know of?

"Supporting himself with a cane the old man walked around the table
to which Jindaer D'Osoene was bound. The young scion was trembling, already
anticipating the blow to come. After making several circuits in this manner
the old codger stopped before the immobilized lord.
"'Ah, Ah, Ah!', he cackled,'Soo, yu hav finally fallen into me grasp
Jindaer. Ah, Ah, AH!". With this he dissolved into a hysteria of cackling.
"With that he went snapped a finger and a servant rushed upto hand
him two objects: a sharpened dagger, and his spectacles. The servant
immediately withdrew, ignoring Jindaer pleaing eyes. The old man was now
sweating profusely in anticipation of the fresh bloodstrength that he would
gain. He adjusted his spectacles and raised the dagger.
"Jindaer screamed as the dagger came down, and the old man was also
dismayed. The spectacles slipped off of his nose and he missed the large 'X'
which he had ordered painted on the lordling's chest. With an agonized look
on his face Jindaer died, his unclaimed bloodline dissolving into the land.
"'@#$*&$%#@@#$$!', quoth the codger,'It happened again! NEXT!'"

:)



Bearcat
lcgm@elogica.com.br
Come visit Bearcat's Birthright Homepage at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6204

[relve@Otdk.Helsinki.F]

I was "filling in" the area called "the Five peaks" and I had trouble
to answer the following question:

What restricts unblooded persons to become regents? That they don't
have a bloodline? It doesn't make sense. Humans (and the other main
races in BR) are able to survive in long run only as a society.
Society always has a hierarchy meaning that some individuals (group
of individuals) have more power than others. I see no reason why a
commoner couldn't seize that power if no scions are around and thus
acquire "a holding". (Having no better explanation, I have defined
holding as "a centre of power")

For example, let's suppose that one of the provinces in the Five
Peaks is 1st level and that the whole population consists in kobolds
(there are no reports of them being in Deismaar). Now, let's suppose
we have a powerful and charismatic kobold living there. Unfortunately
he is unblooded. Does it mean that he is never able to unite the
tribes? (i.e. create a law holding) Just because he isn't a scion?
(BTW, even ruling only one tribe in a 1st level province should count
as 0lev law HOLDING)

I've got an answer for this problem but I'd like to hear your ideas
first.

Another curious one

[Trizt]

>For example, let's suppose that one of the provinces in the Five
>Peaks is 1st level and that the whole population consists in kobolds
>(there are no reports of them being in Deismaar). Now, let's suppose
>we have a powerful and charismatic kobold living there. Unfortunately
>he is unblooded. Does it mean that he is never able to unite the
>tribes? (i.e. create a law holding) Just because he isn't a scion?
>(BTW, even ruling only one tribe in a 1st level province should count
>as 0lev law HOLDING)

If you follow the rules, he (or she) could unite the tribes (to one
huge), but that would be it.

There is always the possibility that the land chooses the kobold to the
regent of the domain which the kobolds followers occupy. IMO the land
should be able to ripp it off from the current regent of the domain in
favor for the kobold (if the kobold will be the force which leads to
more development in the area for the moment). Alignment should have
nothing to do with the choise of the land, otherwise all regents would
suddenly be LG (which IMO is worse than that all regents would be CE).

//Trizt
------------------
E-Mail: trizt@iname.com URL: http://www.student.gu.se/~jaah0002
------------------

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 relve@Otdk.Helsinki.FI wrote:

> What restricts unblooded persons to become regents? That they don't
> have a bloodline? It doesn't make sense. Humans (and the other main
> races in BR) are able to survive in long run only as a society.
> Society always has a hierarchy meaning that some individuals (group
> of individuals) have more power than others. I see no reason why a
> commoner couldn't seize that power if no scions are around and thus
> acquire "a holding". (Having no better explanation, I have defined
> holding as "a centre of power")

Unblooded humans (and demihumans) can and do undertake realm actions. They
just can't use Regency, and gain no Regency from any holdings they
control. If you want to have an unblooded Kobold leader of a kobold tribe,
by all means go ahead, it sounds like a good idea. Its just that if a
blooded kobold does come around, or a evil blooded theif who wants to
control the kobold tribe, they have an immense advantage over the
unblooded leader, because of their spark of godpower, which allows them
to use their "influence" to get things done easier: people respond to
them as people in authority. In this case, your unblooded kobold leader
would be likely to want to become the ally of the blooded theif, that way
he remains his personal power and prestige (as a lieutennant), even if the
Regency is going to the overlord.


Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[wooz]

>For example, let's suppose that one of the provinces in the Five
>Peaks is 1st level and that the whole population consists in kobolds
>(there are no reports of them being in Deismaar).

There were Kobolds at Diesmaar. They fought on the side of Azrai. In one
of the novels, there is mention made of them. The reason for being blooded,
is the direct connection needed to the land and people. I look at it as a
more physical manifestation of 'divine right'.


Wooz




"quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3292/ wooz@rli-net.net

[Daniel McSorley]

> There were Kobolds at Diesmaar. They fought on the side of Azrai. In one
>of the novels, there is mention made of them. The reason for being blooded,
>is the direct connection needed to the land and people. I look at it as a
>more physical manifestation of 'divine right'.
>
Which book was this, I don't recall?
A non-blooded ruler would not really get any holdings, I think. He'd be
like the minor Jarls in Rjurik, who lead their clans but don't really
influence the provinces. Admittedly, the really big clans have leaders with
holdings, but they all have bloodlines as well. If a kobold tribe was this
influential, the headman would be able to get a bloodline from somewhere,
perhaps the land itself would supply it, or take it from the current, less
worthy regent.
>
> Wooz
> "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
>

Who watches the watchers (roughly). I like it.

[Jim Cooper]

Mark A Vandermeulen wrote:
> In this case, your unblooded kobold leader
> would be likely to want to become the ally of the blooded theif, that way
> he remains his personal power and prestige (as a lieutennant), even if the
> Regency is going to the overlord.
>
Why wouldn't the kobold leader get a priest lackey to invest the poor
saps bloodline into himself, then kill the pesky upstart?

I mean, being blooded doesn't necessarily translate to leadership roles,
or give one a sure fire ticket to lord it over others.

Darren

[Jim Cooper]

relve@Otdk.Helsinki.FI wrote:
>
> I was "filling in" the area called "the Five peaks" and I had trouble
> to answer the following question:
>
> What restricts unblooded persons to become regents?

Absolutely nothing.
>
> For example, let's suppose that one of the provinces in the Five
> Peaks is 1st level and that the whole population consists in kobolds
> (there are no reports of them being in Deismaar). Now, let's suppose
> we have a powerful and charismatic kobold living there. Unfortunately
> he is unblooded. Does it mean that he is never able to unite the
> tribes? (i.e. create a law holding) Just because he isn't a scion?
> (BTW, even ruling only one tribe in a 1st level province should count
> as 0lev law HOLDING)

According to the rules, ruling a holding up to level '1' (or creating
one, for that matter) only requires cold hard cash; so, nothing is
stopping a non-blooded being from having actual level holdings. They
just wouldn't be able to rule them above a level one - signifying,
perhaps, that only a 'special type' of person can truly influence their
surroundings (ie, a 'divine' person, however one wants to define this),
which might explain all of those great historical figures in Cerilia's
past. Remember that one does not need to have had ancestors at the BoD;
the BR team gave DMs a way out by giving us a special rule called 'The
Lands Choice', that allows anyone to gain regency points, at any point
in their lives. Therefore, being unblooded hardly restricts a person
from being a ruler, when one factors in that the land usually responds
to these special people by 'recognizing' their power over their
'surroundings', whatever they may be. Heck, _green slime_ could rule a
holding if enough beings worshipped/followed it - though not to much
would get done in that domain, I reckon.

The interesting question is ...

When the land 'gives' someone a bloodline, what derivation does it
become? Hmmm ...

Does the land keep 'pockets' of this divine essense that is lost to
mortals in places to 'give' to people? Are certain places imbued with
the essences of certain gods?

This might explain the 'Michael Roele' phenomenon - the land 'grabbed'
his essense before The Gorgon could steal it. Maybe this is what
happens to all failed attempts at bloodtheft - the land sucks them up
into itself. I mean, where else does it go?

See also my post to your question on investiture.

Darren

[wooz]

> Which book was this, I don't recall?
The novel about Richard Endier and the Spider. The scenes in the Spider's
memory when he was walking back to the Spiderfell and gathering his army
about him.

>> "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
> Who watches the watchers (roughly). I like it.
"Who watches the watchmen"
Thanks. Here's a new one for you.

This service has been brought to care of Wooz Enterprises. WE would like to
also extend our thanks to our wippy, trippy, bippy, zippy, and hippy
secretarial pool. Please feel free to ask any questions of us at
wooz@rli-net.net. WE look forward to hearing from you, and would like to
thank you for support. You may leave our presence at this time.
Wooz von Hoehenstaufen President and Founder Wooz Enterprises

[Brandon Quina]

> Why wouldn't the kobold leader get a priest lackey to invest the poor
> saps bloodline into himself, then kill the pesky upstart?

My view is that unblooded people can rule holdings. Blooded people
can just do it better. So much better that, no matter what, the
odds are HEAVILY in favor of the blooded person winning any contest
against an unblooded ruler.

Just for funs sake, I have rules for this. I never intend to use
them, but you never know.

Anyways, Mr. Kobold ruler could get law and province holdings. He
would just be practically unable to protect them from any blooded
people who wanted to take them.


Also, while being blooded dosnt make one a good leader automatically.
It /does/ help, afterall. You can spend regency points to affect
your leadership rolls :)




- --
(lore@tmgbbs.com) \|/// Zzzzzzzzzzzz
Brandon Lance Quina (- -)
ICQ Number: 6809944 ---ooO(_)Ooo---

[James Ruhland]

>
> >> "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
> > Who watches the watchers (roughly). I like it.
> "Who watches the watchmen"
> Thanks. Here's a new one for you.
>
Can also be translated as "Who shall guard the guards themselves?", which
is how I saw it translated in relationship to the old I.R.I.S. motto
"Custodemus Veritas" (We Guard the Truth).

Just makes me think of Strephon every time, as does the phrase "Shall Not
Perish" now. . .(sorry, some game experiences, like some literary
experiences, never go away).

[Jim Cooper]

Brandon Quina wrote:
>
> > Why wouldn't the kobold leader get a priest lackey to invest the poor
> > saps bloodline into himself, then kill the pesky upstart?
>
> My view is that unblooded people can rule holdings. Blooded people
> can just do it better. So much better that, no matter what, the
> odds are HEAVILY in favor of the blooded person winning any contest
> against an unblooded ruler.
>

Oh, and what happens when said unblooded ruler marches armies in said
blooded regent's domain, thereby contesting the little blooded
lordling's holding(s)? End result, the blooded regent is on par now
with the unblooded ruler! The guy has no advantage now, does he? :-0

Darren

[gandalf]

>This might explain the 'Michael Roele' phenomenon - the land 'grabbed'
>his essense before The Gorgon could steal it. Maybe this is what
>happens to all failed attempts at bloodtheft - the land sucks them up
>into itself. I mean, where else does it go?


Just a question - just how many 'failed attempts at bloodtheft' would you
know of?

gandalf

[Bret W. Davenport]

> And perhaps the regent doesn't actually _receive_ the regency points -
> those people or holdings that he/she rules might actually be the
> 'vessel' that contains the influence (ie regency points) with which the
> regent 'uses' to advance the cause(s) of his/her domain. So, in effect,
> there could be no real connection to land and/or holding(s).
>
> Yes they can move around, in this mixed up world of Aebrynnis, a world
> where there is a loose feudal structure but it really isn't feudalism -
> that's why someone who only controls armies is still considered a
> regent, and in effect, has 'law holdings' in which to influence his
> surroundings (and if blooded, should get regency IMO for leading these
> armies).

>According to the rules, ruling a holding up to level '1' (or creating>one, for that matter) only
requires cold hard cash; so, nothing is
>stopping a non-blooded being from having actual level holdings.

Actually, to rule a Level 0 holding to Level 1 requires 1 GB and 1 RP. Unblooded characters can't
gain Regency Points, so that makes any holding past 0 - true show of strength - impossible. Unless,
of course, some rules after the boxed set have altered the original.

>Remember that one does not need to have had ancestors at the BoD;
>the BR team gave DMs a way out by giving us a special rule called 'The
>Lands Choice', that allows anyone to gain regency points, at any point
>in their lives.

One of the disadvantages to living somewhere where getting all material on a subject is nearly
impossible is that supplements and accessories are hard to come by. Where is the "Lands Choice"
rules laid out? Sounds like an interesting concept.

> Seriously, maybe the domain action of investiture is just a ceremony
> perpetuated by priests to continue a perceived role in Anuirean (or
> other) society. Religion is a strong influence in societies after all.
> Maybe there is no _real_ signifigance; perhaps it is the law regents who
> have been led by priests to believe that this ceremony is necessary to
> rule ... maybe one doesn't actually *need* this ceremony to be done, and
> that explains why guild and source regents don't need to have the
> ceremony performed on themselves. Remember that the land itself is
> quite capable of making a regent in one fell swoop, no fancy ceremony or
> nothing!

There must be some serious changes or alteration in rules after the boxed set through some of the
supliments. In the Ilien sourcebook, the dying regent "Invests" his powers and ties to the sources
to his apprentice. And from my understanding of the rules, you need Regency points or must rely on
just a 10% chance to invest a holding (guild and source included) which could be bid against making
it even less likely. Still, through the normal rules, I have yet to see where one mage can pass
another mage all his sources and bloodline strength without the Investiture Ceremony.

>And perhaps the regent doesn't actually _receive_ the regency points -
>those people or holdings that he/she rules might actually be the
>'vessel' that contains the influence (ie regency points) with which the
>regent 'uses' to advance the cause(s) of his/her domain. So, in effect,
>there could be no real connection to land and/or holding(s).

I would think you have it backwards. The Regent does gain and hold the power. Consider source
holdings, where you could have lands with basically no society or people. As far as power moving
with the people, I think it's not so much that but that a leader of a Providence-0 would have no
law, temple, guild to rule because you need subjects to rule with it. Therefore, the move would be
one of necessity by the regent rather than actual power within the populous.

But, again, I am new to this list, and could be ignorant on a number of subjects. It would be the
first time -g-

Bret

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Jim Cooper wrote:

> Why wouldn't the kobold leader get a priest lackey to invest the poor
> saps bloodline into himself, then kill the pesky upstart?
>
> I mean, being blooded doesn't necessarily translate to leadership roles,
> or give one a sure fire ticket to lord it over others.

No, it doesn't necessarily, but its a HUGE head start. In role playing
terms, I've always ruled that blooded people have a PRESENCE about them
that is very impressive. It may not be instantly noticeable, but people
around them respond to them differently. They have an aura of AUTHORITY
about them that subtly acts on the minds of unblooded people around them,
evoking respect and obedience. So an unblooded merchant in a chance
meeting with a mysterious stranger at an oasis suddenly finds himself
taking orders from the stranger when bandits attack, obeying without
question when told to take his guards around to one side of the enclosure,
and perhaps wondering why he submitted to the authority of that mysterious
stranger so readily, when he commanded no troops nor wielded any magick.
As for the kobold, if the poor sap was smart enough he wouldn't
let himself get into such a position, and if he was truely interested in
manipulating the kobold tribe and the current ruler wasn't on friendly
terms, he might just find a replacement what WAS willing to be his lackey,
and then kill the current leader and put his lackey in place. The kobolds
are in fact more like to accept the new leader if the theif, who is
blooded and thus has this aura of authority, obviously and before the
whole tribe, supports the new leader: his acceptance lends the weight of
his authority to the appointment (however unlawful it might be in
reality). Not that this should be a sure-fire or fool-proof plan.
Eventually the kobolds will realize that they've been played. But it will
last longer if the blooded theif sticks around and reinforces the
authority, or if he shows up every once in a while to maintain it. And
after a while, if they've been treated well, the tribe may just decide
that change is good, and stick with a good thing even though they know it
to be somewhat unnatural.
A bit of a long ramble about something fairly inconsequential,
perhaps, but from this perspective do you see what I'm getting at? You are
af course perfectly free to interpret things in your own way, but I
thought I should explain my perspective.

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Jim Cooper wrote:

> Oh, and what happens when said unblooded ruler marches armies in said
> blooded regent's domain, thereby contesting the little blooded
> lordling's holding(s)? End result, the blooded regent is on par now
> with the unblooded ruler! The guy has no advantage now, does he? :-0

Yes, but once again, there's nothing stopping the blooded ruler from
raising an army of his own, and fighting off the unblooded ruler's armies.
May I ask what your stake in having unblooded rulers is? Because you
certainly seem dedicated to rescueing them from the tyrrany of the rules.
Not that this is necessarily a bad thing! But if we knew WHY you wanted to
have and maintain unblooded rulers in Cerillia, we might be able to help
you better. :)

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[brenda santer]

Bret Davenport wrote:
>Actually, to rule a Level 0 holding to Level 1 requires 1 GB and 1 RP.
>Unblooded characters can't
>gain Regency Points, so that makes any holding past 0 - true show of
>strength - impossible. Unless,
>of course, some rules after the boxed set have altered the original.
>

Sorry Bret. You better recheck the Rules book fromthe original boxed set.
The rule on page 59 states that ruling a province or holding from level 0
to level 1 costs 1 GB, but no RP. The reason I am aware of that is because
have been doing it your way until about 3 months ago. At that time, another
DM pointed the rule out to me.


>>Remember that one does not need to have had ancestors at the BoD;
>>the BR team gave DMs a way out by giving us a special rule called 'The
>>Lands Choice', that allows anyone to gain regency points, at any point
>>in their lives.
>
>One of the disadvantages to living somewhere where getting all material on
>a subject is nearly
>impossible is that supplements and accessories are hard to come by. Where
>is the "Lands Choice"
>rules laid out? Sounds like an interesting concept.
>
The Land's Choice is found in that excellent resource, the Book of Priestcraft.
When you are able to purchase one, definitely do so. It is worth every
penny even at the rate my Canadian dollar is at right now :).

>
>But, again, I am new to this list, and could be ignorant on a number of
>subjects. It would be the
>first time -g-
>
>Bret
>

Stick around this list for a while. There are many talented, helpful and
creative people here to help you out. This is a great place to get ideas
and information from.


****************************************
Brenda Santer:

mailto:bsanter@shaw.wave.ca

I USED TO BE SNOW WHITE BUT I DRIFTED!
****************************************

[Bret W. Davenport]

> Sorry Bret. You better recheck the Rules book fromthe original boxed set.
> The rule on page 59 states that ruling a province or holding from level 0
> to level 1 costs 1 GB, but no RP. The reason I am aware of that is because
> have been doing it your way until about 3 months ago. At that time, another
> DM pointed the rule out to me.

Okay. Directly from Page 59 of the Rulebook (Boxed Addition):

RULE Success: 10+
Type: Domain, Realm Base Cost: 1GP, Variable RP

With this action, a regent spends time and energy advancing the causes of his domain. By
ruling, he can increate a province or holding's level by 1. A province can be ruled only once per
domain turn.
Note that for a regent to increase a holding, a level must be vacant; if he controls a guild(3)
in a province(3), the province can't support any more guild activity.
Ruling a holding costs 1 Gold Bar PLUS Regency points equal to the target level; for example a
guild(3) to a guild(4) costs 1 GB plus 4 RP.
...etc...

Okay. Read that carefully. It is the TARGET LEVEL that determines the cost. Thus, a Guild(0) to
Guild(1) would cost 1 GB plus 1 RP; Guild(1) to Guild(2) would be 1 GB+2 RP;Guild(2) to Guild(3) is
1 GB + 3 RP; etc... Just as in the example above =)

I may be new, but the rules are fairly clear in this...

Note, however, that Ruling a PROVINCE level costs 1 GB plus 1 RP per level based on the Provinces
Current level. Thus, a Province(0) to Province(1) would cost 1 GB+ 0 RP. The same does not hold
true for holding, though.. Thus the confusion. A subtle but important distinction.

So, with the old arguments, a non-blooded could form a Holding only to 0, but could move a Province
to 1.

> The Land's Choice is found in that excellent resource, the Book of Priestcraft.
> When you are able to purchase one, definitely do so. It is worth every
> penny even at the rate my Canadian dollar is at right now :).

I will take your advise and keep my eye out. Thanks Brenda.

> >But, again, I am new to this list, and could be ignorant on a number of
> >subjects. It would be the
> >first time -g-

Oops! It definately WOULDN'T be the first time -chuckle- What a typo -g-

> Stick around this list for a while. There are many talented, helpful and
> creative people here to help you out. This is a great place to get ideas
> and information from.

It has already been a treat =)

[Tripp]

brenda santer wrote:

>
> Stick around this list for a while. There are many talented, helpful and
> creative people here to help you out. This is a great place to get ideas
> and information from.
>
> ****************************************
> Brenda Santer:
>
> mailto:bsanter@shaw.wave.ca
>
> I USED TO BE SNOW WHITE BUT I DRIFTED!
> ****************************************

Bret, you lucked out, you already met one of the lists most talented and
helpful ::drum roll:: Brenda Santer of Canada.

Just my 2GB

Tripp

[Jim Cooper]

Mark A Vandermeulen wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Jim Cooper wrote:
>
> > Oh, and what happens when said unblooded ruler marches armies in said
> > blooded regent's domain, thereby contesting the little blooded
> > lordling's holding(s)? End result, the blooded regent is on par now
> > with the unblooded ruler! The guy has no advantage now, does he? :-0
>
> Yes, but once again, there's nothing stopping the blooded ruler from
> raising an army of his own, and fighting off the unblooded ruler's armies.
> May I ask what your stake in having unblooded rulers is? Because you
> certainly seem dedicated to rescueing them from the tyrrany of the rules.
> Not that this is necessarily a bad thing! But if we knew WHY you wanted to
> have and maintain unblooded rulers in Cerillia, we might be able to help
> you better. :)
>

Actually, I don't favour one over the other. Hmmm ... how do I put this
... I was only trying to point out that there really is no particular
disadvantage to being unblooded. I was responding to a post that
suggested that an unblooded person would submit himself to terms of
vassalage to a blooded regent so that his holdings could then be used to
their full potential. I was only suggesting, in my own interpretation
of course, that such a suggestion would be ridiculous to the
aformentioned unblooded ruler, from their world perspective. Why would
a lord submit himself to someone lower than himself, especially a
merchentman, merely because he is blooded? Perhaps I misunderstood the
post, and certainly a DM is free to rule whatever fits their style of
play in a campaign.

My 'dedication' to 'saving' unblooded people only results from
restricting myself to a concise arguement which favours considering
unblooded rulers as being just as likely be able to rule as a blooded
person. The same can be said about unblooded elves and realm magic.
(Unfortunately, I have come across as belligerent to some members, for
which I am truly sorry. My choice of words in previous posts have
obviously be poor). I can totally see a republic forming, as suggested
in various BR books, with many unblooded senators (or what-have-you)
ruling ... its a shame that the BR designers have not shown that this is
in fact possible - so far, just about every regent in BR I have seen has
been blooded, and naturally people are beginning to assume (judging from
posts to this list) that this has to be the case (again, this is my
opinion). I have seen several posts, recently, that suggested unblooded
rulers would have to submit to blooded subjects in order to receive the
all important RPs. This is only a function of the rules as they stand
now, of course. But the rules also allow regents to have up to level
'1' holdings/provinces without having to spend regency points.
Moreover, one only needs to control armies (nothing else, if I'm not
mistaken) in order to be called a regent. Therefore, I bet there are a
lot of unblooded merc. captains out there that would have the potential
to wield much political power. And to return to your original post
above, the blooded regent wouldn't have any advantage over the unblooded
regent in this scenario because the holdings of the blooded regent are
being contested at the moment and so are not contributing regency points
to the blooded ruler! If this nightmare encompasses the blooded ruler's
entire domain, said ruler need no longer, in effect, be considered
blooded, correct?

Being of the blood does have its advantages, no doubt about that, but
considering that less than 1% (or whatever) of Cerilia's population is
blooded, it just seems to me that there would be more UNblooded rulers
out there - if only in the 'lesser' kind of holdings opened to the
common class (like guild holdings).

This might also explain why peasants are now 'more free' in
Anuire/Brecht/wherever - the unblooded people are finally becoming tired
of those people who think that 'divineblood' is a requirement to rule!
Doesn't this sound familiar? I can think of many historical examples
concerning democracy and suffrage, etc., where this *exact* arguement
brought out those cherished ideals we in the RW hold today.

Why should those less fortunate Cerilians, who haven't been blessed with
'divinity', sit on their laurels and accept 'their lot in life'? Why
_wouldn't_ unblooded people in Anuire (or elsewhere) begin to fight to
become regents - or, if already in a position of regency, keep that
which they have and act just like any other blooded person? The only
difference would be that ruling would be harder ... not that rulership
was every easy! If any of you are sticklers for a bit of realism in
your games, start a campaign where the PCs are unblooded regents, and
give them an idea just how hard the lives of honest and good rulers can
get!

Please note that, as suggested in Legends of the Hero-Kings, regents can
get regent points just for solving the adventure to the DMs
satisfaction. So, take a merc. captain that controls nothing but armies
- - being unblooded, would he get regency points? In my opinion, that
regent should, since armies can act as de facto law holdings.

The only question is, can unblooded people accumulate RPs if given them?

Just my usual rant,
Darren

[David Sean Brown]

Sorry Bret, but you are still wrong. If you keeop reading in the same
heading (rule action) it says:
"Ruling a holding or province from level 0 to level 1 costs 1GB; no RP's
must be spent"

So climbing to level 1 in anything doesn't cost any RPs, so technically,
and unblooded individual could do it :)

Sean

PS- you watch now, after sending something to the list for the first time
in a long time, I'll have missed the whole point of the argument :)



> Okay. Read that carefully. It is the TARGET LEVEL that determines the cost. Thus, a Guild(0) to
> Guild(1) would cost 1 GB plus 1 RP; Guild(1) to Guild(2) would be 1 GB+2 RP;Guild(2) to Guild(3) is
> 1 GB + 3 RP; etc... Just as in the example above =)
>
> I may be new, but the rules are fairly clear in this...
>
> Note, however, that Ruling a PROVINCE level costs 1 GB plus 1 RP per level based on the Provinces
> Current level. Thus, a Province(0) to Province(1) would cost 1 GB+ 0 RP. The same does not hold
> true for holding, though.. Thus the confusion. A subtle but important distinction.
>
> So, with the old arguments, a non-blooded could form a Holding only to 0, but could move a Province
> to 1.

[Taras Guarhoth]

Well, not to ruin the discussion, but, from the Book of Magecraft, p.
48, 2nd column, end of the third paragraph:

"Unblooded magicians, like unblooded individuals of any character
class, cannot be regents."

Taras Guarhoth
guarhoth@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________ _______
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

[Bret W. Davenport]

Taras Guarhoth wrote:

> Well, not to ruin the discussion, but, from the Book of Magecraft, p.
> 48, 2nd column, end of the third paragraph:
>
> "Unblooded magicians, like unblooded individuals of any character
> class, cannot be regents."

Ah. That seems pretty straightforward.

Perhaps what needs to be discussed is the terms Regent and Regency
themselves. Regent and Regency, in the case of Birthright, seems to me
to indicate a supernatural tie one in power has to the land. This tie to the
land (and the people associated with it) would enable them to affect the
domain they rule with extraordinary success. Consider the fact that an
entire province's population, by force of will alone, can be altered by these
blooded rulers - all in one month! Wow. Think about it. Magic is reduced.
Population increases. Etc. The very fabric of society is altered. A rural
community with few establishments, in the course of only a few months,
could expand to a major city, all at the urging of one individual. That is
what marks them as individuals of power and influence. Certainly, no
creature without this "god-like" power could possibly hope to effect the
same results. How does this come about, one might wonder? Well,
the ways of gods were always mysterious, and thus, the regents would
also be able to perform feats seemingly impossible. Perhaps stragglers
from neighboring provinces suddenly feel this draw to the expanding
territory. To become a part of a society, when they were outside this
realm before. Remote farmers would suddenly find themselves bending
a knee to this person of aura, where they were always removed from
society and serving only themselves. Unexpected booms in childbirth.
A sudden decrease in death caused by disease and tragidy. All of
these things would go relatively unnoticed, in general, but it would
bring about this great change in a nation. It is these very powers that
mark these individuals as blooded.

Now, I would think other rulers, non-blooded leaders and such, would
exist, but would not get the label of "Regent." Technically, a Kobold
clan leader within some uncivilized forest would be a regent of sorts,
but in game terms, he is just an unblooded ruler. The same could be
held true for all organizations outside the "blood." They, in and of
themselves, are worthy of notice, but they will never be able to
compete with the divine like powers of the blood regents. Where a
true Regent need only spend some gold to muster up armies (that
intangable aura drawing normally reluctent people to take up arms),
an unblooded ruler would have to rely on gold and mercenary units,
in most cases, well beyond that a normal regent would have to use.
Perhaps a truly charismatic unblooded individual could arise and
stir the populous in his or her favor, posing a true threat to the
Regent. Then again, don't you think this ruler of divine ability would
notice such a thing and, well, accidents have been known to
happen...

Well, I have rambled overly long already... One of the great things
about Birthright is that the possibilities are endless. Each DM
has the right to rule individually as best suits their campaign.
Collectively, we can aid each other (as DMs or Players) come to
decisions and understanding that would otherwise be difficult alone.

Looking forward to others' thoughts on the above,
Bret

[Bret W. Davenport]

> Oh, and what happens when said unblooded ruler marches armies in said
> blooded regent's domain, thereby contesting the little blooded
> lordling's holding(s)? End result, the blooded regent is on par now
> with the unblooded ruler! The guy has no advantage now, does he? :-0
>

Okay. Before I mention the mystical and divine power that a Blooded
Regent has over non-blooded. Taking my example of mustering troops,
and the idea of the inexplicable draw they have on the populous, wouldn't
it, therefore, follow that when an invading army would suddenly find there
would be defections to the other side when that "pull" occurred. Soldiers
who had been loyal (or well paid) suddenly realize the "error" of their
current ways. Suddenly, this "usurper who was abusing his strength of
arms" didn't look so good, while the current regent who "shines with an
aura of confidence and purpose" appears much more satisfactory as a
leader. If you read the book, The Iron Throne, a quick reference to
Michael Roele power to motivate and draw people to his cause would
be an example of this. People who might otherwise despise or avoid
having to aid a regent, would do so willingly and happily. Thus, this
overly powerful mercenary with his horde of men-at-arms would find
his influence and power greatly diminished when he came face to
face with the undeniable pull of the Blooded Regent.

I know you hate having these Blooded Regents treated as gods, but
remember, this is a fantasy setting. The "Blood" IS from the gods, and
to a lesser extent, the powers that were wielded, the influence that was
a divine right, has transferred with them. No offense, if you want a more
realistic world there are others available that would better suit the idea
of a commoner rising up from meager heredity to rule a world. The
whole premise behind Birthright is just that - the Birthright. If you take
away that foundation, you undercut the whole purpose to the world.

Another 2 Gold Bars from the mind of,
Bret Davenport

Feel free to spend your own GB to contest it -grin-

[Brandon Quina]

> This might also explain why peasants are now 'more free' in
> Anuire/Brecht/wherever - the unblooded people are finally becoming
> tired of those people who think that 'divineblood' is a requirement to
> rule! Doesn't this sound familiar? I can think of many historical
> examples concerning democracy and suffrage, etc., where this *exact*
> arguement brought out those cherished ideals we in the RW hold today.

Yes, but our real earth rulers couldnt PROVE that they had
divine powers from the gods.

The priests have to use their divine priestly godly powers
to /let/ the kings rule. Thats about as close to the god
coming down and saying 'you can be king' as you can get.

Even the kings are able to do things that are miraculous.
They can use their rule action, and channel some of the divine
power they get from their lands onto it, and basically make
ruling alot easier.

Imagine how easy it is to rule when you have bursts in baby
production, a decline in the death rate, plentiful food, and
people working extra hard. The population increases that
regents can cause in the course of a year is completly amazing,
to the point of being MIRACULOUS.

Worse-- they can, with enough 'divine power' have this happen
every time.


If our kings were 'blooded'-- earth would still be a monarchy.






- --
(lore@tmgbbs.com) \|/// Zzzzzzzzzzzz
Brandon Lance Quina (- -)
ICQ Number: 6809944 ---ooO(_)Ooo---

[Jim Cooper]

Bret W. Davenport wrote:
> >
> I know you hate having these Blooded Regents treated as gods, but
> remember, this is a fantasy setting. The "Blood" IS from the gods, and
> to a lesser extent, the powers that were wielded, the influence that was
> a divine right, has transferred with them. No offense, if you want a more
> realistic world there are others available that would better suit the idea
> of a commoner rising up from meager heredity to rule a world. The
> whole premise behind Birthright is just that - the Birthright. If you take
> away that foundation, you undercut the whole purpose to the world.
>
> Another 2 Gold Bars from the mind of,
> Bret Davenport
>
> Feel free to spend your own GB to contest it -grin-
>
Um, perhaps there's a little misunderstanding here. I don't hate
blooded characters, I don't have anything against bloodlines et. al. I
DM a regular birthright campaign just like everyone else, blooded
regents and all. I see that my language was too strong when I wrote
replies to these threads. I completely believe the stuff you said, what
all the other people have said about these topics (I can agree with most
of them, too), and I love BR more than anything else TSR puts out. My
intention was not to change Birthright into something that it is not!

I was only posting conjecture to this list dealing with seeing regency
only from a blooded person's perspective; to start anyone who has
wondering why unblooded regents are so scarce in this game into
considering how they (unblooded persons) could own a corner of this
world. As I got to thinking more about this topic, I began to see that
being unblooded isn't so bad after all! Many adventure possibilities
started to show themselves, all stemming from the rich backround the BR
world gives us players. For instance, the peasants of Anuire seem to be
a lot more 'free' than one would normally see in a feudalistic world,
and one explanation could be that they are beginning to demand more
freedom from a small minority that considers itself the creme de la
creme of society solely on having a bloodline. There is an adventure to
flesh out from a 'Matter of Justice' random event if I ever saw one!
Lots more ideas starting popping into my head, and I just thought when
Brandon posted stuff on a unblooded kobold regent submitting himself to
a blooded thief in order to gain regency, "why?" Why would an unblooded
person undercut his authority to another person, thereby validating the
myth that blooded people are 'natural' rulers?

I am perfectly willing to concede the point that bloodlines give a
person a 'natural ability' to affect their surroundings, that blooded
people have a 'presense' surrounding them, and all of that. When I
thought about this though, I thought - wait a minute, wouldn't that suck
for a rogue character (or even other character classes), when people are
always aware of you and alert that you are some kind of special person?
THEN I thought that maybe only certain bloodlines give one that sort of
presense; perhaps Brenna's bloodline (for instance) and certain others
are more 'recessive' (if you will), since Brenna's bloodline can't have
Divine Aura and some other power abilities. This would make sense,
considering Brenna's background. I could imagine that not a few blooded
persons would want to keep their 'divinity' secret, that perhaps blooded
people could exercise some control over their 'aura'. I dunno. This
was why a tried to answer those posts from an unblooded person's
perspective, trying to keep them short because all of my posts seem to
be long.

"Regency does not confer honesty, nobility, or a sense of responsibility
upon a ruler" - a snip from an excerpt in one of the adventures in
Legends of the Hero Kings. When I read that the other day, that seemed
to click with me, and I got thinking that these questions will directly
impact my section of the OCP - the fundamental question being, what
exactly is regency and what is its role in the game?

Again, I say I have nothing against the game, its rules, nor anything
else related to BR - this list has been one of the more active and
enlightening ones I have had the privelege to interact with. Woof, I
think I am going to be taking a less active role with this list in the
future - maybe there's something as to why Carrie remains a devouted
lurker ... :-|

Here's to hoping that more on unblooded people will see the light of day
in the upcoming Book of Regency,
Darren

[Bret W. Davenport]

Jim Cooper wrote:

> Um, perhaps there's a little misunderstanding here. I don't hate
> blooded characters, I don't have anything against bloodlines et. al. I
> DM a regular birthright campaign just like everyone else, blooded
> regents and all. I see that my language was too strong when I wrote
> replies to these threads. I completely believe the stuff you said, what
> all the other people have said about these topics (I can agree with most
> of them, too), and I love BR more than anything else TSR puts out. My
> intention was not to change Birthright into something that it is not!

Perhaps I came across strongly, but I did truly mean no offense =)I was just pointing out that if
you really wanted a world where any
average run of the mill joe can become king through luck, circumstance
or hard work, then there are so many other worlds where that is
more plausible. To try to take the known and sensible world and plug
it in to Birthright just wouldn't work. It would seem that as soon as
you begin to question the ability and source of the powers those of
Bloodlines hold, you begin to question the very fabric of that particular
gaming environment. Make regency a commoners right to claim on
par with the god-imbued "blooded," and you completely alter the entire
concept that the world was based on.

TSR wasn't trying to create a realistic world with defined parameters.
It was offering us a chance to either DM or play in a world where the
"normal" role-play was no longer the norm. Where Hercules and
other "godlings" could exist. In essence, where mortals could walk
with the thunder of the gods as their echo. I thought it an interesting
concept, and to add the rules for regency, mass combat, and more,
made the whole project that more intriguing and attractive.

Your points about being blooded not making you noble or righteous
is a good one. But in my one example, a diabolical blooded regent
would appeal to the mercenary (and his defection) because his
persona (and that intangible power) would suddenly seem more
relevant to the greedy merc (etc).Again, it's not that actual definition
is needed, just the realization that some undefinable powers (divine)
are at work.

Bret

[CBebris]

In a message dated 98-03-07 16:01:09 EST, you write:

[bloebick@juno.com (Benja]

Well, I guess it's time to throw in my GB worth of opinion on this
subject. ;)

I have to say I'm from the 'old school' of gaming, in which rules are
used as rough guidelines, and the concept of story lines is more
important. I'm going to approach the subject with this in mind.

I think it is fairly obvious from the rules that only blooded regents can
collect RP. I don't see any arguments there. The arguments come from
whether or not an unblooded person can be a regent. I don't see why not.
Before Deismaar no one was blooded, and there were a lot of regents
then, maybe more than currently, because there hadn't been a unifying
force previous to Roele. Every lordling with a town and a populace was a
regent. Thus, unblooded regents are possible.

But then the argument wanders on to whether or not a nonblooded regent
could stay regent. To this I would also say "yes, caveat". Anyone who
is shrewd enough and full of resources will be able to hold onto their
belongings until someone more shrewd and resourceful takes them away. If
no one tries, or if no one is more shrewd, then the original person
maintains possession. So, if an unblooded kobold manages to take control
of a province in the Five Peaks and then kills off all contenders, the
kobold can stay in control. If an orog chieftain, who happens to be
blooded, moves in and pounds the offending kobold into stew, then
obviously the kobold isn't regent anymore. If the kobold wisely tricks
the orog into a trap and prevails, demoralizes the remainder of the
orogs, then the kobold stays. The kobold, through no expense of RP, can
either stay regent or fail to be regent.

However, according to the rules, some far off force could use RP to move
in and take over from the poor, unblooded kobold. But in a more
realistic game, the current regent could prevent this. How? Simply run
about, scour his lands of foreign influence, and kill off anyone who
doesn't obey him. This wouldn't be using RP to prevent aggression - it
would be using character actions to stop it. If you think about it, a
racial champion who is constantly running around smashing up anyone who
disagrees with him or his racial objectives would be pretty darn popular
with his species. This would help keep the unblooded kobold in power,
and keep out orogs, goblins, gnolls, or even those stinky humans. Who
would want to say "Yeah, I'm in the Royal Human Civil Police, and I'm
here to make sure that good King Arglebargle the Magnificent (plug to the
BR playtest!!) is well liked" when there is a really unhappy kobold with
a mob behind him saying "King Arglebargle stinks, I'm in charge, and what
do you have to say about that?" Methinks that all those poor servants
sent to support King Arglebargle's reign would either run away or get
squished, thereby ending the RP influence in the province. No matter how
much RP the foreign representative spends, if all his servants get
killed, it won't work.

But why would any kobolds in there right mind follow Grak Unblooded when
they could support Dukor Divineblood? Because Grak kicked Dukor's butt,
that's why. If Dukor kicks Grak's butt, then Grak is dead (these are
kobolds we're talking about!) and Durok takes over - end of argument.
But we're interested only if Grak wins. In this case people will still
fear him (and his reputation will increase from kicking divine bloodline
butt!) and obey Grak's edicts. The same thing happens in human lands.
If a local hero continually manages to foil all attempts to remove him
from regent, then he stays the local hero and regent. If he ever fails,
then it's all over. The unblooded regent may even obtain some blooded
individuals who think the unblooded regent is just swell, and follow him
fanatically. They might use their RP (if they get any) to support this
unblooded regent simply because the unblooded regent is a good person to
have in command.

Well, that's what I think. It is realistic to have an unblooded regent,
even in the current days where most seemingly are blooded. It doesn't
have to be that way, in my opinion, even if it is the easiest. I
apologize for the length of this posting and if it tends to ramble some.
I'm in the midst of responding to 96 messages, and I'm thinking about a
lot of things.

Benjamin

__________________________________________________ ___________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[bloebick@juno.com (Benja]

On Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:27:46 -0800 (PST) Taras Guarhoth
writes:
>Well, not to ruin the discussion, but, from the Book of Magecraft, p.
>48, 2nd column, end of the third paragraph:
>
>"Unblooded magicians, like unblooded individuals of any character
>class, cannot be regents."
>
>Taras Guarhoth
>guarhoth@yahoo.com
>

his is not intended to be an insult or derogatory towards
anyone.

PLLLLLTTTT!!!!!!!!! BOOOOOO!!!!! HISSSSSS!!!! DOWN WITH THE
RULES!!!!!!

(see my previous posting for my full beliefs on this subject)

Benjamin

__________________________________________________ ___________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Anthony K.G.Shewan]

> Please note that, as suggested in Legends of the Hero-Kings, regents can
> get regent points just for solving the adventure to the DMs
> satisfaction. So, take a merc. captain that controls nothing but armies
> - being unblooded, would he get regency points? In my opinion, that
> regent should, since armies can act as de facto law holdings.
>
> The only question is, can unblooded people accumulate RPs if given them?
>
> Just my usual rant,
> Darren
>

IMO, unblooded individuals can't gain, accept or hold RP. RP is an
"outward", "physical" manifestation of the link between a regent and their
domain. This link can only exist if the regent has a bloodline. No
bloodline, no "Regency". Rulership, Yes, but "Regency" No. Should an
unblooded ruler give up his crown (holdings) just because some upstart with
"divine essence" comes walking through the castle gate? Only if he were
insane. But because blooded individuals gain RP they have an advantage in
that they can use the RP to influence actions in addition to GB which
anyone can use blooded or not. I think we've had this conversation before
(in person) and I think you may be confusing Regent and Ruler. in BR anyone
can rule but only blooded rulers are Regents.

[Bret W. Davenport]

Benjamin has a lot of really good points here in his mailing. However,
I'd like to go back to the one subject I offered earlier - Regency at its
meaning in itself. A kobold dominating some land would be a (note
the lower case) regent, but not a Regent. What I mean by this is that
I would treat the Kobold King (grand chieftain, whatever) as a separate
entity beyond that of the regents. A non-blooded regent holding an
entire province might make the province totally uncontrolled. No law.
Source holding could still exist, perhaps. Guild holding would only
exist at the whim of the unblooded ruler. I wouldn't bother setting
them up with normal Regency rules. They would exists outside the
normal play. Perhaps a Regent could use an action (rather like
adventure) to try supplant the kobold king. Or pump gold and muster
troops into a war effort to wipe them out. Lets face it, a domain with
100s or more GBs could muster serious amounts of Knights, Archers,
Elite Infantry, Cavalry, etc, that would be hard to explain failing. Now,
as Benjamin pointed out, just dropping a Law Holding into that prov
and calling it taken would be pretty weak. Back it up with some heavy
troops, well, you could probably win that way (give the Kobolds some
impromptu war cards, and simulate the battles).

It does make for some interesting play. These non-blooded regents
could offer distractions, role-play opportunities, battles (perhaps a
good scenario to introduce novice players with), adventures (how
about deciding that a full scale war would be costly and a long
process but a small, elite group sneaking in and wiping out the
Kobold King would be more effective), etc.

At any rate, to each DM their own, but that's the way I handle it =)
Players get a new intrigue to discover (often, there is some hidden
player behind the unblooded's reign).

Enjoy either way...
Bret


Benjamin W Loebick wrote:

> Well, I guess it's time to throw in my GB worth of opinion on this
> subject. ;)
>
> I have to say I'm from the 'old school' of gaming, in which rules are
> used as rough guidelines, and the concept of story lines is more
> important. I'm going to approach the subject with this in mind.
>
> I think it is fairly obvious from the rules that only blooded regents can
> collect RP. I don't see any arguments there. The arguments come from
> whether or not an unblooded person can be a regent. I don't see why not.
> Before Deismaar no one was blooded, and there were a lot of regents
> then, maybe more than currently, because there hadn't been a unifying
> force previous to Roele. Every lordling with a town and a populace was a
> regent. Thus, unblooded regents are possible.
>
> But then the argument wanders on to whether or not a nonblooded regent
> could stay regent. To this I would also say "yes, caveat". Anyone who
> is shrewd enough and full of resources will be able to hold onto their
> belongings until someone more shrewd and resourceful takes them away. If
> no one tries, or if no one is more shrewd, then the original person
> maintains possession. So, if an unblooded kobold manages to take control
> of a province in the Five Peaks and then kills off all contenders, the
> kobold can stay in control. If an orog chieftain, who happens to be
> blooded, moves in and pounds the offending kobold into stew, then
> obviously the kobold isn't regent anymore. If the kobold wisely tricks
> the orog into a trap and prevails, demoralizes the remainder of the
> orogs, then the kobold stays. The kobold, through no expense of RP, can
> either stay regent or fail to be regent.
>
> However, according to the rules, some far off force could use RP to move
> in and take over from the poor, unblooded kobold. But in a more
> realistic game, the current regent could prevent this. How? Simply run
> about, scour his lands of foreign influence, and kill off anyone who
> doesn't obey him. This wouldn't be using RP to prevent aggression - it
> would be using character actions to stop it. If you think about it, a
> racial champion who is constantly running around smashing up anyone who
> disagrees with him or his racial objectives would be pretty darn popular
> with his species. This would help keep the unblooded kobold in power,
> and keep out orogs, goblins, gnolls, or even those stinky humans. Who
> would want to say "Yeah, I'm in the Royal Human Civil Police, and I'm
> here to make sure that good King Arglebargle the Magnificent (plug to the
> BR playtest!!) is well liked" when there is a really unhappy kobold with
> a mob behind him saying "King Arglebargle stinks, I'm in charge, and what
> do you have to say about that?" Methinks that all those poor servants
> sent to support King Arglebargle's reign would either run away or get
> squished, thereby ending the RP influence in the province. No matter how
> much RP the foreign representative spends, if all his servants get
> killed, it won't work.
>
> But why would any kobolds in there right mind follow Grak Unblooded when
> they could support Dukor Divineblood? Because Grak kicked Dukor's butt,
> that's why. If Dukor kicks Grak's butt, then Grak is dead (these are
> kobolds we're talking about!) and Durok takes over - end of argument.
> But we're interested only if Grak wins. In this case people will still
> fear him (and his reputation will increase from kicking divine bloodline
> butt!) and obey Grak's edicts. The same thing happens in human lands.
> If a local hero continually manages to foil all attempts to remove him
> from regent, then he stays the local hero and regent. If he ever fails,
> then it's all over. The unblooded regent may even obtain some blooded
> individuals who think the unblooded regent is just swell, and follow him
> fanatically. They might use their RP (if they get any) to support this
> unblooded regent simply because the unblooded regent is a good person to
> have in command.
>
> Well, that's what I think. It is realistic to have an unblooded regent,
> even in the current days where most seemingly are blooded. It doesn't
> have to be that way, in my opinion, even if it is the easiest. I
> apologize for the length of this posting and if it tends to ramble some.
> I'm in the midst of responding to 96 messages, and I'm thinking about a
> lot of things.
>
> Benjamin
>
> __________________________________________________ ___________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
> ************************************************** *************************
> >

[Rasmus Juul Wagner]

Time to get involved...



Unblooded characters CANNOT gain Regency Points as the rules are written.
Even if you can find a paragraph somewhere in the book and twist it to
that effect, it doesn't matter; It's still in the spirit of the rules.

But who am I to tell you what you cannot do in your campaign? If you
decide otherwise, more power to you. I'm thinking along the same lines
myself. Rulers granting their trusted lieutenants regency points etc.

As for unblooded regents, of course a commoner can knock up a guild or
temple, or conquer a province. But consider this:

*The "rightful" rulers around him will resent this upstart and crush him.
*The land itself will not accept him. In fact, even if he stays for a
decade, he will be an occupying force only, not a true ruler.
*As he has no RPs, he is severely limited in his chocie of actions, and
basically powerless to resist Contest or Agitate actions.

What I'd do is allow a commoner who rules to attempt any domain action, at
an additional penalty equal to the number of RPs the action would normally
cost. Regency-starved blooded rulers can do the same, but they lose ALL
their regency points and still take the FULL penalty.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...I still think a clone is a continuation of one's self...

Rasmus Juul Wagner
Technical University of Denmark
c958650@student.dtu.dk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Neil Barnes]

On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Jim Cooper wrote:
> Actually, I don't favour one over the other. Hmmm ... how do I put this
> ... I was only trying to point out that there really is no particular
> disadvantage to being unblooded.

Unblooded people are at no particular disadvantage compared to people in
Djapar, Oerth or anywhere else - but blooded people have a ditinct
advantage over everyone else - their fragment of a divine soul allows
them to draw power from the loyalty of their followers, in the same way
that gods are described as drawing power from their worshippers.

I'd suggest that a ruler can substitute GB for RP in realm actions at
roughly a 5 or 10 to one disadvantage - thus possessing a bloodline
allows you to rule a country much more efiiciently.

> I was responding to a post that
> suggested that an unblooded person would submit himself to terms of
> vassalage to a blooded regent so that his holdings could then be used to
> their full potential. I was only suggesting, in my own interpretation
> of course, that such a suggestion would be ridiculous to the
> aformentioned unblooded ruler, from their world perspective. Why would
> a lord submit himself to someone lower than himself, especially a
> merchentman, merely because he is blooded?

Within Cerilia, bloodlines are real - an unblooded nobleman will know
that he's a nouveau riche fraud because he doesn't have a bloodline.
It's probably very common for unblooded individuals with wealth or power
to try and marry into an existing bloodline.

> My 'dedication' to 'saving' unblooded people only results from
> restricting myself to a concise arguement which favours considering
> unblooded rulers as being just as likely be able to rule as a blooded
> person. The same can be said about unblooded elves and realm magic.

However I'd suggest that Cerilia manifestly doesn't work this way -
'Divine Right of Kings' is real in this world, and can be observed to
work. Here all men are not born equal.

> I can totally see a republic forming, as suggested
> in various BR books, with many unblooded senators (or what-have-you)
> ruling ... its a shame that the BR designers have not shown that this is
> in fact possible - so far, just about every regent in BR I have seen has
> been blooded, and naturally people are beginning to assume (judging from
> posts to this list) that this has to be the case (again, this is my
> opinion).

When I was writing up Ghamoura for my campaign, I decided that the
Masetians, Pre-Deismaar, had a form of government pretty much analogous
to Athenian Democracy (although other city-states were ruled by Tyrants
- - an official title). However after the battle, a blooded elected ruler
(I've forgotten the greek titles) would be a much more effective than an
unblooded ruler for the duration of his term. Thus he'd be much more
likely to be re-elected.

Because (within the Birthright paradigm) there are tangible benefits
for a blooded ruler, power will accumulate in their hands.

> I have seen several posts, recently, that suggested unblooded
> rulers would have to submit to blooded subjects in order to receive the
> all important RPs. This is only a function of the rules as they stand
> now, of course. But the rules also allow regents to have up to level
> '1' holdings/provinces without having to spend regency points.

A nation cosisting merely of level one provinces is in a lot of trouble.
Unblooded regents in any good campaign, like any other character,
should be individuals with their own motivations and personality.
They'll be aware of bloodlines, and the advantage that blooded rulers
provide, so their reactions to the arrival of a blooded regent-wannabe
will be informed by that information. They may attempt bloodtheft, or
they may be willing to be lieutenants - the one thing that they're
really unlikely to attempt is to take the blooded indivdual on on their
own terms.

> Doesn't this sound familiar? I can think of many historical examples
> concerning democracy and suffrage, etc., where this *exact* arguement
> brought out those cherished ideals we in the RW hold today.

But this isn't the real world. Things work differently here. Most mass
movements for equality and social rights were a result of
industrialisation - the Union movement, the Fabian Society, Karl Marx
and the Suffragettes.

Pre-Industrial-era, most revolutionary movements that esoused equality
were dominated by charismatic individuals (Cromwell, Washington,
Robbespiere ) and in two of these three instances the egaliterian
nature of the revolution didn't last - Cromwell was succeeded by Charles
II, and the French Revolution set the stage for Napoleons rise to power
and the establishment of a new hereditary succession. (I, of course,
wait with baited breath to be contradicted by those better informed of
the historical details than myself - I'm especially shaky on the
American War of Independance ;).

Oh yes, for examples of how bloodlines might work within a democratic
society, check out the Pitt's (Elder, Younger), the Roosevelts and the
Kennedy dynasty.

neil

[Sepsis]

Greetings,
Although a lot has been said on this subject, I thought I would throw in my
2 GBs as well. IMO, if for any reason a non-Blooded individual becomes a
Regent (either by creating a lvl 1 Holding(s), or being granted control of
a Holding(s), or however) they should collect 1 RP per DT. This RP is
gained because the Character *is* the Ruler of those particular Holdings
(and/or Provinces), and as such is able to exert at least some influence
over the people and actions within (or concerning) them. Without a BL they
are not very powerful (or likely to ever be so) as Regents go, but they
should be able to perform many of the same tasks Blooded Regents do. Aside
from making an opening for non-Blooded Regents, this also helps show how
nations were "ruled" before there were any Bloodlines, and it also shows
why being Blooded makes you a "better" Ruler. Hence the fact that "today"
all true Rulers are Blooded. It would be nearly impossible for a
non-Blooded Ruler to hold onto his properties with Blooded competition for
them (of course being Vassal to a Blooded Regent could help). As you can
guess this is all MHO, thanks for your time.


Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net (ICQ:3777956)

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

BR Netbook: http://webpages.metrolink.net/~veleda/birth.html

[Eric Dunn]

At 01:55 PM 3/9/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Ok, here's my 2GB worth. The rules are very specific on the subject,
>and as far as I see it, under no circumstances should there ever be an
>unblooded regent.
>
>Even an Elf.

I agree. Never ever ever.


>Sure, Elves can cast true magic without being blooded, but to cast Realm
>magic, that is something different.
>
>As to how things were before Deismar. Well, they were different. The
>land did not have it's own power to require you to be blooded to rule
>over it, which is lucky, because no one was blooded then.
>
>Ok, as usual, you can do whatever you like in your own campaigns, but
>the idea of unblooded regents just really seems to go against the entire
>idea of Birthright to me.
>Tripp

Again, I agree. Remember, the fact that regents are blooded is embodying a
mystical idea that there IS an actual link--a connection, a physical symbol
representing the "right to rule"...in other words, the whole reason to be
blooded in the first place! Being blooded is what entitles you to that
right. Without it, you have no right to rule and lack the ability to gain
regency, which is what is necessary for ruling in Anuire. Even in the off
chance that the land thinks a person capable of ruling, then when fate
lands (no pun intended :) ) them a bloodline, by using that obscure rule
about "Land's Choice", then that person is now blooded, and capable of ruling.

E

Eric Dunn
eric@cyberserv.com
ICQ#4332602
[This space for rent.]

[lialos@crosslink.ne]

Ok, here's my 2GB worth. The rules are very specific on the subject,
and as far as I see it, under no circumstances should there ever be an
unblooded regent.

Even an Elf.

Sure, Elves can cast true magic without being blooded, but to cast Realm
magic, that is something different.

As to how things were before Deismar. Well, they were different. The
land did not have it's own power to require you to be blooded to rule
over it, which is lucky, because no one was blooded then.

Ok, as usual, you can do whatever you like in your own campaigns, but
the idea of unblooded regents just really seems to go against the entire
idea of Birthright to me.

Tripp

[veryfastperson@juno.com]

On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 13:16:22 -0500 Sepsis writes:
>Greetings,
>Although a lot has been said on this subject, I thought I would throw
>in my
>2 GBs as well. IMO, if for any reason a non-Blooded individual becomes
>a
>Regent (either by creating a lvl 1 Holding(s), or being granted
>control of
>a Holding(s), or however) they should collect 1 RP per DT.

I just have one problem with this... if they collect one RP a turn,
what's to stop them from using that one RP to give themselves a
bloodline? each turn, a Regent can increase his bloodline score 1 point
but spending his (or her) bloodline strength +1. well then, that one RP
could /technically/ be give to increase his BS. but you might ask "but he
doesn't have a deriviation..." and i say; "with one blood point to your
strength, that really doesn't matter (yet, at least)"
this just get's really technical, and now i have made myself
confused, i think i'll go read over my resources and then sleep on it :)
this is just my 2 GB's

Erik

"I wish..." said the kender, holding a ring over his head.

__________________________________________________ ___________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, Brandon Quina wrote:

> Yes, but our real earth rulers couldnt PROVE that they had
> divine powers from the gods.

Actually, they did demonstrate divine powers, and were believed sacred.
Why monarchy lost this quality- the desacrilization of kingship- as its
called in the literature, is a question generating some print. Queen Anne
was the last to cure the scroffula.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[Jim Cooper]

Tim Nutting wrote:
>
> In a world where magic exists the laws and precepts of our own "nonmagical"
> history cannot wholy apply.

Some very good stuff! Now, if you please, Mr. Nutting, would you post
your views on regency and regency points ... :-D

Darren

[Bret W. Davenport]

First off, for Mr. Nutting, that was a very well written and intelligent
posting. Regardless of whether or not there is agreement on all points, I
found it a stimulant to the brain cells =)

> The rulers of Aebyrnis are infused with the essence of the gods, and
while
> there may certainly have been "unblooded" rulers before Deismar, I
> personally get the impression that the old gods were VERY present,
> violating all known "laws" of the Planes and physically manifesting
> themselves on a very regular basis. They had favored servants that, for
> better or worse, were proxys (to use the Planescape definition - I am
> speaking of a being that is chosen of a god, and infused with that beings
> essence.) Now, in reading some PS stuff, it would seem that Cerilian
> scions are not welcomed in the planes because of one little fact. They
can
> commit "bloodtheft" on proxys (On Hallowed Ground - the new Legends and
> Lore). So, by this statement we can assume that any being infused with a
> gods essence can be "blooded". So I submit that the definition of
blooded
> include any such proxy or favored being of a god. Now, just imagine what
> would happen if a scion could slay an avatar...

An interesting thought, to say the least. However, I would contend with
the fact that any "proxy or favored being of a god" would be blooded. Many
creatures/beings of other worlds hold this distinction, without the
apparent affects that Cerilian Blooded maintain. Therefore, it would seem
that there is some deeper tie that marks the Cerilian Blooded from just a
revered servant. Now, as I don't have the rule books here with me at work,
what would be an interesting thought is what would happen if the weapons
that instill unblooded beings with the essence of the gods if used in
slaying were to be brought to another plane or world and used on even a
demi-god…

> Indeed, the people of Aebyrnis live with a land that bleeds when nature
is
> destroyed, fairly reeling with the agony of every lost tree. They live
in
> a land where demi-gods (for lack of a better term) walk among them and
> rule, and receive a form of worship. Theirs is a world that is torn by
war
> at all times, men agains men to be sure, but then again men against the
> other forces as well. Theirs is a world where the survival of a nation
> depends of swift and hopefully accurate decision making. Ummm.... since
> when was the last time the U.S. did anything swiftly except go to war?

- -rofl- Go to war swiftly? Are you sure you live in the U.S. of A? -grin-

> How does this relate to unblooded regents? I suggest that there never
was
> such a thing before Deismar. All the rulers were of a species that was
> favored by a very active god. Therefore each ruler was blessed by the
> deity of the people, and he thus assumed the role of proxy. Thus only
> those who were truly noble rulers has this power, bestowed directly by a
> god upon rightful succession to the throne. We cannot know if there ever
> were rulers disapproved of by the gods as we have no history of
> pre-Deismar.

Again, I do not agree with your assessment that a proxy or favored servant
is, therefore, blooded. Before Deismar, it would be the hand of the gods
themselves that altered the land, or instilled awe amongst the masses.
Perhaps using the "regent" as a focal point, perhaps not. While priests
and regents of other worlds can certainly be powerful and influential
being, and while they may hold some favor with the gods, their powers wax
and wane with the changing of the tides. Should a FR regent fall out of
favor, he or she would be unable to call upon a reservoir of their own
power to mold the land or mystically affect the masses. They would have to
rely upon simple action. This is how it would have been for the Regents
Pre-Deismar. They would be people of power and influence, but tangibly.
And so it would also be with the post-Deismar unblooded rulers. They would
be creatures of passion and might based on their own merits, not the
essence of gods. Should their be some Kobold Warchief who conquers much of
the world with the blessing of some beastly god, it would be at that gods
whim, not for some reserve of power the kobold itself can call upon. And
should that god lose its power, or find no more reason to favor the
warchief, woe be it for that creature. Of course, I don't see some Kobold
God rising to power with the ability to lead its masses to global victory,
but that's only my own view on the possibility.

At any rate, good letter and looking forward to your next spiel.

Bret