Bloodline tied to Level

[Vicente]

Not sure if this should posted here or in the Royal Library. I've been re-reading the 2e bloodtheft rules and I can't find any rule that disallows a parent killing his own children to increase her bloodline. This is a very wicked behavior (although I could imagine Awnsheglien doing it), and I know that "roleplaying" you can tackle this problem (like you can tackle any problem), but I'm talking from a rules-mechanics point of view (where nothing I can find disallows it).

If bloodline was tied to level, it would be impossible to exploit this (for example). And it seems to make more sense in general even if you can't have the "Level 1 Fighter Great God Bloodline Emperor of Anuire".

I know this is a "sacred cow" in Birthright and maybe there are good arguments to not tie bloodline to level, but I think it's worth talking at least (as conversion into blood feats and powers in 4e would probably mean tying bloodline to level).

[Thelandrin]

I think that common sense, moral outrage and social prohibition should be more than enough to forbid blood-thefting your own children, even without a specific rule.

[AndrewTall]

I think that bloodline is only supposed to manifest around puberty (although that may have been a 3e add-in), as a result usurping your children was made much harder.

Generally though I'd expect social pressure to be the block - it takes someone not merely evil, but actively self destructive to wilfuly kill their children as most beings have fairly strong instincts against it (for obvious genetic reasons).

Immortal awnsheghlien are about the only likely candidates - the Gorgon for example killed his children after he came to see them not as heirs, but as rivals according to Stonecrowns.

In terms of mechanics you would run into various issues - how close a genetic link do you need to prevent usurpation? If using a 3e regency storm would the bloodline simply displace to the nearest non-infanticidal scion? What about spells to make yourself linked to someone as a child? etc.

[aluman]

Blood history only gives you history until your ancestor/you were born. blood abilities are not puberty tied in general. I remember something about Long Life being puberty tied to prvent the 150 year old regent only being 15.

Given that in 4e NPC's won't all have levels, I think limiting blood line to levels dampers the game in 4e.

[Capricia]

Blood history only gives you history until your ancestor/you were born. blood abilities are not puberty tied in general. I remember something about Long Life being puberty tied to prvent the 150 year old regent only being 15.

Given that in 4e NPC's won't all have levels, I think limiting blood line to levels dampers the game in 4e.


In the BRCS? ALL blood powers are tied directly to puberty. The only one that is not is the Bloodmark, which appears at birth.


Granted, with the arrival of 4e, that's going to all need to be revisited.

[aluman]

Actually, it would be best for a 4E converision to come from 2E material, otherwise we are doing a converision of a converision and like a copy of a copy each step away from the original produces a slightly inferior product.

For instance, in 2E Blood history while mostly trivial (you gained the memories of your Father and his father and so on until the beginning of the line), quite clearly came from Birth.

3E doing that was actually more problematic than it was possible, since so much of 3E's balance was along power lines, at any given level you shuoldn't have more than X power.

4E feels like its balanced around 'Every Round everyone should have something to Do.' Which means balancing by level isn't strictly nessarcy (indeed, Sleep is probably one of the best save or else spells in the game and its a level 1, and many of the level 3 encounter powers for fighters are inferior to the level 1 powers in the strictest sense).

Also, most NPCs that won't get into combat will not have levels, thus: If courtier B is just that a minor courtier but has blood he can't have abilities if we tie blood abilities to level.

[Wilenburg]

I agree with the fact taking 3rd would be a copy with a copy, but I also think that it should be used in conjucture to the 2nd edition with the abilities orginal wording since some of it will greatly reduce time with the terminology that they kept over from one edition to the next.

[aluman]

That I can agree with, a lot of terminology is similar or has counterparts, just the conventions of 3E are not the conventions of 4E. I would rather convert from 2E whose conventions aren't either 3 or 4 than 3, since 2E is the feel we all enjoy so much.

[Thelandrin]

However, if additional fluff clarifications have been added in the BRCS, we should use them. Any crunch clarifications can be merrily discarded.

[aluman]

That I can go along with for a large extent, mostly the crunch should be attempted to be along 2E>4E and Fluff 3E>4E in an event where a blood ability isn't present in 2E or 3E we can adapt the other way.

[kgauck]

Converting directly from 2e to 4e does make the most sense, but let's pay attention to the old hands who converted from 3e to 4e here on the boards, and have a lot of experience navigating the minefields here. I'd love to see some of the old conversion hands come back and shepherd us through this again.

I don't want to see the wheel re-invented again and again.

The 3e conversion shouldn't be a guide, except that the old conversion folks know how various issues raise problems of setting vs rules, and why it is that people favored one solution or another in the past.

We should decide questions a-new, new set of rules after all, but we should so so aware that this path has been tread before.

Along those lines, we should not proceed as the previous conversion teams did. That is the first useful lesson that they can teach us. For far too long, documents were away from they eager eyes of the community and unavailable for constructive comment. Let's not make the best the enemy of the good. On the wiki we can label documents as "draft" "revised" and "sanctioned", so viewers know how authoritative a document is. Every version of the document is stored, so its always possible to go back and reconsider an older version. Opening the process up will speed it along immeasurably.

[aluman]

Do you think we could get something on the Wiki specifically for 4e conversions, as I am sure people sticking to 3.X don't want to have to sift through 2 different pages for each thing to figure out which one fits them and which one doesn't.

Its part of why I haven't been doing full write ups yet. Just putting out general ideas.

[Thelandrin]

I'm sure that Arjan or someone else equally talented can provide a 4th Edition banner. Such a page would still go in all the usual categories and suchlike, but browsers would simply have a greater choice of options.

[Wilenburg]

As well as we should put a link and a sticky on the rules, as well as create a doc that gets updated with changes so that people can print it with ease as well so they can playtest with a hardcopy that they can write problems up on those chapters as well. and polls would give a good idea if the chapters is good enough for us to proceed to the next step as well.

[kgauck]

As well as we should put a link and a sticky on the rules, as well as create a doc that gets updated with changes so that people can print it with ease as well so they can playtest with a hardcopy that they can write problems up on those chapters as well. and polls would give a good idea if the chapters is good enough for us to proceed to the next step as well.

Polls we can do (as well as discussion) here on the boards. A doc that gets printed probably should wait until we have chapters that are deep into revision. Making downloadable docs is an extra layer of labor, since editing for this different format is required.

[Wilenburg]

I agree it was just an idea as the wiki develops to keep up with the changes and docs should be later in the design process after the wiki idea goes through polls but it should just be together with the link so it is of easy for new payers to find at the beginning it would be the wiki links later the docs to be uploaded with the wiki.

[AndrewTall]

I would note regarding 2, 3, and 4e that a lot of thought was put into the 3e conversion about what worked and what did not (possibly in some cases more than was originally put into the 2e system) - anyone seriously planning 4e should be re-reading a lot of forum posts about the 3e conversion to get background on design theory, what choices were made and why - there is little point re-inventing the wheel and none in chasing an argument that was proved flawed years ago - and I speak as someone who had zero input on the conversion.

I'd suggest that most of the 3e work should stand - domain level rules while imperfect removed the randomness of 2e (which is a trait that appears to be carried on into 4e) for example so the only real work needed there is to RP collection and the like. The only chapters likely to need significant revision are 1, 2, 8 and 9.

2e I would remind people had neither feats nor skills - 4e has retained these from 3e although some tweaks will be required for the fact that 4e kiddies can't handle the complexities of skill points (bah, let them eat THAC0! :p).

4e adventure powers are new but a) fairly irrelevant outside combat and b) completely irrelevant at realm level. Of the two systems I see no real difference conversion wise in difficulty - any adventure level power will need to be re-written to fit 4e, any other power can be carried pretty much as is barring changes to fit the realm play mechanic.

I'm not entirely sure what the rush is on the 4e conversion - some people seem to be planning the fine detail at breakneck pace whereas to build a coherent system the detail should follow the framework. Currently many people do not even have the 4e books and I expect that none have played a sufficient number of 4e games to identify flaws in the system.

To put it simply, we have yet to even discuss, much less agree:

1 whether we are building a low level or high level magic conversion - and the impacts of that choice,
2 whether bloodlines will be restricted to realm play or not,
3 whether scions should be 'better' than unblooded,
4 how to deal with awn and ehrshegh, etc, etc.

Without agreement on that sort of fundamental issue before we start the detailed of the conversion, any efforts will be mainly wasted.

[aluman]

Although feats and skills are similar from 3e to 4e there is big diffrence of assumption.

First LA is gone.
Second, feats were retooled in a massive way, every class has specific feats that benfit them, as does every race.

Third, NPCs who will not see combat do not get levels.
This means that for domains to be effective they have to not be level depedant.

These differences alone mean that while we should maintain as much of the 3e conversion as theoretically possible, we should look to see if the new rules offer a better system under which to achieve similar results.

Personally the mere loss of data from a conversion of a conversion means its better to convert from 2 to 4, while keeping an eye on how 3 handled the converision for what we can use to shortcut the process.

[Capricia]

I would note regarding 2, 3, and 4e that a lot of thought was put into the 3e conversion about what worked and what did not (possibly in some cases more than was originally put into the 2e system) - anyone seriously planning 4e should be re-reading a lot of forum posts about the 3e conversion to get background on design theory, what choices were made and why - there is little point re-inventing the wheel and none in chasing an argument that was proved flawed years ago - and I speak as someone who had zero input on the conversion.

I'd suggest that most of the 3e work should stand - domain level rules while imperfect removed the randomness of 2e (which is a trait that appears to be carried on into 4e) for example so the only real work needed there is to RP collection and the like. The only chapters likely to need significant revision are 1, 2, 8 and 9.

2e I would remind people had neither feats nor skills - 4e has retained these from 3e although some tweaks will be required for the fact that 4e kiddies can't handle the complexities of skill points (bah, let them eat THAC0! :p).

4e adventure powers are new but a) fairly irrelevant outside combat and b) completely irrelevant at realm level. Of the two systems I see no real difference conversion wise in difficulty - any adventure level power will need to be re-written to fit 4e, any other power can be carried pretty much as is barring changes to fit the realm play mechanic.

I'm not entirely sure what the rush is on the 4e conversion - some people seem to be planning the fine detail at breakneck pace whereas to build a coherent system the detail should follow the framework. Currently many people do not even have the 4e books and I expect that none have played a sufficient number of 4e games to identify flaws in the system.

To put it simply, we have yet to even discuss, much less agree:

1 whether we are building a low level or high level magic conversion - and the impacts of that choice,
2 whether bloodlines will be restricted to realm play or not,
3 whether scions should be 'better' than unblooded,
4 how to deal with awn and ehrshegh, etc, etc.

Without agreement on that sort of fundamental issue before we start the detailed of the conversion, any efforts will be mainly wasted.

Well said.

As I understand it, it took hundreds of man hours and massive amounts of cooperation to make the last conversion. To leap in and start demanding whole scale changes without a plan in place will only result in chaos. This is a long term project which will hopefully result in a true "standard" that can be worked from for years to come. (or until 4.5 comes out...)

I am not part of the conversion team. Hell... is there such an entity? Because that might be step one...

[bbeau22]

Well people are excited ... and that is a good thing.

I agree on needing a framework. I also agree at hitting the chapters that need to be rivised the most. Also not to ignore some of what was already done for third edition.

For example is the court set up. This is a million times better in 3rd edition verison vs. 2nd. No need to re-invent. Also the basic domain set up of court actions, standard actions .... this can be transposed into 4th edition fairly easy. Need to change some terms but mostly it can stay in tact.

Maybe someone can create a list of the most basic things that need to be changed and put some things to a vote so we know the framwork of the change ...

Examples would be.

Tying bloodline powers to feats and paths ...
How will we seperate different humans .... Khinasi, Vos, Brect ...


-BB

[Rowan]

Keeping bloodline separate from level is a key characteristic of Birthright. I absolutely do not want a game that relies heavily on level for rulership. Keeping them separate allows BR to remain a low-level setting in most cases and prevents a Forgotten Realms power-gaming scenario.

If the reason here is to prevent bloodthefting of children, simply rule that no regency or bloodline power can be gained from progeny (their bloodlines stem from the parent's). Of course, because fratricide and patricide tend to be a concern in medieval rulership, allow children to bloodtheft siblings and parents effectively. It would be a one-way situation.

[Vicente]

Spell slots was a trait of DnD and it was killed for good on 4e. While I agree that's not a reason to change things, I can't remember many exceptions to high bloodlines tied to high levels in Birthright itself (I don't have RoE to check right now, I can only think about Darien Avan right now).

And it seems to make sense in the framework of 4e mechanics and in that it wouldn't impact the setting too much, (is more coherent than adding an exception where you can't bloodtheft your progeny but your progeny can bloodtheft you, that would have a bigger impact on the way blooded characters live).

[kgauck]

Keeping bloodline separate from level is a key characteristic of Birthright. I absolutely do not want a game that relies heavily on level for rulership. Keeping them separate allows BR to remain a low-level setting in most cases and prevents a Forgotten Realms power-gaming scenario.

I don't think anyone has advocated tying rulership to level. The only thing suggested being tied to level are those blood abilities that are for adventuring as opposed to ruling.


If the reason here is to prevent bloodthefting of children, simply rule that no regency or bloodline power can be gained from progeny (their bloodlines stem from the parent's). Of course, because fratricide and patricide tend to be a concern in medieval rulership, allow children to bloodtheft siblings and parents effectively. It would be a one-way situation.

I couldn't find the old thread, but I do recall that in the past I have argued that since bloodline is inherited, you can't bloodtheft your own bloodline, since you already have it. I think you are suggesting the same thing.

[Rowan]

Yes, Kgauck, I agree with that. I do think that you should be able to bloodtheft your siblings and ancestors, and Vicente, I think that is far more coherent from a storyline perspective than anything tied to level. It often gets rather difficult to explain level-based variation in story terms unless you also tie level to age and accomplishment.

There are examples of low level people with high bloodlines, and in particular the simple logical sense that people with high bloodlines start out at low levels. Mhstecai, Wiz6, Vo Major 45 (if I'm remembering correctly).

Anyway, if we're talking about adventure level, that doesn't matter as much. Powers like Battlewise, however, have realm-level implications, and I have long been advocating a move to bloodline powers having a realm-level effect. These should not be tied to level in any fashion.

To clarify, are you suggesting that bloodline score remain constant, but powers available for adventuring increase by level, or that everything (bloodline score included) increase by level?

And what of things like Bloodmark, Character Reading, Unreadable Thoughts, and Divine Aura that seem to be characteristic traits of the scions, independent of level?

[Lawgiver]

I don't like the concept of tying bloodlines to levels. I don't have an alternate suggestion/system at the momement beyond the way it works in 2e. But it is an innate ability given by birth and developed with a specific series of requirements not something based on experience.

[Lawgiver]

1 whether we are building a low level or high level magic conversion - and the impacts of that choice,
Low.



2 whether bloodlines will be restricted to realm play or not,
Not. That's an issue for the GM/Players to resolve not the game system.



3 whether scions should be 'better' than unblooded,
Yes.



4 how to deal with awn and ehrshegh, etc, etc.

Several systems presented previously. Hash out the other issues first.

[Vicente]

Yes, Kgauck, I agree with that. I do think that you should be able to bloodtheft your siblings and ancestors, and Vicente, I think that is far more coherent from a storyline perspective than anything tied to level. It often gets rather difficult to explain level-based variation in story terms unless you also tie level to age and accomplishment.

I don't find illogical tying level to bloodline. For example adding an Awn/Ers epic destiny makes a lot of sense (comparing it to the demigod epic destiny in the PH). And not been able to bloodtheft your own children is pretty weak as depending on the parents your own children can even have a different derivation than you, so they don't have only your blood. I'm sure that Kenneth original explanation was far more complete but that's a big hole.


There are examples of low level people with high bloodlines, and in particular the simple logical sense that people with high bloodlines start out at low levels. Mhstecai, Wiz6, Vo Major 45 (if I'm remembering correctly).

Yes there are examples, but it's not logical, or at least not more logical than the proposal. It happened because the rules allowed it, not because it makes more sense than having things the other way round. If Birthright 2e said you can't have more than 5*Level Bloodline Score because your body is not prepared to "tap" so much divine essence then the "logical" thing would be something else...


Anyway, if we're talking about adventure level, that doesn't matter as much. Powers like Battlewise, however, have realm-level implications, and I have long been advocating a move to bloodline powers having a realm-level effect. These should not be tied to level in any fashion.

In adventure level is important because players should be balanced. That's the spirit of 4e and it's not so hard to make it fit within the Birthright spirit. Having people far more powerful is staying at the same point 2e was and the new edition took a lot of steps to make those things disappear. You can make a full DnD 4e character without throwing a single dice, that's not a coincidence. Having a single progression table for all characters is not a coincidence either.

I haven't give any thoughts to realm level, but I do like bloodline powers having realm-level effects (although I don't see it as exclusive: realm level or adventure level but not both).


To clarify, are you suggesting that bloodline score remain constant, but powers available for adventuring increase by level, or that everything (bloodline score included) increase by level?

Not sure what to do with bloodline score. I find easy to tie Minor/Major/Great with Heroic/Paragon/Epic (or something like that), but not sure about the bloodline score.


And what of things like Bloodmark, Character Reading, Unreadable Thoughts, and Divine Aura that seem to be characteristic traits of the scions, independent of level?

I fail to see what are you saying here :( As far as I remember they are powers like summoning animals or traveling.

But well, seems most people prefer having those 2 concepts separated, I'm sure other ideas will come out for handling bloodlines.

[irdeggman]

Not sure what to do with bloodline score. I find easy to tie Minor/Major/Great with Heroic/Paragon/Epic (or something like that), but not sure about the bloodline score.



Yup - that was one of the big issues with the Dragon article that did a BR - feat based system.

It worked sort of fine for blood abilities but the authors seemed to forget all about the domain level of play and the signficance of the bloodline score.

That is the sticky point here, IMO.

[bbeau22]

Well I would think that the bloodscore of a character is consistant and is gained at birth like usual. I see no reason why this has to change. It will give the blooded character more options for growth and different abilities but otherwise in adventure level playing they would be on par with non-blooded folks.

Blood powers themselves can scale according to level. Minor blood powers like bloodmark can be available right away. We can even say for arguement sake that every blooded person above minor get to choose one minor ability at character creation as a bonus. Makes sense in a story prospective that bloodmark would be one of the first blood powers to manifest itself.

We can create domain wide blood powers and tie them directly into the blood score level. That would have no effect on adventure but certain more to do with domain. We would just have to be careful on how powerful we make them.

Remember what we are trying to correct here is a possible imbalance that will occur with giving some characters many more powers than others at a low level. Since many of us play campaigns that are solely based on adventure play and other that have a mix of adventure and domain actions ... I think it is important to work this out.

I was slightly surprised in one of my campaigns when a powerful scion used blood powers to confuse all non-blooded people around him. At first I thought it was a fine idea ... then it dawned on me that he can do this in almost any situation and be fairly successful against people much higher level than himself. It is unbalanced and now I am going to have to work around this problem for the remainder of the campaign.

[kgauck]

To clarify, are you suggesting that bloodline score remain constant, but powers available for adventuring increase by level, or that everything (bloodline score included) increase by level?
The only thing that should be tied to level is adventuring abilities. Some blood abilities are really useful for adventuring and would never come up in ruling. These should be available to scions as blooded feats, but not right out of the box, because its unnecessary and unbalancing.

Make a character
Determine their blood score, strength, and derivation
Based on strength and derivation, pick appropriate domain level abilities
Select blooded feats as another kind of feat as your character advances


And what of things like Bloodmark, Character Reading, Unreadable Thoughts, and Divine Aura that seem to be characteristic traits of the scions, independent of level?

If they can't be used in combat, or when combat is likely, then they should be available. Its easy to balance these kinds of abilities in role play when its seems appropriate. No matter what power it is, if someone uses it all the time, its because the DM hasn't established boundaries.

[Sorontar]

People keep mentioning whether something can be used "in combat". I thought someone mentioned that WotC have steered D&D more away from being reliant on just rewarding PCs for combat and more towards rewarding PCs for what they did in encounters. With good roleplaying, all blood abilities can be used to help resolve an encounter of some sort (including combat encounters).

And even domain-based abilities can be used in encounters with a bit of thinking (and a lack of rules lawyers). After all, isn't ingenuity what DMs are looking for in players?

Sorontar.

[kgauck]

That's because the non-combat abilities don't just apply a flat mechanic to getting the diplomat from Tuornen to tell us what he knows about Boeruine's plans.

Combat type abilities often do just apply a bonus to initiative, or do x amount of healing or damage.

Initiative is useful in every combat. The DM decides how useful character reading is by the description he provides. Its less of a concern because good DM's will balance things out during play.

[aluman]

I don't find illogical tying level to bloodline. For example adding an Awn/Ers epic destiny makes a lot of sense (comparing it to the demigod epic destiny in the PH). And not been able to bloodtheft your own children is pretty weak as depending on the parents your own children can even have a different derivation than you, so they don't have only your blood. I'm sure that Kenneth original explanation was far more complete but that's a big hole.

1. Tying to level means: If your level is X your blood points are Y, at least to me. This is something I wholeheartedly oppose. It was nessarcy in 3e, as everything was leveled. In 4e, there are numerous NPCs that won't be leveled (Most won't be regents, but that aspect doesn't matter), If Blood Abilities are fueld from levels, this in turn means that instead of simply saying the Chancelor has a total diplomacy modifer of X and can do Y stuff, they have to be stated out to a degree that makes it harder to put that chancelor in various campaigns

For instance, KG may want a low level game across the board, all the regents level 5-8 at the most.

However I may want an epic game with the lowest regent at level 22. If everything is fueled levelly, instead of providing a base outline of the character with a few unique features of the character, we have to establish the over all power in Birthright.



In adventure level is important because players should be balanced. That's the spirit of 4e and it's not so hard to make it fit within the Birthright spirit. Having people far more powerful is staying at the same point 2e was and the new edition took a lot of steps to make those things disappear. You can make a full DnD 4e character without throwing a single dice, that's not a coincidence. Having a single progression table for all characters is not a coincidence either.

I haven't give any thoughts to realm level, but I do like bloodline powers having realm-level effects (although I don't see it as exclusive: realm level or adventure level but not both).

Actually Realm or Adventure not both goes with theme I get from 4e. Very few 'powers' characters gain have utility outside of adventures.

So 4E has two things
Adventure stuff
Non Adventure Stuff - This one hasn't been detailed greatly (skill challenges almost fall under this though)



Not sure what to do with bloodline score. I find easy to tie Minor/Major/Great with Heroic/Paragon/Epic (or something like that), but not sure about the bloodline score.

I don't.

Tainted bloodlines is tainted bloodline. Level 25 tainted bloodline person still came the footsoliders of Desimaar, his level is unimportant.

Great Bloodline is Great Bloodline. His ancestors were the great captains of the war, his level doesn't matter.

Once we tie level in, we remove inheriting the bloodline.

I agree totally, we have to limit the utility on the adventure field of blood powers somehow by level.

I think having a Awsh/Ersh epic destiny isn't a bad idea in and of itself.
I think having a paragon path for blood abilities (universally or per derivation) isn't a bad idea in and of itself.

I think requiring levels to be useful on the realm level is very against the goal of birthright.
I think requiring levels to have a great bloodline is ridiculously against the goal of birthright.

Again in 3e it was required almost, balance was found through power, not usefulness. 4e shifted the fulcrum for balancing.

[kgauck]

It was nessarcy in 3e, as everything was leveled.

Not it wasn't. I used the 2e system for blood score. It worked fine.


In 4e, there are numerous NPCs that won't be leveled

I think these are supposed to be spear carriers, not really characters with speaking parts. I'm sure how numerous that is, since these people didn't tend to get written up at all before. These existence was hand-waved. Nearly everyone who was a full character before remains a full character. I can only think of some of the followers I detailed from particularly articulated characters that might be handled this way.

Book-keeping is made easier in 4e. So of course if one was willing to articulate characters before, its easier now. The difference is that instead of just hand-waving, and the ambassador enters with five attendants, one can easily give them a minimal entry.


Most won't be regents, but that aspect doesn't matter.

What regents did you have in mind?


If Blood Abilities are fueld from levels, this in turn means that instead of simply saying the Chancelor has a total diplomacy modifer of X and can do Y stuff, they have to be stated out to a degree that makes it harder to put that chancelor in various campaigns

I find it hard to imagine that this could be done with a character so important as a chancellor in any event. His footman, certainly. But, what kind of chancellor doesn't need to be fully developed? A chancellor with no actually responsibilties, perhaps, who like a wax figure doesn't move when the characters look away?


Actually Realm or Adventure not both goes with theme I get from 4e. Very few 'powers' characters gain have utility outside of adventures.

This may come as a surprise, but only the Birthright setting presumed a realm level of play, so other materials don't typically produce powers for the realm level of play. Addressing this issue is a big part of what a Birthright conversion would do by translating published and player devised realm powers into the new edition.

[aluman]

Not it wasn't. I used the 2e system for blood score. It worked fine.

For a conversion purpose to be on line with the balance fulcrum of 3e, it was is what I meant, any conversion of blood abilities to 3e had to seriously swing the way of LA's and blood abilities as spells. I didn't like it, but I also understood why it needed to go that way.



I think these are supposed to be spear carriers, not really characters with speaking parts. I'm sure how numerous that is, since these people didn't tend to get written up at all before. These existence was hand-waved. Nearly everyone who was a full character before remains a full character. I can only think of some of the followers I detailed from particularly articulated characters that might be handled this way.

Well, the general rule I have read in the DMG is 'if the NPC will not see combat except under the most unusual circumstances, don't bother with more information than needed'


Book-keeping is made easier in 4e. So of course if one was willing to articulate characters before, its easier now. The difference is that instead of just hand-waving, and the ambassador enters with five attendants, one can easily give them a minimal entry.

Yeah, I think anyway we agree here.


What regents did you have in mind?

That should be stated out fully? Actually few if any. That should be given a rough indication of power? Several.



I find it hard to imagine that this could be done with a character so important as a chancellor in any event. His footman, certainly. But, what kind of chancellor doesn't need to be fully developed? A chancellor with no actually responsibilties, perhaps, who like a wax figure doesn't move when the characters look away?

Actually most chancellors would fall in that, as chancellor's don't see combat, you need a note about their diplomacy and some other skills, but not 'Will defense of X, level Y' notes.



This may come as a surprise, but only the Birthright setting presumed a realm level of play, so other materials don't typically produce powers for the realm level of play. Addressing this issue is a big part of what a Birthright conversion would do by translating published and player devised realm powers into the new edition.
Actually AGoT in D20 did presume realm level play, or was going to GOO went down before then though.

What I was refering to was in past editions (up through 3.X) non combative/adventure specific skills and abilities were at least given a cursory opinion (crafting for instance), these don't happen in 4e (yet anyway, we have a skeltal system, imo) as Balance of Campaign is again put into DM's hands, and only Balance of Usefulness is designed around (so far).

[Rowan]

To manage the adventure-level bloodline powers, perhaps just create them as feats or as class abilities (one "class" per derivation) that the character is automatically considered multiclassed in. Then the character can shoose the feat or blood power as they level, having focused on their divine heritage and manifested a power.

However, only those powers that are adventure-level should be dealt with this way. Anything with a realm impact should be additional, and free, like free Rituals and Utility powers.

Also, keep bloodline derivation, score, and strength completely independent from level. There is no need to tie it to level if you just allow characters the option of choosing the adventure-oriented powers in lieu of regular class powers or features.

I think this offers the best of both worlds, addressing the concerns of levelists for adventure-oriented play balance, as well as the concerns of purists who think tying bloodline to level is an abomination and anathema to the spirit of BR.


This is, I think, pretty much what KGauck said on the previous page. I like it. The only thing tied to level should be adventure-oriented blood powers. I would not have a problem with these not even being limited in number by the bloodline strength or score, since they are inherently limited by level. Instead, the bloodline derivation would limit the suite that could be chosen from. The score and strength might impact their power, but would come in primarily for the non-adventure or utility powers (determining, as before, number and strength of those available).

[kgauck]

Well, the general rule I have read in the DMG is 'if the NPC will not see combat except under the most unusual circumstances, don't bother with more information than needed'

I hope no one needs this kind of advice any more than they need to be told to put a coat when its cold outside. The problem here is that physical combat may be very unlikely, but verbal combat assumed as a given.

I need to know if the Chancellor is a mere functionary with a few administrative skills, or whether he's full of knowledge about the domain, its institutions, its people, its laws, its history, &c. Can he lie convincingly? If the PC's get into a disagreement with him over the details of his administration, how good is he at putting forward any ideas? I need to know what does he know and what skills exist in his tool box to win a debate with PCs.

I never detail his weapons, armor, or combat abilities. No one ever physically fights the chancellor. It would be an act of war or treason. Its also more information than is needed. But his policies and his ability to defend them against PC's willing to aggressively push their own agenda, that's a common form of combat.

[geeman]

At 12:21 AM 6/10/2008, you wrote:

>Well, the general rule I have read in the DMG is `if the NPC will
>not see combat except under the most unusual circumstances, don`t
>bother with more information than needed`

This is one of those thematic things where, I think, 4e and
Birthright diverge in emphasis. That is, where 4e assumes that "In
the rare case where you want to build a campaign-long villain, then
it might serve for you to fully stat out the NPC in PC fashion,but
this should be the exception--the rare exception" surely the BR
campaign materials are full of such "rarities." In fact, I would
argue that every regent, awn-/ehrsheghlien, perhaps every scion would
constitute what is assumed to be rare in 4e. BR regents by design
blur the line between PC and NPC in most cases. Awnsheghlien are
meant to be iconic villains.

Having spent some time going through the 4e materials I can say
without equivocation that there are some things I like and maybe a
few more things I don`t. If I have time I`ll try to post a sort of
BR-themed review of 4e. But the long and short of it is that certain
4e game mechanics might simply not be useful for Birthright. Much of
the 4e materials seem geared towards a sort of "LAN game on the
tabletop" experience, and I`m not convinced that`s the way for
Birthright to go. The adventure level portrayed in 4e is...
unsubtle. There`s not a lot of room for political maneuvering and
intrigue if one has so many more abilities and powers geared towards
resolving things on a combat grid.

However, I have no problem with making blood abilities akin to the
various class abilities in 4e. There are many options for character
builds in 4e, and blood abilities could easily fit into them. Off
the cuff, we might want to consider that minor, major and great blood
abilities fit nicely into heroic levels, paragon and epic tiers. I
argued long ago that ALL blood abilities should have the full range
of progressions. If we were going to rewrite BR as a 2e setting
(Birthright 2e 2.0, if you will) that would be a smart thing to
revise. 4e is as good an opportunity as any for such a rethinking of
bloodline.

Gary

[Vicente]

I like Rowan idea of capping adventure-related powers by level/tier while the bloodline score and realm powers are not influenced by this at all. Seems a good compromise that doesn't break the Birthright feel while fixing the adventuring inbalances.

Edit:
About the 4e MMORPG thing well... I would like to know what where the political/intrigue abilities portrayed in 2e and 3e for a fighter that make the fighter in 4e seem wimped in that area now with the new edition. As far as 3e goes the fighter had 0 abilities and a good number of feats, and most of them could be devoted only to combat, while a 4e fighter has more feats and he is free to use them wherever he wants because selecting non-combat related feats won't gimp him in the process. I'm pretty sure many more fighters will take feats like Skill Focus in 4e than in 3e.

Most non-caster classes would be in the same group as the fighter. The spellcasters are in a different group as their spells gave them a greater range of choices, but it made them totally imbalanced with the non-caster classes for that same reason. Now every one plays on the same field.

[irdeggman]

For a conversion purpose to be on line with the balance fulcrum of 3e, it was is what I meant, any conversion of blood abilities to 3e had to seriously swing the way of LA's and blood abilities as spells. I didn't like it, but I also understood why it needed to go that way.



You have absolutely confused the difference between bloodline score and strength (or at least it seems so to me).

Strength (minor/major/great) determined how powerful various abilities were. Score determined how many were accessable to a scion.

The BRCS put a level (the revised version had scion class levels while the playtest one had a LA) on the strength (when tied into abilities).

There was no such tie in when it came to bloodline score - which was the direct connection to domain level of play.

[irdeggman]

I can see the bloodline powers being tied to the levels categories of 4th ed - at least the adventure level ones.

I am having trouble trying to get my hands around a way to handle domain level interaction of bloodline. IMO the score should remain mostly untouched since it is a measure of accomplishment that has nothing to do with character level.

RP acquisition is something a tad more challenging.

Again multi-classing is a common practice in 4th ed - unlike 2nd ed so we are back into finding some system that doesn't overly reward such choices.

Skills don't work the same anymore so a skill rank/total mod system of tying in RP collection to bloodline doesn't seem to quite fit to me either.

There absolutely needs to be something that makes certain classes have a better shot at getting RP from certain holdings, IMO.

Perhaps adding a class option to each that reflects this {just rambling on}.

Perhaps a multiclassing feat that makes the connection to a specifc bloodline derivation might likewise be attractive mechanically.

[bbeau22]

I will take a shot at this rambling thing.

There are certain things we all seem to agree on or at least share a somewhat similer view ....

- Bloodline score and strength is not tied to level.
- Adventure based blood powers might be ok to match into class abilities matching into heroic/paragon/epic level system.

You are totally right with the multi-class thing. How can we create a system where classes are tied into certain holdings?

Now that I just said levels won't be tied into regency ... we could switch the current model of skills into levels of a specific class. Take the old 2nd edition rules for which classes can gain full regency from specific holdings. The highest level of the character is considered their primary class and can gain full regency from holdings tied to that class. Any lower level class they might have will only get them half regency and only after they have reached at least 5 levels of that off class. In the above example a character begins his career as a primary fighter and gains full regency from law holdings. He picks up thievery and also duel-classes as a rogue. Since his fighter levels are higher he gains full regency from law still but can also gain half regency from guilds because of his rogue level.

-BB

[kgauck]

Is multi-classing really the problem it was in 3e?

[Vicente]

As players can only multiclass in another class at most I don't think it's going to be a pain like the Fighter 3/Cleric 3/Rogue 2/Insersomethingelsehere of 3e... But given that humans in 4e are multiclassers by design (with that extra feat and at-will power) probably 4e will lead to many more multiclass players than 2e (where humans couldn't multiclass, only dual class and it was quite hard). Half-elves are in a similar situation.

True that humans and half-elves powers will change in the conversion so this could be avoided, but I think that in general multiclass characters are going to become more common. I don't find bad giving a certain % of the total RP depending on how much you have multiclassed (multiclass feats giving less than taking multiclass + second class instead of Paragon Path).

But true this one needs to be talked, as multiclassing is much more blurred in this edition.

[Rowan]

What if we emphasize bloodlines more (in BR, I'm in favor of almost anything that emphasizes the unique setting characteristics more) by linking bloodline Derivations to holding types? It would directly help explain why derivations are more common among certain types of domains than others, other than just the flavor-based explanations that existed previously. We can still account for class, as well.

So here are some examples that may be a little more complicated, but perhaps acceptable complication:

All derivations can draw full RP from the land. Other than that, derivations allow a scion to draw half RP from appropriate holdings. This will require them to have appropriate class combinations--see below--to draw full RP (so players don't build scions of Anduiras and take a level in Rogue just because they think they've got Law holdings covered).
Anduiras: Law, Temples of Haelyn, Cuiraecen
Azrai: All
Basaia: Law, Temples of Avani/Avanalae
Brenna: Guild, Temples of Sera/Sarimie, Eloele
Masela: Guild, Temples of Nesirie (guilds because of connection to sea and trade)
Reynir: Temples of Erik, Sources (Sources as druid)
Voryn: Temples of Ruornil, Sources

I feel like I'm missing someone..

As for Classes, let a character obtain half RP from class appropriate holdings. This way, even unblooded scions can actually draw RP, just not nearly as effectively. Note that not all classes are equal as realm rulers, IMO.
Cleric: Temples
Wizard: Sources
Rogue: Guilds
Fighter: Law
Paladin: Law, Temple
Ranger: None
Warlord: Provinces, Law
Warlock: Sources (an argument could be made that they should draw on awnmebhaigl sources/Shadow World sources in parallel to the real world sources, or perhaps even cultish temples)

To Be Added (I hope): Noble: Provinces, Law

I do not have my 4e books yet (supposed to come in the mail today--Amazon preorder should have shipped the day it came out; this annoys me). However, in response to Beau, isn't it the case in 4e that you actually do not accumulate levels in a secondary class at all? You only blend the two classes (and only two classes max) into one expanded set of class options, with only one character level?

If this is the case, then we can't tie class RP collection to level in each class.

Thanks, Vicente, for the point of agreement on bloodline powers. I'm comfortable with what it looks like everyone is agreeing on.

[Vicente]

You are right in the multiclass levels thing. You don't have X levels on class 1 and Y levels on class 2. You are more or less "multiclassed":

- Half-elf: you get one power from another class
- Multiclass feat: you get one power and one skill from one class. You count as a member of that class for requisites.
- Swap at-will power: you change one of your powers for one power of the other class.
- Swap encounter power: you change one of your powers for one power of the other class.
- Swap daily power: you change one of your powers for one power of the other class.
- Take a second class instead of a paragon path.

Those are the different multiclass posibilities from less multiclased to more multiclassed in 4e.

As for derivations and RP I like that idea too (I use that on my personal games, RP is totally tied to derivation and regency collection is a blood power). In 2e-3e that doesn't explain "weird" things like a figher getting RP from Sources, but in 4e is not so hard to explain as a figher can cast rituals if he takes the Ritual Caster feat (not that I like it, but by the rules he can). So if Domain Spells are similar to Rituals (and they do like very similar) it stops looking so weird.

But it's a big change...

[kgauck]

I do not have my 4e books yet (supposed to come in the mail today--Amazon preorder should have shipped the day it came out; this annoys me).

Amazon frequently doesn't ship on release date. Its common for them to ship a few days after. In this case, I think release was Friday, and Amazon officially shipped on Tuesday.

[Rowan]

I don't mind fighters being able to control sources if they'd like to try (fighters of Reynir or Vorynn derivations). They'll of course have to learn some Rituals, and any wizard worth his salt is going to have little trouble steamrolling over his domain unless the fighter has multiclassed with wizard. DMs could easily still say, however, that you must be a wizard (or multiclassed as such) to create a Source. Easy enough fix.

[kgauck]

Its nice enough to be possible, such as when the child is not of the same class as the parent, and has to arrange vassalage. If its prohibited, these kinds of things can get awkward. There may be a time when the mighty fighter is a better steward of the sources he inherited than his younger cousin, who is still an apprentice and has only mastered his first cantrip.

One notices there are no children on thrones. Since most presume that blood manifests its power in adolescence, boy kings would seem to be no better than commoners on thrones.

Yet, one can also imagine a domain whose proper heir is a few years too young to take over just yet, while another holds the reigns of power just yet. One hopes they'll let go when the time comes.

Could be another interpretation of the fate of William Moergan.

[bbeau22]

So multi-class character work much different. That might help the situation.

Why not stick to the old 2nd edition rules then. Since in 4th you have to pick a starting class which is your primary class.

Now instead of picking up a paragon path you choose another class ... then you can get regency from that also. I don't see the harm in this. Maybe only 50% of the regency for any additional classes you take.

regency dependant on derivation is a pretty cool idea. There are a couple of ways to go about including it.

- Certain derivations would up the maximum regency gained each turn by a set number ... like 5 or 10 above your max. This could include holdings you should get no regency from. So instead of 0 you could get 5 or 10 regency. This gives you a benifit if it is your primary source of regency or secondary.

- Derivations could add a multipler to regency gained from certain holding types. Multiplier could be 10% or 20%.

-BB

[aluman]

I can see the bloodline powers being tied to the levels categories of 4th ed - at least the adventure level ones.

This I totally agree with, I also think scion powers/feats should be slightly above average compared to normal powers/feats. Scions always were just plain Better than nonscions.


I am having trouble trying to get my hands around a way to handle domain level interaction of bloodline. IMO the score should remain mostly untouched since it is a measure of accomplishment that has nothing to do with character level.
RP acquisition is something a tad more challenging.

Again multi-classing is a common practice in 4th ed - unlike 2nd ed so we are back into finding some system that doesn't overly reward such choices.

Well in some ways. The most any race can get is powers from three classes, and even then they are only considered to be two of the classes. It is still much more common than 2e, but over all less absurd than 3e.


Skills don't work the same anymore so a skill rank/total mod system of tying in RP collection to bloodline doesn't seem to quite fit to me either.

There absolutely needs to be something that makes certain classes have a better shot at getting RP from certain holdings, IMO.

I think if use class features that don't get moved over with multiclassing (F.E., Implement Mastery is unique to wizards), we could tie RP in that way. I will break out my book when I get home tonight and make a listing.


Perhaps adding a class option to each that reflects this {just rambling on}.

Perhaps a multiclassing feat that makes the connection to a specifc bloodline derivation might likewise be attractive mechanically.
It could be made so maybe.

[Autarkis]

In 2E, regency gain was:

Guild: Thief (100%), Ranger (100%), Bard (50%)
Law: Warrior (100%), Priest (50%), Thief (50%)
Source: Wizard (100%)
Temple: Priest (100%), Paladin (100%)
Province: All (All)
Trade Route: Thief (1 RP per GB)

I don't see how multi-classing in 4E will really break how it was in 2E. I would probably keep the above and basically change the second class of the character only receiving half of the RP they would gain if that was there main class. The only class that 'breaks' is Main Class Priests and multi-class Wizard.

[bbeau22]

In 2E, regency gain was:

Guild: Thief (100%), Ranger (100%), Bard (50%)
Law: Warrior (100%), Priest (50%), Thief (50%)
Source: Wizard (100%)
Temple: Priest (100%), Paladin (100%)
Province: All (All)
Trade Route: Thief (1 RP per GB)

I don't see how multi-classing in 4E will really break how it was in 2E. I would probably keep the above and basically change the second class of the character only receiving half of the RP they would gain if that was there main class. The only class that 'breaks' is Main Class Priests and multi-class Wizard.


I was looking at the rules myself now. I certainly think that we can go back to the second edition rules when it comes to who gets what for regency. The only wrinkle I would put in is that maybe with the way multi-classing works when you take a multi-class feat you can have access to some other class regency gains from their holdings. Maybe only half or a quarter ... but something. Really haven't thought it through yet.

[Rowan]

Half RP is better than a quarter or any other multiplier--keep it simple.

4e has new classes and class concepts; I happen to agree with them and think they fit BR fairly well. I stand by my proposed list of half RP for certain holding types per class, the other half coming from derivation. All we need take from 2e is the concept that class influences RP collected; the actual amounts and associations of classes with holdings shouldn't need to be dictated by 2e.

[AndrewTall]

I'm out of sync clearly - I'm wondering why there is any link between class and RP collection.

The simplification of skills on 4e makes that skills a poor method for allocating RP - unless you decide to add a 'non adventure' set of skills for 4e with points based of skill use not level (if I don't find something in 4e for use off a battlemap I'll be bored and doing a set fairly rapidly).

I'm wondering still about the 'realm level' class still - all it would give is access to RP (and possibly GB) from holdings, domain feats, etc with no adventure evel implications, but it would allow a mechanic to say that 'X' is a better ruler than 'y' with some system of measurement. So Harold Khorien would be low level or unskilled away from source feats and skills, whereas the White Witch would be godlike obtaining the maximum output in gold and regency from her scattered holdings...

I would certainly prefer not to have a system that said 'Erik Danig is a lousy ruler because he can't swing a sword' on the mechanic grounds that Erik is a wizard not a fighter.

Earning RP is imho (sources aside) about being accepted as a leader by the people and respected - even worshiped by them - the ability of the character to perform adventure level activities should, outside the Vos perhaps, be completely irrelevant. To put it another way, when Koth the wizard needs to rouse the people to war he can wear shiny armour and wave a shiny sword with the best of them - the fact that he can't hit a barn door with the sword is irrelevant.

[geeman]

At 02:00 PM 6/11/2008, AndrewTall wrote:

I'm out of sync clearly - I`m wondering why there is any link between class and RP collection.

The simplification of skills on 4e makes that skills a poor method for allocating RP - unless you decide to add a `non adventure` set of skills for 4e with points based of skill use not level (if I don`t find something in 4e for use off a battlemap I`ll be bored and doing a set fairly rapidly).

I've never got the "regency collection based on skills" argument, personally.... I suppose it`s a sort of non-magical interpretation of RP, which I've always thought to be fundamentally missing the point.

I would certainly prefer not to have a system that said `Erik Danig is a lousy ruler because he can`t swing a sword` on the mechanic grounds that Erik is a wizard not a fighter.

Earning RP is imho (sources aside) about being accepted as a leader by the people and respected - even worshiped by them - the ability of the character to perform adventure level activities should, outside the Vos perhaps, be completely irrelevant. To put it another way, when Koth the wizard needs to rouse the people to war he can wear shiny armour and wave a shiny sword with the best of them - the fact that he can't hit a barn door with the sword is irrelevant.

There are three different terms here and they reflect very different things: acceptance, respect and worship. They fairly neatly describe BR`s domain level concepts, though, so they work as a method of explaining the thematic emphasis of the domain rules, regency and how they interact with character class. Basically, it boils down to this: RP is not about being accepted or respected by the people. It does, conceptually, related to being worshipped by them an abstract, general kind of way.... Regency is the domain level collection of magical energies garnered by a god through worship.

The acceptance of the people might be best expressed in BR as the simple existence of province and holding levels. After all, these things can be contested, rebelled against or otherwise rejected.

The respect of the people would probably best be illustrated in the BR domain rules through the loyalty numbers of provinces (I think holdings should have loyalty ratings too) for their regents.

The ability to collect regency, however, is a different beastie. Think of character class as being the thematic emphasis of a character. He`s a fighter, cleric, rogue or wizard as a sort of life choice. He embodies certain fighting, preaching, stealing or magical traits and dedicates his experience, body, soul and intellect to becoming an incarnation of that "profession." This compares most closely to the divine concept of "spheres of influence" amongst the gods. Character classes relate to specific holdings (all regents collect RP from provinces) in ways that relate to their personal choices in life.

Compare to various gods themselves. It`s hard to imagine Thor collecting divine energies from guilds. Oh, one could rationalize it in various ways, but the giant killer doesn't scream commerce and intrigue. Aphrodite doesn't seem apt for law holdings. Cthulhu doesn't strike me as a particularly interested in sources. This is illustrated in BR too. Erik doesn't seem all that interested in temple holdings. He prefers source manifestations. (We didn't actually have many rules for this in the original materials, unfortunately, and things still seem awkward when dealing with that god`s worship.) These characteristics would seem most closely tied to the divine equivalent of character class.

So, thematically, the relationship between character class and regency isn't one of respect or acceptance. Many regents collect RP from holdings in which they are reviled and even rebelled against. There are regents who are both respected and accepted as rulers of holdings that they would normally not be able to influence. In most of those cases, however, they rule domains that ALSO include holdings from which they collect RP, so they are effectively borrowing from one to stand in for the other, but the difference is transparent from the perspective of the participants.

Gary

[Sorontar]

Erik doesn`t seem all that interested in temple holdings. He prefers source manifestations. (We didn`t actually have many rules for this in the original materials, unfortunately, and things still seem awkward when dealing with that god`s worship.)


I prefer to think of from a Rjurik point-of-view. Their concept of a temple holding is different to that of Anuireans etc. They don't have temple holdings as buildings (and those who run them). They have holdings as practises and roles (and those who run them). The place of Erik's clerics in the Rjurik culture, like as advisor/judge/teacher, seems greater than how Haelyn's clerics fit into Anuire (or even Avani in Khinasi). Therefore I wouldn't think of the power of holdings related to Erik being how many people are in a church's congregation. Instead I would think of it as being how many people respect Erik's clerics and practise their culture to the advantage of the clerics.

And I think of the oaken groves etc not as temples that villagers visit regularly, but as symbols and places that clerics use for rituals.

Sorontar.

[AndrewTall]

Basically, it boils down to this: RP is not about being accepted or respected by the people. It does, conceptually, related to being worshipped by them an abstract, general kind of way.... Regency is the domain level collection of magical energies garnered by a god through worship.

Acceptance, respect are worship are imo part of a continuum - the respect, admiration, fear etc from thousands possibly being equivalent to the worship from a few hundred fanatics. RP therefore is therefore a measure of how intensely 'your' people think about you, which includes respect, admiration, fear, loyalty, etc, etc - the whole emotional range. Lots of RP means that you are, for good or ill, someone that people see as a mover and shaker.


The respect of the people would probably best be illustrated in the BR domain rules through the loyalty numbers of provinces (I think holdings should have loyalty ratings too) for their regents.

Now this is an interesting one - modify RP collection based on loyalty...


The ability to collect regency, however, is a different beastie. Think of character class as being the thematic emphasis of a character. He`s a fighter, cleric, rogue or wizard as a sort of life choice. He embodies certain fighting, preaching, stealing or magical traits and dedicates his experience, body, soul and intellect to becoming an incarnation of that "profession." This compares most closely to the divine concept of "spheres of influence" amongst the gods. Character classes relate to specific holdings (all regents collect RP from provinces) in ways that relate to their personal choices in life.

Well, that depends on how you see class. If it is simply a collection of skills and powers, it may have little if anything to do with the characters 'life choice' - whether fighter, wizard or rogue one could still be an upright moral preacher of the true god for example. With the focus of 4e on adventure play the class chosen becomes increasingly irrelevant for domain play, while many systems that could be used in BR don't have the concept of class at all which is increasingly a holdover from earlier versions in D&D.

Add to that the idea of low level characters being great rulers - the adventure class means relatively little to them as their life is primarily that of ruler. Ask Aeric Boruine what he is and he would say archduke, ruler, or suchlike - not sword-swinger. He might stretch to 'general' but fundamentally he is not someone who makes their way through life via a strong swordarm - he uses armies that hold thousands of them...


So, thematically, the relationship between character class and regency isn't one of respect or acceptance. Many regents collect RP from holdings in which they are reviled and even rebelled against.

Any number of gods of fear, trickery, murder, etc are deemed to gain power from people who wish to avoid them as well as those who follow them. One does not need to love King John to kneel when he passes :(. Jaison Raenech or Gavin Tael may be not be loved, but by the gods they are feared and respected - and no peasant doubts that their life hangs on their masters whim or who that master is - so both should gain RP from their realms.

Osoerde also shows a good example of how you reflect a split population - William has some holdings which reflect areas where the love for William / freedom outweighs the fear of Raenech for example. Loyalty levels could be used to fine tune this approach significantly albeit at increased book-keeping cost.