Loyalties

[Eric Dunn]

A fellow PBeM DM and I were having a conversation about law holdings and
their affect on taxation, as well as how loyalty is changed.

I wondered if anyone else drew similar conclusions--

The point is this: Page 47 of the "Rulebook" states that "At the end of
the domain turn, each ruler adjusts the loyalty grade of his provinces as
indicated: -1 grade if severe taxes were collected."

It goes on to give the other affects.

Under "Law Holdings and Loyalty" it states "A regent who holds his lands in
an iron grip can tolerate some discontent. Law holdings control changes in
loyalty as follows:

A regent who controls all available law holdings in a province can ignore
two grades of change in loyalty there."

Again, it goes on to say the various states of loyalty that can be ignored,
etc.

Why do I bring this up? Well, we realized that it is a common misconception
that people feel that if they have all the law holdings, loyalty isn't
affected AT ALL.

Such is not the case. If you tax a province severely, that does not mean
that you maintain high loyalty ratings--it just means that if you control
all the law, that people may dislike your taxes, but since they fear
retribution, it takes extreme measures to actually cause a rebellion.

Case example: I rule up my law in Caercas/Roesone(4/1) to 4. I now tax
severely. My loyalty which was average, now drops to poor. The next
season, I repeat the action. My loyalty is now rebellious, but since I
hold all the law, no rebellion ensues, since I can ignore two grades of
loyatly change. Several more turns go by, and I continue to squeeze my
people for all their worth, yet, nothing happens, as I hold them in an iron
grip. Finally, I decide it's time rule my province up, as I'm rolling in
"Positive Cash Flow." I succeed. Well, now I have a problem, since my
capitol province is now in Rebellion, and I collect no regency for that
province, action costs are doubled, and the next action round in the next
turn, the province raises 5 levies, and I have a civil war on my hands.

The point I'm trying to clarify is that law holdings do not mean loyalty
changes DON'T happen, it just means for the time being, they can be ignored.

E

[Memnoch]

Actually, this is almost the exact opposite of how I interpret the ruling.
Using your example of Caercas, this is how that I read it:

Law 4 in a 4 province is 100% of the law... taxing the populace severely
causes a -1 step in loyalty... If nothing else happens that has an effect on
the loyalty of a province, your beginning loyalty is average, and also, the
ending loyalty is average as well...
Now, say for example that you tax severely (-1 loyalty, and ignore a random
event that results in a -1 to loyalty as well... at the end of the DT your
loyalty would be average still... If on the next domain turn you tax
severely and ignore a random event that results in a -1 loyalty modifier and
IHH successfully agitates, which is a cumulative -3 modifier to loyalty for
the domain turn, your loyalty drops from average to poor.... If IHH's
agitation would result in a -2 modifier to loyalty by rolling 10 more than
the final modified success number, you would drop from average straight into
rebellion due to the total accumulated -4 loyalty modifiers applied during
the domain turn, of which you can only ignore 2.... resulting in a total
(after adjustments) change in loyalty of -2... average to rebellion....

That is how IMO the loyalty modifiers and law holdings should affect the
final loyalty of the province....


Memnoch
- -----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dunn
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Monday, March 23, 1998 9:22 AM
Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Loyalties


>A fellow PBeM DM and I were having a conversation about law holdings and
>their affect on taxation, as well as how loyalty is changed.
>
>I wondered if anyone else drew similar conclusions--
>
>The point is this: Page 47 of the "Rulebook" states that "At the end of
>the domain turn, each ruler adjusts the loyalty grade of his provinces as
>indicated: -1 grade if severe taxes were collected."
>
>It goes on to give the other affects.
>
>Under "Law Holdings and Loyalty" it states "A regent who holds his lands in
>an iron grip can tolerate some discontent. Law holdings control changes in
>loyalty as follows:
>
>A regent who controls all available law holdings in a province can ignore
>two grades of change in loyalty there."
>
>Again, it goes on to say the various states of loyalty that can be ignored,
>etc.
>
>Why do I bring this up? Well, we realized that it is a common misconception
>that people feel that if they have all the law holdings, loyalty isn't
>affected AT ALL.
>
>Such is not the case. If you tax a province severely, that does not mean
>that you maintain high loyalty ratings--it just means that if you control
>all the law, that people may dislike your taxes, but since they fear
>retribution, it takes extreme measures to actually cause a rebellion.
>
>Case example: I rule up my law in Caercas/Roesone(4/1) to 4. I now tax
>severely. My loyalty which was average, now drops to poor. The next
>season, I repeat the action. My loyalty is now rebellious, but since I
>hold all the law, no rebellion ensues, since I can ignore two grades of
>loyatly change. Several more turns go by, and I continue to squeeze my
>people for all their worth, yet, nothing happens, as I hold them in an iron
>grip. Finally, I decide it's time rule my province up, as I'm rolling in
>"Positive Cash Flow." I succeed. Well, now I have a problem, since my
>capitol province is now in Rebellion, and I collect no regency for that
>province, action costs are doubled, and the next action round in the next
>turn, the province raises 5 levies, and I have a civil war on my hands.
>
>The point I'm trying to clarify is that law holdings do not mean loyalty
>changes DON'T happen, it just means for the time being, they can be
ignored.
>
>E
>
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

- ----- Begin Included Message -----

Actually, this is almost the exact opposite of how I interpret the ruling.
Using your example of Caercas, this is how that I read it:

Law 4 in a 4 province is 100% of the law... taxing the populace severely
causes a -1 step in loyalty... If nothing else happens that has an effect on
the loyalty of a province, your beginning loyalty is average, and also, the
ending loyalty is average as well...
Now, say for example that you tax severely (-1 loyalty, and ignore a random
event that results in a -1 to loyalty as well... at the end of the DT your
loyalty would be average still... If on the next domain turn you tax
severely and ignore a random event that results in a -1 loyalty modifier and
IHH successfully agitates, which is a cumulative -3 modifier to loyalty for
the domain turn, your loyalty drops from average to poor.... If IHH's
agitation would result in a -2 modifier to loyalty by rolling 10 more than
the final modified success number, you would drop from average straight into
rebellion due to the total accumulated -4 loyalty modifiers applied during
the domain turn, of which you can only ignore 2.... resulting in a total
(after adjustments) change in loyalty of -2... average to rebellion....

That is how IMO the loyalty modifiers and law holdings should affect the
final loyalty of the province....


Memnoch
- -----Original Message-----

>A fellow PBeM DM and I were having a conversation about law holdings and
>their affect on taxation, as well as how loyalty is changed.
>
>I wondered if anyone else drew similar conclusions--
>
>The point is this: Page 47 of the "Rulebook" states that "At the end of
>the domain turn, each ruler adjusts the loyalty grade of his provinces as
>indicated: -1 grade if severe taxes were collected."
>
>It goes on to give the other affects.
>
>Under "Law Holdings and Loyalty" it states "A regent who holds his lands in
>an iron grip can tolerate some discontent. Law holdings control changes in
>loyalty as follows:
>
>A regent who controls all available law holdings in a province can ignore
>two grades of change in loyalty there."
>
>Again, it goes on to say the various states of loyalty that can be ignored,
>etc.
>
>Why do I bring this up? Well, we realized that it is a common misconception
>that people feel that if they have all the law holdings, loyalty isn't
>affected AT ALL.
>
>Such is not the case. If you tax a province severely, that does not mean
>that you maintain high loyalty ratings--it just means that if you control
>all the law, that people may dislike your taxes, but since they fear
>retribution, it takes extreme measures to actually cause a rebellion.
>
>Case example: I rule up my law in Caercas/Roesone(4/1) to 4. I now tax
>severely. My loyalty which was average, now drops to poor. The next
>season, I repeat the action. My loyalty is now rebellious, but since I
>hold all the law, no rebellion ensues, since I can ignore two grades of
>loyatly change. Several more turns go by, and I continue to squeeze my
>people for all their worth, yet, nothing happens, as I hold them in an iron
>grip. Finally, I decide it's time rule my province up, as I'm rolling in
>"Positive Cash Flow." I succeed. Well, now I have a problem, since my
>capitol province is now in Rebellion, and I collect no regency for that
>province, action costs are doubled, and the next action round in the next
>turn, the province raises 5 levies, and I have a civil war on my hands.
>
>The point I'm trying to clarify is that law holdings do not mean loyalty
>changes DON'T happen, it just means for the time being, they can be
ignored.
>
- ----- End Included Message -----
At the risk of being a "me too" post, I just wanted to say that I agree 100%
with Memnoch's rule interpretation. Mostly my players hold only 1/2 the law
"hey it's enough for severe taxes". I'd like to give them the rude shock of a
double agitation or agitation & random event combo on of these days. They
seem to realise the importance of not POing Priest regents though.

Those darn cagey players.

Randax

[Eric Dunn]

At 03:21 PM 3/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Actually, this is almost the exact opposite of how I interpret the ruling.
>Using your example of Caercas, this is how that I read it:
>
>Law 4 in a 4 province is 100% of the law... taxing the populace severely
>causes a -1 step in loyalty... If nothing else happens that has an effect on
>the loyalty of a province, your beginning loyalty is average, and also, the
>ending loyalty is average as well...
>Now, say for example that you tax severely (-1 loyalty, and ignore a random
>event that results in a -1 to loyalty as well... at the end of the DT your
>loyalty would be average still... If on the next domain turn you tax
>severely and ignore a random event that results in a -1 loyalty modifier and
>IHH successfully agitates, which is a cumulative -3 modifier to loyalty for
>the domain turn, your loyalty drops from average to poor.... If IHH's
>agitation would result in a -2 modifier to loyalty by rolling 10 more than
>the final modified success number, you would drop from average straight into
>rebellion due to the total accumulated -4 loyalty modifiers applied during
>the domain turn, of which you can only ignore 2.... resulting in a total
>(after adjustments) change in loyalty of -2... average to rebellion....

The only problem is this--the rule states the changes in loyalty happen.
Period. Section "10. Adjust Loyalty and Regency"--it states clearly "-1
grade if severe taxes were collected." It further goes on to state "A
regent who controls all available law holdings in a province can ignore two
grades of change in loyalty there."

The operative words here are IGNORE and CHANGE. In other words, it's
assuming you CHANGE the loyalty, and the change can be IGNORED, not ERASED.
The changes still happen. They just don't affect you..yet.

The above mentioned example means that, for someone who controls 100% of
the law, it's darn near impossible to get that province in rebellion,
regardless of how much you tax. Such is just NOT the case. The rules were
designed to prevent unlimited severe taxation.

I can see in one respect, how you could intrepret it that way, since
"ignoring the change" can imply that you completely disregard, or discard
it. I think they had trouble trying to phrase that paragraph properly.
Under one segment the "Rulebook" mentions "...can ignore two grades of
change...", then a sentence later they write, "...ignore one grade of
change..." and then two sentences later they write, "..any grades of
loyalty change..", "..two losses in grade..", and "..-1 loss of loyalty."
How exactly do you refer to the "change", "grade" and "loyalty" in an
understandable manner?

I thought about it, and it is rather difficult. Let me explain...there is
indeed a change in loyalty happening--but if you are to disregard it
completely, as you suggest, how would you phrase it? Wouldn't it be easier
to say "A regent who controls all available law holdings is not subject to
up to two (2) degradations in loyalty grades." Yet, they chose the word
"ignore".

Finally, as I said, it just doesn't make sense. If you tax severely,
whatever that amounts to..say 60%, from your population, don't you think
they'd get a little peeved after three months of this? What about after a
year? Do you really think it would take a miraculous agitate to cause them
to go into rebellion? As I read it in the rules, your law holdings keep a
powder keg of a province under wraps. The second you are contested or have
your province ruled up, where population begins to outweigh available law,
then that powder keg explodes, and you have rebellion on your hands.

Under your interpretation, because you control the law in your provinces,
then somehow the fact that you are taxing severely becomes more palatable
to the populace...how does that work? Because I see more troops at my
door, I appreciate the fact that I have to pay more taxes? Little Johnny
can't get the G.I. Joe with the Kung Fu Grip, but it's okay, since I have 3
tax collectors instead of 1. :)

E

[Memnoch]

Let me say first that I agreed with you at one time. And I also made up a
rule format that reflects this (essentially it had up to two sub-grades of
loyalty if the ruler had all the law, one sub-grade if the ruler had more
than 50% of the law and as it states in the rulebook with the four loyalty
grades. Then I posed the question to Ed Stark and Carrie Bebris and I was
corrected. Essentially, the word "ignore" as I understand it is essentially
a modifier to the loyalty that negates up to two negative modifiers that
apply, so in essence, due to the fear factor of the law holding, the general
populace will remain at an average loyalty until some outside force prompts
them to drop "if" and only "if" severe taxes is the only thing that affects
the loyalty grade in a province. Remember, that all it takes is more than 2
negative adjustments to loyalty to have that factor nullified. A Priest
regent of the domain can do up to 4 agitates in a domain turn, which is
extremely powerful considering that a tyrant is already 1 in the hole when
it comes to loyalty adjustments all it would take for the whole domain to go
into rebellion would be 3 successful agitate actions (and if they are really
successful (i.e. 10 above the needed score for the success number) they
would go from High loyalty straight into rebellion extremely quickly.

Memnoch
- -----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dunn
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Monday, March 23, 1998 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Loyalties


>At 03:21 PM 3/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>Actually, this is almost the exact opposite of how I interpret the ruling.
>>Using your example of Caercas, this is how that I read it:
>>
>>Law 4 in a 4 province is 100% of the law... taxing the populace severely
>>causes a -1 step in loyalty... If nothing else happens that has an effect
on
>>the loyalty of a province, your beginning loyalty is average, and also,
the
>>ending loyalty is average as well...
>>Now, say for example that you tax severely (-1 loyalty, and ignore a
random
>>event that results in a -1 to loyalty as well... at the end of the DT your
>>loyalty would be average still... If on the next domain turn you tax
>>severely and ignore a random event that results in a -1 loyalty modifier
and
>>IHH successfully agitates, which is a cumulative -3 modifier to loyalty
for
>>the domain turn, your loyalty drops from average to poor.... If IHH's
>>agitation would result in a -2 modifier to loyalty by rolling 10 more than
>>the final modified success number, you would drop from average straight
into
>>rebellion due to the total accumulated -4 loyalty modifiers applied during
>>the domain turn, of which you can only ignore 2.... resulting in a total
>>(after adjustments) change in loyalty of -2... average to rebellion....
>
>The only problem is this--the rule states the changes in loyalty happen.
>Period. Section "10. Adjust Loyalty and Regency"--it states clearly "-1
>grade if severe taxes were collected." It further goes on to state "A
>regent who controls all available law holdings in a province can ignore two
>grades of change in loyalty there."
>
>The operative words here are IGNORE and CHANGE. In other words, it's
>assuming you CHANGE the loyalty, and the change can be IGNORED, not ERASED.
> The changes still happen. They just don't affect you..yet.
>
>The above mentioned example means that, for someone who controls 100% of
>the law, it's darn near impossible to get that province in rebellion,
>regardless of how much you tax. Such is just NOT the case. The rules were
>designed to prevent unlimited severe taxation.
>
>I can see in one respect, how you could intrepret it that way, since
>"ignoring the change" can imply that you completely disregard, or discard
>it. I think they had trouble trying to phrase that paragraph properly.
>Under one segment the "Rulebook" mentions "...can ignore two grades of
>change...", then a sentence later they write, "...ignore one grade of
>change..." and then two sentences later they write, "..any grades of
>loyalty change..", "..two losses in grade..", and "..-1 loss of loyalty."
>How exactly do you refer to the "change", "grade" and "loyalty" in an
>understandable manner?
>
>I thought about it, and it is rather difficult. Let me explain...there is
>indeed a change in loyalty happening--but if you are to disregard it
>completely, as you suggest, how would you phrase it? Wouldn't it be easier
>to say "A regent who controls all available law holdings is not subject to
>up to two (2) degradations in loyalty grades." Yet, they chose the word
>"ignore".
>
>Finally, as I said, it just doesn't make sense. If you tax severely,
>whatever that amounts to..say 60%, from your population, don't you think
>they'd get a little peeved after three months of this? What about after a
>year? Do you really think it would take a miraculous agitate to cause them
>to go into rebellion? As I read it in the rules, your law holdings keep a
>powder keg of a province under wraps. The second you are contested or have
>your province ruled up, where population begins to outweigh available law,
>then that powder keg explodes, and you have rebellion on your hands.
>
>Under your interpretation, because you control the law in your provinces,
>then somehow the fact that you are taxing severely becomes more palatable
>to the populace...how does that work? Because I see more troops at my
>door, I appreciate the fact that I have to pay more taxes? Little Johnny
>can't get the G.I. Joe with the Kung Fu Grip, but it's okay, since I have 3
>tax collectors instead of 1. :)
>
>E
>
>
>
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[Shade]

At 03:21 PM 3/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Actually, this is almost the exact opposite of how I interpret the ruling.
>Using your example of Caercas, this is how that I read it:
>
>Law 4 in a 4 province is 100% of the law... taxing the populace severely
>causes a -1 step in loyalty... If nothing else happens that has an effect on
>the loyalty of a province, your beginning loyalty is average, and also, the
>ending loyalty is average as well...
>Now, say for example that you tax severely (-1 loyalty, and ignore a random
>event that results in a -1 to loyalty as well... at the end of the DT your
>loyalty would be average still... If on the next domain turn you tax
>severely and ignore a random event that results in a -1 loyalty modifier and
>IHH successfully agitates, which is a cumulative -3 modifier to loyalty for
>the domain turn, your loyalty drops from average to poor.... If IHH's
>agitation would result in a -2 modifier to loyalty by rolling 10 more than
>the final modified success number, you would drop from average straight into
>rebellion due to the total accumulated -4 loyalty modifiers applied during
>the domain turn, of which you can only ignore 2.... resulting in a total
>(after adjustments) change in loyalty of -2... average to rebellion....
>
>That is how IMO the loyalty modifiers and law holdings should affect the
>final loyalty of the province....

I also interpret law holdings and loyalty this way. If the loyalty actually
changes, then its full effects are felt. But you can ignore up to -2 with full
law... in provinces where you have no law, you can only tax lightly and hope
that nothing bad happens.

[DKEvermore]

In a message dated 98-03-23 11:40:20 EST, you write:

> Excellent: I think you're right. I had always read it the "wrong" way,
> too, but this is much more realistic (though in some situations, war,
> crisis, I.E. stuff that has to be Role Played [you remember.], people may
> tolerate Severe Taxation (and other impositions they normally wouldn't
> tolerate) without a change in Loyalty.
>
> > > Eric Dunn Wrote:
> > > The point I'm trying to clarify is that law holdings do not mean
> loyalty
>


I, too, think this is a great interpretation. After all if provincial regents
really need more cash, they should down-size that army! Most don't really.

NPCs, on the other hand are often in position where they DO need/want to
squeeze the last gold out of their populace. In these cases, I have their
priest regent flunkies spending their time running about and telling everyone
how great their leader is, and how terrible it is that the evil (insert PC
domain) forces our beloved leader to raise taxes to defend their children
(many Agitations).

Hehe, I learned stuff from nasty old Saddam that the players maybe don't want
me to learn.

Anyway, this is an easy solution for DMs like me who have noticed that the
"bad guy" domains don't seem to make quite enough to be much of a
threat/challenge for the PCs.

I'd also note that doing the above mentioned actions are probably evil acts or
at least a chaotic neutral act. Up to your DM, though.

- -DKE

[Eric Dunn]

At 10:43 PM 3/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Let me say first that I agreed with you at one time. And I also made up a
>rule format that reflects this (essentially it had up to two sub-grades of
>loyalty if the ruler had all the law, one sub-grade if the ruler had more
>than 50% of the law and as it states in the rulebook with the four loyalty
>grades. Then I posed the question to Ed Stark and Carrie Bebris and I was
>corrected. Essentially, the word "ignore" as I understand it is essentially
>a modifier to the loyalty that negates up to two negative modifiers that
>apply, so in essence, due to the fear factor of the law holding, the general
>populace will remain at an average loyalty until some outside force prompts
>them to drop "if" and only "if" severe taxes is the only thing that affects
>the loyalty grade in a province. Remember, that all it takes is more than 2
>negative adjustments to loyalty to have that factor nullified. A Priest
>regent of the domain can do up to 4 agitates in a domain turn, which is
>extremely powerful considering that a tyrant is already 1 in the hole when
>it comes to loyalty adjustments all it would take for the whole domain to go
>into rebellion would be 3 successful agitate actions (and if they are really
>successful (i.e. 10 above the needed score for the success number) they
>would go from High loyalty straight into rebellion extremely quickly.
>
>Memnoch

In actuallity, the book never states the word "negative" at all. So by
your's (and apparently Ed and Carrie's) logic, you would be foolish to take
a turn where you DON'T tax at all, since you'd ignore that change in
loyalty grade also. What's the point? You may as well tax severely,
irregardless of logic or any kind of real ramifications, because the rules
allow it.

I just find it hard to believe that the writers of this book assumed that
because you hold the law, and the country in an iron grip, the opinions of
your people don't change? How can you control the minds of your citizens?
I agree that agitates can go a long way to do that, but LAW? That I just
don't see.

E

[Eric Dunn]

>In actuallity, the book never states the word "negative" at all. So by
>your's (and apparently Ed and Carrie's) logic, you would be foolish to take
>a turn where you DON'T tax at all, since you'd ignore that change in
>loyalty grade also. What's the point? You may as well tax severely,
>irregardless of logic or any kind of real ramifications, because the rules
>allow it.

DOH, to clarify, You'd not take a POSITIVE change either.



>I just find it hard to believe that the writers of this book assumed that
>because you hold the law, and the country in an iron grip, the opinions of
>your people don't change? How can you control the minds of your citizens?
>I agree that agitates can go a long way to do that, but LAW? That I just
>don't see.

And I do realize that Ed and Carrie didn't actually write that segment,
rather it was Rich and Colin.

E

[Brian Stoner]

I must admit, though it pains me to do so, that I am confused about the
differences between the two interpretations of how controlling all the law
holdings allows one to ignore a 2 grade drop in loyalty, particularly in the case
of severe taxation. Clearly, those of you discussing it see the differences. So,
if someone could be nice enough to explain them, I would be grateful. I have
always felt uneasy about the wording of that section of the rulebook, but I did
not know why.

I have interpreted it thus: When all the law holdings are held, a 2 grade drop in
loyalty could be ignored. That is, if the grade is average (for example) it would
stay at average despite any combination of factors that would normally drop it by
2 grades (to rebellion). If another factor drops it by an additional grade, it
would drop to poor, and so on. Obviously, if an action is taken so that the
regent no longer controls all the law, the ability to ignore these events would
cease. I believe this has been the common interpretation.

Is the alternate interpretation that under these circumstances loyalty would
indeed drop to "rebellion", but that a rebellion would not actually occur due to
the strength of the law? If so, what is the difference in the end result? Both
interpretations seem to result in the same situation: one more -1 to loyalty
grade will certainly lead to rebellion and anything to weaken the law will lead to
rebellion.

Again, if someone could explain the interpretations and their differences to me, I
would be grateful.

Brian

[Memnoch]

The distinction, I think, of the two different ways of interpreting the
Loyalty adjustment rules is that with the Province regent ignoring the
effects of the loyalty adjustment and the province loyalty staying the same
is quite different in the event of losing the law holding after the
adjustments that are made. In "Type 1" (the one that I am advocating), the
loyalty of the province stays the same as long as the negative adjustment is
less than or equal to the amount of negative adjustment being ignored.
Whereas in "Type 2" the province loyalty actually drops, but the end results
are "ignored." That is, in the case of Severe taxation and ignoring a
random event, the loyalty of the province actually drops to rebellion, but
the province cannot rebel due to the 100% lock on the law. If this is
incorrect in my interpretation please let me know.

The only problem with Type 2 loyalty interpretation is that, granted the
province cannot raise levies and fully rebel, but what about the "other"
effects of rebellion, the doubling of the cost of actions performed in the
province, etc. What happens in this case, can this be ignored as well, due
to the 100% of the law holdings being held? Just a question that needs to
be answered

Come to think of it, from a programming standpoint, Type 2 is much harder to
implement logically.... the province is in rebellion but it actually can't
rebel, etc. Granted Type 1 is no walk in the hay either, but I'm kinda
getting off the subject.

Memnoch

- -----Original Message-----
From: Brian Stoner
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Loyalties


>I must admit, though it pains me to do so, that I am confused about the
>differences between the two interpretations of how controlling all the law
>holdings allows one to ignore a 2 grade drop in loyalty, particularly in
the case
>of severe taxation. Clearly, those of you discussing it see the
differences. So,
>if someone could be nice enough to explain them, I would be grateful. I
have
>always felt uneasy about the wording of that section of the rulebook, but I
did
>not know why.
>
>I have interpreted it thus: When all the law holdings are held, a 2 grade
drop in
>loyalty could be ignored. That is, if the grade is average (for example)
it would
>stay at average despite any combination of factors that would normally drop
it by
>2 grades (to rebellion). If another factor drops it by an additional
grade, it
>would drop to poor, and so on. Obviously, if an action is taken so that
the
>regent no longer controls all the law, the ability to ignore these events
would
>cease. I believe this has been the common interpretation.
>
>Is the alternate interpretation that under these circumstances loyalty
would
>indeed drop to "rebellion", but that a rebellion would not actually occur
due to
>the strength of the law? If so, what is the difference in the end result?
Both
>interpretations seem to result in the same situation: one more -1 to
loyalty
>grade will certainly lead to rebellion and anything to weaken the law will
lead to
>rebellion.
>
>Again, if someone could explain the interpretations and their differences
to me, I
>would be grateful.
>
>Brian
>
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[Eric Dunn]

>I have interpreted it thus: When all the law holdings are held, a 2 grade
drop in
>loyalty could be ignored. That is, if the grade is average (for example)
it would
>stay at average despite any combination of factors that would normally
drop it by
>2 grades (to rebellion). If another factor drops it by an additional
grade, it
>would drop to poor, and so on. Obviously, if an action is taken so that the
>regent no longer controls all the law, the ability to ignore these events
would
>cease. I believe this has been the common interpretation.
>
>Is the alternate interpretation that under these circumstances loyalty would
>indeed drop to "rebellion", but that a rebellion would not actually occur
due to
>the strength of the law? If so, what is the difference in the end result?
Both
>interpretations seem to result in the same situation: one more -1 to loyalty
>grade will certainly lead to rebellion and anything to weaken the law will
lead to
>rebellion.
>
>Again, if someone could explain the interpretations and their differences
to me, I
>would be grateful.
>
>Brian
>

You have hit it on the head, actually. And yes, in most cases, it would
result in the similar results really. The difference is, in my
interpretation, since the loyalties do actually exist at a lower level, the
chances of outside interference is actually greater...I.e. someone can
contest a law holding, you could make a house rule that a province that is
at rebellion level is invaded, then is at a High level when occupied, a
province raise, without a corresponding law level raise could result in a
rebellion (as population expands, the iron grip is "loosened" and rebellion
rears its ugly head), if a priest DOES agitate, then it does lower the
province loyalty (or raise it), and it's not ignored.

I can see how it can be interpreted either way (Like Memnoch), I just don't
see the logic the other way, at all.


Let me give you a few historical examples.

How often has revolution been successful in Russia, in recent memory?
Well, it was in 1917, and you can see discontent in the people, a loosening
of the law (due to war), and finally rebellion. Even with the law in
place, before WWI, the opinions of the populace were still poor to
rebellious, they just couldn't do anything about it. During Stalin's
purges later on, you still saw a populace that had extremely poor loyalty,
yet, still they could do nothing since the law was so high. Does that mean
the actual loyalty was average? Don't think so. Who wanted to live in fear
of their life?

Another example--The American Revolution. As taxes increased, loyalty
decreased, despite high law levels. Eventually, as population expanded,
and "random events occcured", and new "law holdings" (Va's House of
Bugesses, Sam Adams, etc etc) were created, they owned less of the law, and
since the current status was rebellion, it occurred.

Oh, and I just read Memnoch's post...and I agree, with 100% lock on the
law, it is harder for a rebellion to occur, and such actually was the case
in many historical examples-- East Germany, Soviet Russia, Midieval Japan,
etc etc. If you hold all the law, you don't have to be as sensitive to the
peoples needs--but on the other hand, you don't control their opinions of
your actions.

E

[rad smith]

in an attempt to bring a measure of intellectual rigour to the
proceedings..

(shit, i've gone into scientist mode. oh well.)

there are two ways to look at this issue. either;
1) it is a matter of interpretation of the rules.
2) which game mechanic is better.

(or more baldly: letter or spirit of the law)

in case 1) the argument is fundamentally semantic. although i don't have
the book with me (my phd supervisor might look askance at me if i started
bringing roleplying books into the lab) i understand that the contentious
phrase is "the change in loyalty can be ignored".
as written, this phrase is ambiguous; it can be taken to mean "the change
of loyalty does not occur" or "the *effects* of the change in loyalty can
be ignored".
in general the only way semantic arguments can be resolved is to ask the
person who wrote the statement. until the game designer in question (i
don't know who did what, so..) answers there's not much point arguing
about it.

case 2) is largely aesthetic. and as with all aesthetic choices, it's
subjective. there are arguments that you can make for either case (which
i'm not going to rehearse here) but in the end the DM concerned has to
decide.

**the point i'm going to make here is that neither answer is objectively
correct.**

and let's face it, to publish an system with no ambiguities or game
imbalances would require inhuman perfection (considering i'm trying to
write my own rpg ATM) it's a credit to the BR designers that there are so
few.

- --
rad

i consider myself to be one of england's finest liars.
-- blackadder II

[rad smith]

On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Eric Dunn wrote:

> Let me give you a few historical examples.
>
> How often has revolution been successful in Russia, in recent memory?
> Well, it was in 1917, and you can see discontent in the people, a loosening
> of the law (due to war), and finally rebellion. Even with the law in
> place, before WWI, the opinions of the populace were still poor to
> rebellious, they just couldn't do anything about it. During Stalin's
> purges later on, you still saw a populace that had extremely poor loyalty,
> yet, still they could do nothing since the law was so high. Does that mean
> the actual loyalty was average? Don't think so. Who wanted to live in fear
> of their life?

there are two factors here; historical accuracy and game balance.

i agree that the interpretation you advocate is more historically
accurate, however that does not necessarily mean that it is a better game
mechanic.


- --
rad

i consider myself to be one of england's finest liars.
-- blackadder II