Loss of Regency

[Kenneth Gauck]

P. 32 in the definition of Regency: "It's a blend of nobility, honor, and
kismet that a true king wears like an invisible crown. If a character rules
well and exemplifies his alignment, his regency is strong. If a king rules
poorly, his regency weakens."

p. 37 " Regency may dissapate at the end of a turn if a ruler violates the
tenants of his alignment. Regents must be careful to act in accordance with
their beliefs."

>He may face rebellions, intrigues, coup attempts, etc. which could
influence his
>future RP collection, but they would have no influence on his already
existing pool
>of regency.

Your sentence above is directly contradicted by the section "Losses of
Regency" on p. 48. Rather than quoting the lengthy discussion, I will
mention only the earlier clause, "If a character rules well and exemplifies
his alignment, his regency is strong."

P. 41 "If a priest neglects a festival he suffers a major regency loss
during the adjustment phase."
"A regent who ignores [a feud] event suffers a minor loss of
regency."
"Theif regents suffer a major loss of regency during the
adjustment phase every turn until the successfully respond [in the event of
a trade matter].

Regency is political capital in a divine right system.

Kenneth Gauck]
c558382@earthlink.net

- -----Original Message-----
From: Gary V. Foss
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Sunday, November 01, 1998 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Is this too real, or could this be fun ?


>Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
>> A noble's authority (read RP's) rests on his reputation as worthy.
Unworthy
>> behavior has a
>> price.
>
>One last note on this (already tiresome) topic. RPs in BR are not actually
>based on a ruler's reputation for worthiness. They come from a regent's
>mystical tie to the land that started with the cataclysmic battle at
Deismaar
>when the gods infused both the earth and the people at the battle with
their
>divine essence. A regent could be a total schmuck and still collect
regency in
>Birthright. He may face rebellions, intrigues, coup attempts, etc. which
could
>influence his future RP collection, but they would have no influence on his
>already existing pool of regency.
>
>Gary

[Gary V. Foss]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> P. 32 in the definition of Regency: "It's a blend of nobility, honor, and
> kismet that a true king wears like an invisible crown. If a character rules
> well and exemplifies his alignment, his regency is strong. If a king rules
> poorly, his regency weakens."
>
> p. 37 " Regency may dissapate at the end of a turn if a ruler violates the
> tenants of his alignment. Regents must be careful to act in accordance with
> their beliefs."
>
> >He may face rebellions, intrigues, coup attempts, etc. which could
> influence his
> >future RP collection, but they would have no influence on his already
> existing pool
> >of regency.
>
> Your sentence above is directly contradicted by the section "Losses of
> Regency" on p. 48. Rather than quoting the lengthy discussion, I will
> mention only the earlier clause, "If a character rules well and exemplifies
> his alignment, his regency is strong."

You're quite right that a character can lose his regency for the reasons noted,
but I don't think you're right about my statement contradicting that section.
In my statement you'll notice a complete lack of the world "alignment" that
figures so prominently in the quotes you've taken from the Rulebook. My full
statement was:

"A regent could be a total schmuck and still collect regency in Birthright. He
may face rebellions, intrigues, coup attempts, etc. which could influence his
future RP collection, but they would have no influence on his already existing
pool of regency."

Perhaps I should have used a stronger word than "schmuck" to make my point, but
it's a family channel, so I opted not to say "bastard" or anything more apt. In
any case, your original argument was that a ruler must abide by the tenets of
chivalry or he would "face consequences" like the loss of RPs. My argument is
that an evil or chaotic regent would not abide by the tenets of chivalry. If he
did, he may very well be subject to the exact kinds of regency loss covered in
the section of the Rulebook you quote because playing by the rules would be
against his alignment.

The baron of Ghoere and the usurper of Osoerde are perfect examples of what I am
talking about. If someone playing Ghoere disbanded his army and began utilizing
forthright and honest diplomatic methods in order to foster peace and amity
throughout Anuire, he would be in violation of his alignment, and could
potentially lose regency. If Jaison Raenech were to throw down his sword and
embrace William Moergan as a joint ruler, he would be in danger of violating his
alignment too. Ghoere is a backstabbing, lying, ignoble social climber who
would sell his mother to get closer to the Iron Throne. Yet he collects
regency. Raenech faces an open rebellion in his land (rather, the realm that he
has unjustly and unchivalrously usurped) but that doesn't prevent him from
collecting and building up regency either.

The guilds in many realms plot to maintain and enlarge their holdings behind the
backs of their lawful rulers. They engage in smuggling and sell illicit goods.
Would these guilders lose regency for behaving ignobly? Temples to Sera in
Brechtur operate guilds and use intimidation to maintain their authority, and
they collect regency. The temples of Kriesha and Belinik would scoff at
chivalry, and they still collect regency. The king of Thurazor is suspected to
have killed his predecessor and all his heirs and it is BECAUSE of that
reputation he is accorded "the respect due to a true king."

> P. 41 "If a priest neglects a festival he suffers a major regency loss
> during the adjustment phase."
> "A regent who ignores [a feud] event suffers a minor loss of
> regency."
> "Theif regents suffer a major loss of regency during the
> adjustment phase every turn until the successfully respond [in the event of
> a trade matter].
>
> Regency is political capital in a divine right system.

Regency has to be more than just political capital. If it were only political
capital then why would a bloodline be required in order to collect it?
Shouldn't a high level, unblooded character be able to collect regency if it is
merely the political capital owed a ruler?

In describing the difference between political capital and RPs I've used the
analogy of "favors" in the past. If you've ever helped someone move you know
that favors have a shelf life. Six months appears to be the grace period that
helping someone move is good for. People will return the favor and help you
move if you've helped them move within that time. After that, for some reason,
they figure they don't owe you anymore. Oh, they might help you move, but
they'll give themselves a six month period in which they figure you now owe
them.

Regency isn't like that. It has no shelf life. It could potentially last as
long as the regent is alive. In fact, longer because he can hand it down to his
heirs. Besides, if regency is just favors and political capital, how does it
influence domain actions? One could rationalize that favors help many realm
actions, but if someone were to forge a ley line, for instance, calling in
favors wouldn't seem to help much. Wizard regents really throw a kink in the
regency=political capital argument. They collect regency based on sources which
are stronger when there are no people around. How are they to collect political
capital from a sylvan forest, a mountain, or a bunch of dragon bones?

Lastly, if regency was political capital alone how could it increase a
bloodline? One cannot raise the amount of divine essence in one's body by
calling favors due. It has to be a tangible magical form of energy that a
blooded character can sense and manipulate in order for him to be able to
internalize it to make their bloodline stronger.

Regency has got to have a magical or psychic aspect to it. In fact, I'd argue
that that psychic aspect is its most significant property. Spending regency
means directing the psychic energy built up by the combined belief, fear,
respect, adoration, greed, worship, hopes or the magical energies that come
directly from the earth (in the case of sources) towards accomplishing a
specific goal. Only blooded characters are able to channel this energy because
only they have the divine essence within them that allows it to be channeled,
transferred and stored.

Gary

[Kenneth Gauck]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Gary V. Foss
Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 12:51 AM
>
> In any case, your original argument was that a ruler must abide by the
tenets of
>chivalry or he would "face consequences" like the loss of RPs.

Reasoning by sylogism:
1) Chivalry is a statement of self-interest (I am refering to the parts
regarding a warrior's conmduct in war, not the courtship of unattainable
women.)
2) Failure to act in the interest of the realm, by for example not ransoming
prisoners, pillaging, or ignoring problems, costs regency.

hence) Getting into a situation where harm is being done to your realm as a
direct consequence of unchivolrous behavior costs you regency.

>My argument is that an evil or chaotic regent would not abide by the tenets
of
>chivalry. If he did, he may very well be subject to the exact kinds of
regency loss
>covered in the section of the Rulebook you quote because playing by the
rules
>would be against his alignment.
>

Chivalry is a code of behavior, therefore all lawful characters would regard
it as a binding code (insomuch as it refers to a warriors combat behavior).
Lawful evil characters would certainly abide by a warriors code. Not out of
a humanitarian commitment to the strong defending the weak, but because laws
can be useful. If we refer to Tim Nuttings exelent critique of Lawfulness
from a Chaotic perspective, we see he says:
>Strict laws and binding orders from social betters provide only the
trappings
>of order, and further, they permit those of evil intent a tool to use, for
laws have
>been, and ever shall be, twisted by evil to suit evil's purpose.
Justifications for
>actions can always be made, and laws can be found to protect the wicked,
while
>their actions remain unpunished.
His character Corrin Tristam has seen Lawful Evil at work.

>The baron of Ghoere and the usurper of Osoerde are perfect examples of what
I am
>talking about. If someone playing Ghoere disbanded his army and began
utilizing
>forthright and honest diplomatic methods in order to foster peace and amity
>throughout Anuire, he would be in violation of his alignment, and could
>potentially lose regency. If Jaison Raenech were to throw down his sword
and
>embrace William Moergan as a joint ruler, he would be in danger of
violating his
>alignment too. Ghoere is a backstabbing, lying, ignoble social climber who
>would sell his mother to get closer to the Iron Throne. Yet he collects
>regency. Raenech faces an open rebellion in his land (rather, the realm
that he
>has unjustly and unchivalrously usurped) but that doesn't prevent him from
>collecting and building up regency either.


Gavin Tael is Lawful Evil. Jaison Raenech is Lawful Evil. Both would uphold
the letter of the law, while leaving observers of the Good alignments to
note that in their hands the law does not protect the weak or render what a
good aligned character would call justice. Nevertheless, procedures are
followed, oaths are kept, and the laws upheld. If the laws fail to protect
life, and insure happiness, if the laws only serve Tael and Raenech, that is
still lawful.

Lets review what the PH says about Lawful Evil:
"These Characters believe in using society and its laws to benifit
themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as
well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant. To
this end, lawful evil characters support laws and societies that protect
their own concerns. If someone is hurt or suffers because of a law that
benifits lawful evil characters, too bad. Lawful evil characters obey laws
out of a fear of punishement [in this case reprisals]. Because they may be
foreced to honor an unfavorable contract or oath they have made, lawful evil
characters are usually very careful about giving their word. Once given,
they break their word only if they can find a way to do it legaly, within
the laws of society. An iron-fisted tyrant and a greedy merchant are
examples of lawful evil beings."
>
>The guilds in many realms plot to maintain and enlarge their holdings
behind the
>backs of their lawful rulers. They engage in smuggling and sell illicit
goods.
>Would these guilders lose regency for behaving ignobly? Temples to Sera in
>Brechtur operate guilds and use intimidation to maintain their authority,
and
>they collect regency. The temples of Kriesha and Belinik would scoff at
>chivalry, and they still collect regency. The king of Thurazor is
suspected to
>have killed his predecessor and all his heirs and it is BECAUSE of that
>reputation he is accorded "the respect due to a true king."
>
Chivalry was not a Christian code, and not the exclusive purvue of paladins.
Everyone used it. Chaotics may not feel bound by it, but they will take
advantage of it when it suits them. It is not about being nice, its about
"do unto others".

>Regency has to be more than just political capital. If it were only
political
>capital then why would a bloodline be required in order to collect it?
>Shouldn't a high level, unblooded character be able to collect regency if
it is
>merely the political capital owed a ruler?
>

Back in the day when Birthright was an active line and staff spent more time
interacting with this list...
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:16, CBebris wrote:
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Birthright: Regency points

In a message dated 98-03-10 00:20:16 EST, you write:

>

Think of it as using one's influence on another's behalf. Real world
examples:

Political candidates stumping for each other
Calling in a favor/pulling strings
Public declaration of support for (or opposition to) a certain
issue/candidate/bill
Product endorsements
Recommendation letters

When Vernon Jordon used his influence to help Monica Lewinsky get a job at
Revlon, he was in effect giving her some of his RP. When Ronald Reagan chose
former opponent George Bush as his running mate, he gained some of Bush's
RP.
When Michael Jordan appears on television in Hanes underwear, the Hanes
corporation receives some of Jordan's RP. (Jordan, in return, receives
plenty
of GB in exchange.)
Revlon, Bush supporters, and underwear consumers all become willing to trust
someone unknown because someone else they *do* trust has used their
influence
on the unknown's behalf.

Does that help clarify how people can exchange something intangible?

Carrie Bebris
- ----------------------end of quote-----------------------------

>In describing the difference between political capital and RPs I've used
the
>analogy of "favors" in the past. If you've ever helped someone move you
know
>that favors have a shelf life.

That's why regents often have to remind others of the many favors (in some
detail) they have done them.

>Wizard regents really throw a kink in the regency=political capital
argument. They >collect regency based on sources which are stronger when
there are no people >around. How are they to collect political capital from
a sylvan forest, a mountain,
>or a bunch of dragon bones?
>

BR was designed based on historical circumstance. As Rich Baker said to me
in a post, "As a historian, you'll probably note that I borrowed a lot of
the inspiration for Birthright from historical sources." Historically the
effects of regency were assumed to exist. Their thinking was more
abastract, but we are playing a game, and points are required to measure one
character's potential, versus another. Nevertheless, whatever we call
regency in terms of its character, it existed in the middle ages, and so
cannot be so divourced from reality that fantastic explanations are
required. Divine right, divine spark, the order established by God, the
order established by the events of Deismir, all fantasy trappings for a
historical situation.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Tim Nutting]

Sometimes I just feel out of my league. :)

Still, I couldn't resist jumping into this one with my own views of regency. I
think both of you guys are right, in a way. Regency is much more than just
political favors and capital, but there is that.

Take the scale up one notch and have a look at the next class of divine rulers,
the Powers. A power, the "new D&D" PC definition of a God, is usually
omniscient and omnipotent within his own carefully defined Realm. When the god
wants something done, it gets done, mostly through force of will and a few
runners and servants.

Drop it back down to the regents, and you will find laced through the books the
idea that the land responds to a regent, much the same way that a power's realm
responds to it. A regent uses this tiny shard of his divine essence to
manipulate events, and change things where he holds power, most of it
unconsciously.

By spending regency on an espionage attempt, a regent is unconsciously
manipulating happenstance and circumstance surrounding the entire chain of
people doing the espionage. Consciously, he order certain people to perform
certain deeds, calls in a few favors, and the like.

This explains why betrayal of one's beliefs affects regency. By betraying his
belief, a regent undermines the power of his unconscious conviction and divine
power. At the same time, when a regent fails to respond to certain events, or
performs other tangible actions that lose regency, his "worshipers", in
actuality his subjects, lose confidence in him. What happens when a power
loses worshipers? The Astral Plane is full of bouncing decaying examples of
the answer.

Tim

[Kenneth Gauck]

Tim, don't be so modest. Your ideas are worth reading.

On Tuesday, November 03, 1998 1:10 AM, Tim Nutting
wrote:
>
>Drop it back down to the regents, and you will find laced through the books
the
>idea that the land responds to a regent, much the same way that a power's
realm
>responds to it.

This idea was current in many pre-modern societies. When Plantagent and
Valois fought over the crown of France, many blamed the Plague, as "the
land's" punishment, to use BR terminology. Poor harvests were blamed on the
actions of the great.

Shakespeare makes it clear that Henry IV and Richard III (usurpers both)
were never seccure in their thrones because they could never achive what the
Chinese called "the mandate of heaven". Both seem to suffer from shortages
of Regency, unable to deal with the challenges to their holdings. Henry IV
was able enough to hold things together long enough for his son Henry V to
succede him legitimatly. Henry V is still nervous about how his father too
the throne, but Shakespeare never questions his legitimacy, and Henry is
allowed to exploit all the powers of his birthright, including (or so it
would seem) the Battlewise blood ability. Richard III was less able, and
ultimatly was deposed.

The history of Osoerde is not yet writ. But the fact that Willaim Moergan
can resist suggests that Jaison Raenech has problems getting a hold of all
the regency that the duke of Osoerde is entitled to. Perhaps like Henry IV
he'll keep it together long enough for a legitimate successor to follow him.
Perhaps like Richard III, Moergan will depose him later on.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Tim Nutting]

> This idea was current in many pre-modern societies. When Plantagent and
> Valois fought over the crown of France, many blamed the Plague, as "the
> land's" punishment, to use BR terminology. Poor harvests were blamed on the
> actions of the great.

Ignorance on the behalf of "the great" and the unwashed masses does not reality
make.

> Shakespeare makes it clear that Henry IV and Richard III (usurpers both)
> were never seccure in their thrones because they could never achive what the
> Chinese called "the mandate of heaven". Both seem to suffer from shortages
> of Regency, unable to deal with the challenges to their holdings. Henry IV
> was able enough to hold things together long enough for his son Henry V to
> succede him legitimatly. Henry V is still nervous about how his father too
> the throne, but Shakespeare never questions his legitimacy, and Henry is
> allowed to exploit all the powers of his birthright, including (or so it
> would seem) the Battlewise blood ability. Richard III was less able, and
> ultimatly was deposed.

An interesting comparison to reality, but Cerilia is not reality, unless it be
the reality of one's imagination. Great leaders have never required magic to
lead. Henry V, perhaps nervous of his place on the throne, displayed the
amazing breadth of perception to understand just what it is that a "just cause"
adds to a soldier's ability. Secretly discussing perceptions of leadership and
tactics with line infantrymen, and exploiting their wants to further his own
goals is not magic, but shrewd cunning. In Shakespeare's works of fiction,
magic exists, but these men all lived in the beginnings of the Age of Reason,
when the thought that magic might exist was... ludicrous to many.

Tim