Contest and Rule Holding

[Magian]

Hi,

I don't think the rules specifically state this anywhere so please correct me if I am wrong.

In my campaign I am allowing a character to contest someone's holding then rule up their own thereby (if all slots are filled) reducing the contested holding by one and raising the ruled holding by one. At first look it may seem to make more sense to simply contest a second time and destroy the opposition, however contest and rule are realm actions (multiple province) and a character could increase their hold like this. If this is done to a level 1 holding however and it is successful the holding is destroyed because there can be no contested 0 level holdings.

This may be skipping an action and creating a short cut but I like this idea because the contest should be that. Also this eliminates the character from investing an entire contested holding, that was my main purpose for this, to make it more of a contest. Two actions are still required so I think it can work out.

The invest holding I reserve for occupied holdings, not contested.

Let me know if I have overlooked the obvious here. I am sure I have.

[Lawgiver]

This is the way I do Contest Actions in my campaign. http://fan_of_enoch.tripod.com Contest is designed to attack/destroy your opponents holdings. You cannot simultaneously increase your own, but it does free up the space to in the following action.

Since Rule actions only allow you to build up holdings 1 level at a time you could reduce your opponents holding by two levels and guarantee a slot for your holding the following turn. Another alternative is to send Gweedo your Lt. to burn your opponents guild warehouses and spend your action building your guilds in their place.

Note: most regents do not enjoy losing power (levels) on holdings that they invested serious time and money in to create. A contest action should not be taken lightly by the target. It is easily justification of war, open or covert.


Contest
A regent can neutralize another regent's holding by contesting their influence. If the attempt is successful, the contest holding does not generate regency or Gbs for the owner. A level 0 is destroyed by a Contest action. A successful Contest action permanently reduces a holding by 1 level. A holding may be reduced by Multiple levels. For each level contested the difficulty is increased by 5. (i.e. a level 3 holding has a difficulty of 20). The success number is modified by the difference between the attacker's holding (or province rating , if he's the ruler) and the contested holding. Multiple holdings can be contested in a single turn.

For example, two thieves are rivals in a province (5). Benson controls a guild(2). If Wart, his rival, has a guild (3) he may contest Benson's guild with a base difficulty of 9, or both levels at 14. If Benson contests Wart's guilds he has a base difficulty of 11, or 16 for both levels.

Rulership of a province can be contested as well at double the normal difficulty (i.e. 20 for first province, 30 for two). However, contesting a province does not effect its level. Rather it effects it ownership/investiture. A province is automatically contested if the province is conquered during a war. Once a province is successfully contested, it ceases to generate regency and GBs for the ruling regent until:

The attacker relents

the attackers loses all of their own holdings/provinces

the attacker dies

the defender makes a successful Rule action on a law holding (if available slots exist) or the province level.

If a province is successfully contested twice (or once in the turn after a successful invasion) an Investiture Action may be performed switching the realm's ownership. Multiple provinces can be contested in a single turn. (i.e. Gavin Tael of Ghoere successfully contests the border realm of Maesford, Alamie. Maesford will not generate RPs or GBs. If Gavin successfully contests the realm a second time all times to the regent of Alamie are broken. The following turn Gavin may perform an Investiture ceremony, effectively conquering the realm without military force).

[Lord Eldred]

Either suggested way makes more sense than the current rules. Think about it. Sears Department Store does not have to destroy JcPenny Department Store in order to increase their sales. They only need to take some of the market share away. Hence it makes more sense to decrease one by one and increase the other by one.

[Magian]

What brings me to this point,

In my campaign Roger Aglondier has used up almost all his resources in his actions and has failed miserably, ruling Ilien and so on. He is now very very poor and Hermedhie has just driven him out of Medoere, now HMA decides to move to increase his holdings again at the expense of RA. This is how I am doing it, through these actions of contest then rule.

Now I also am considering allowing a player to contest then rule thereby reducing another's holding even if there are still spaces open, this directly reduces and opponent or competitor and I think it is a much more friendly way that contesting twice.

[Magian]

Oh and one more thing, I don't like the idea of contesting someone's holding then investing the entire thing in two actions. I think it is a little cheap, however military occupation is another matter entirely. Military force should have a lot of weight in order to balance the gameplay, espcially when magic works in the real world not just on the superstitions of the people.

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred

Either suggested way makes more sense than the current rules. Think about it. Sears Department Store does not have to destroy JcPenny Department Store in order to increase their sales. They only need to take some of the market share away. Hence it makes more sense to decrease one by one and increase the other by one.

Thats not necessarily true. You forgot CATOs, Wal-mart, Goody's, American Eagle, Dawhares....

Guilds are a representation of the major trade organizations, not the exclusive sales markets. It should be assumed that other markets exist, they just aren't the major players that have political influence in the realm. Ed's clothiers may be a nice place to shop, but poor Ed's with his 1,000 sq. ft. Store doesn't have the sway of a major guild.

Basically, other markets exist so just because one guild is weakened it is not assumed the other is strengthened

[Lord Eldred]

All the small stores are considered 0 level holdings. Holdings with no influence. However with a little willpower they could become players. Even the guy with 1000 sqft shop could make a run through expansion.

Now as far as the way things work. It doesn't make sense that a guild that wants to increase power has to totally eliminate the competition to do so. They should be able to slowly take away market share and influence with an advertising blitz that steals away customers but not all the costumers.

[Lawgiver]

How does one advertise in a world were people are illiterate, printing presses are all but non-existent, and most multi-media is non-existent...

Ideas:
holding festivals.
free samples
word of mouth
sitting in your sales booth trying to look pathetic...

[Magian]

Here are some other ideas for adverstisment/persuasion that guilds can use:

Use thugs to convince people they need to pay protection,
use religion fudamentals especially where the religion is the only source of education to persuade people to believe in you and not the other guy,
assassinate those who you feel endanger your interests (i.e. the serpent) thus gaining a dark reputation.

[Lawgiver]

Magian: I think your Touch of Decay powers have gone to your head...

Not every guild need be a seedy slit-throat/cut purse haven of tugs. I would love to have a player try to run a guilder PC with a descently good alignment...

[Magian]

Like a wise man once said, all men a wicked hence a good "leader" should have the animal traits of a fox and a lion.

[Temujin]

Ah, a reader of The Prince I presume.

[Lawgiver]

Ney, tis justice and righteousness that win the day and the hearts of the people in the end.

Proverbs 29:2
'When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.'

[Magian]

I agree with the quotation lawgiver however if integrity was so successful then why do wicked men prevail so often? Also this quotation says nothing about good or successful leadership just the reaction of the people. Certainly in a perfect world we would all be happy with a virtuous leader however such a leader is bound to make dangerous enemies in powerful places if the people are his only concern, just ask JFK.

[Lawgiver]

Its ironic you mentioned JFK. My initials are also JFK (Jason F. Klotz)... Unfortunately, my answer is spiritual in nature so it will be of little use. Basically we live in a fallen world where sin abounds. Though the "end" shall come and justice shall prevail.

[Lord Eldred]

It seems to me that wicked men/women do not prevail in the long run!

[Magian]

In the long run the meek shall inherit the earth just ask the dude who did the sermon on the mount.

[Lord Eldred]

Let's here it for the meek!

[Lawgiver]

If we cheered them on to victory... would that cease to make them meek?

[Magian]

No only the cheerers would lose their meekness.

[Lawgiver]

[sits silently...leaning back in his chair.. stroking his goatee...]

[Lord Eldred]

I guess that means I won't be inheriting the earth. I knew I shouldn't have cheered for the meek. I guess I am also assuming alot if I thought I was meek in the first place.

Hmm what do I do now?

Magian, is there a way to get back your meekness?

[Lawgiver]

Click your heels together three times chanting...no wait that's not it... Got be a solution around here some where....

Matthew 18:4
'Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.'

Luke 14:11
'For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.'

1 Peter 5:6
'Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.'

[blitzmacher]

He who knows does not say, he who says does not know

[Lawgiver]

Try not! Do! Or do not... there is no try.

[Arlen Blaede]

This is just really semantics but...

If the meek shall inherit the Earth....

Then who gets Heaven?

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Arlen Blaede
This is just really semantics but...
If the meek shall inherit the Earth....
Then who gets Heaven?

Revelation 21:1-3
1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.

Revelation 22:1-5
1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign forever and ever.

Basically there is no longer a separation between heaven and earth. God brings His holy kingdom/city the New Jerusalem to the new earth. Thus the two are merged into one. They will be joined, but semi-separated (the New Jerusalem is surrounded by a massive wall). When the eternal kingdom comes God and His Son dwell there with those of mankind who accepted his offer of redemption.

[Riegan Swordwraith]

Evil does not start with the Devil as good does not start with God.We as humans are creatures of free will,so the seeds of light and darkness starts with us.

[Arlen Blaede]

Sounds kinda a like Utopia for those who have accepted redemption with those who do not outside of that on what's left of the Earth or does Hell claim all those left behind?

[Riegan Swordwraith]

Religion and Philosophy are one and the same.They both are a way of living your life in order to reach a certain goal.In most philosophies it is a hightened enlightenment,in religion it usually is some final place of glory in the next life.All religion and all philosophies have three truths composed of three parts.1)Moon,the Sun,and the Earth.2)Mother,child,and the father.3)Life,Death,and Rebirth.

I am not Atheistic,nor am I Agnostic.I am not Christian,nor am I Muslim,Hindu,or Pagan.I simply am.One's religion and sense of self with that of which he understands not,should be his own decision.Sadly though in this world,one does not have such luxury.For too many times someone asks the God question and does not like what he hears.

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Arlen Blaede
Sounds kinda a like Utopia for those who have accepted redemption with those who do not outside of that on what's left of the Earth or does Hell claim all those left behind?

Revelation 20:10-15
10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

To put it bluntly, if your names not in the book your not in the kingdom.


Orginally posted by Riegan Swordwraith
Sadly though in this world,one does not have such luxury.For too many times someone asks the God question and does not like what he hears.
What are you trying to say with this statement?

with regards to the first half of your statements: If ones denies absolute truth in all forms your generalizations fo philosophy and religion maybe true (though that in itself would be invalid since no truth exists...). To deny the existance of any absolutes is foolishness--PERIOD.

[Riegan Swordwraith]

How many times have you ever asked someone of their religous stance,have you received an answer,and you automatically wish to contradict their stance,how wrong they are for their choice of worship,or not to worship as the case may be??You may not be angry,you may not even say anything,but you automatically consider that person as something else,based on nothing more than whether or not they worship God or not,or how they do.That is what I am refering to.

As to the first half of my statement,I was showing the "truths" as parallels between religion and philosophy.

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Riegan Swordwraith
How many times have you ever asked someone of their religous stance,have you received an answer,and you automatically wish to contradict their stance,how wrong they are for their choice of worship,or not to worship as the case may be??You may not be angry,you may not even say anything,but you automatically consider that person as something else,based on nothing more than whether or not they worship God or not, or how they do.That is what I am refering to.

I do not judge anyone's religious beleifs. We are all humans with free will. Choose what you wish. ;) I will spare you my apologetic and any further philosophical rhetoric.

[Riegan Swordwraith]

I thank you for understanding.I myself have no problems with discussing theology.However my views are generally ill-received,and I actually have been called a heretic once.:)I am open-minded up to the point where someone closes their mind to me.

If I offended you Lawgiver or anyone else over my comments,allow me to appologise.When I said "you" in my statement,I was not refering to any ONE person,I was meaning any who was reading it.

Once I again I appologise for any offensive statements.

[blitzmacher]

It is no use arguing with religous people. Not with God telling them how to win the argument.

[Green Knight]

Just contest the bugger repeatedly. Then you don't have to listen to him anymore :P

[Lord Eldred]

How exactly did we get into this religious discussion? Was it my fault?

By the way how does one humble or exalt themselves?