Stjordvik vassals

[AndrewTall]

If following a 'the law/guild/temple activity is known, but not its organisation approach', then perhaps even most of the members of the organisation don't know who the ultimate regent is, which would make them more vulnerable to being swayed to a heroic leader.

GB and RP are vague enough not to be really tied to a specific holding, in practice even 'regular' holdings would complain if their taxes/tithes/dues/etc were always spent elsewhere so an argument that there's no need to hit the hidden holding in either regard is not unreasonable, and similarly a 100% vassalage arrangement would in theory be possible and permit a puppet to funnel all profits and regency to the ultimate lord (ask the Raven or Gorgon), so while a hit to RP or GB could be justified I don't think either is necessary.

To reflect my preference that contest is not obliterating an existing holding and creating a new one, but persuading minor leaders to switch allegiance, the hidden holding could then be penalised by:
1. Increased difficulty to undertake rule actions and contest actions
2. Chance of discovery if significant regency spent by the regent
3. A 'hostile' rule action that would require the hidden holding to convert being treated as a contest action (rather than just wasted)

Another alternative to reflect a hidden holding is to use a 100% vassal approach, so have the holding known like any other, but in the name of a puppet vassal - less obvious if vassals are relatively common.

[Osprey]

To reflect my preference that contest is not obliterating an existing holding and creating a new one, but persuading minor leaders to switch allegiance...

So...why doesn't the Contest action convert holdings from one ruler to another in a single domain action if that is the intent?

Or are you stating here that this is what you wish the Contest action did mechanically? Is that a house rule you use?

Normally it is one or 2 actions to knock down (Contest) and a totally separate and later action to Rule, which might take a fair bit longer than contesting depending how many levels are being replaced.

[AndrewTall]

So...why doesn't the Contest action convert holdings from one ruler to another in a single domain action if that is the intent?

Or are you stating here that this is what you wish the Contest action did mechanically? Is that a house rule you use?

Normally it is one or 2 actions to knock down (Contest) and a totally separate and later action to Rule, which might take a fair bit longer than contesting depending how many levels are being replaced.

Presumably the designers wanted 2 actions, the first knocks down, the second is then a race to see who can build up. The mechanics obviously impacts the perception of what has occurred but being broad enough to cover multiple interpretations.

My preference comes from the speed of change, costs, and bloodshed involved. If you need to persuade small sub-holding level groups to shift allegiance to or from a regent, then the cost and time is persuasion/coercion, etc, not birthrate and the time to build bricks and mortar. And while I can see the 'traditional view' working for guild holding changes where loyalty is generally seen as relatively fluid, people's loyalty to their religion, nation etc tend to be very hard to shift.

By taking the view that the holding is the focal point of sub-holding-level groups, and changes in holdings represent shifting loyalties in those groups, it becomes much easier to see how it can cost far fewer GB to take over a large law holding than it does to build a port, or even a bridge - the regent isn't tearing down the old, they are just displacing the previous focus.

This also of course makes domain actions far more easy to explain as susceptible to heroics, makes holdings far less homogeneous - a 'temple of Haelyn' could have temples of other gods in it, or orders focusing on different gods, the holding and 'Haelyn-ness' then representing the political/economic control of those sub-churches rather than a single unifying creed), it is also however much easier for a DM to justify a great captain event.

So for example if a temple of Avani and a temple of Haelyn contest and rule, the holding taken by the victor wouldn't represent the slaughter of the priests, burning of churches and switching of faith by thousands of people, but a shift in view amongst the leaders of the relevant sub-churches between whether 'the advisor' or 'the king' is the active driving force, which central cathedral they seek theological wisdom from, etc, there might still be some bloodshed and breakages, but nothing mandates such in the rules.

[Fizz]

So for example if a temple of Avani and a temple of Haelyn contest and rule, the holding taken by the victor wouldn't represent the slaughter of the priests, burning of churches and switching of faith by thousands of people, but a shift in view amongst the leaders of the relevant sub-churches between whether 'the advisor' or 'the king' is the active driving force, which central cathedral they seek theological wisdom from, etc, there might still be some bloodshed and breakages, but nothing mandates such in the rules.

That is how i understand things as well. This happens in one of the adventures in Legends of the Hero Kings, where a priest of Belinik is trying to make inroads (doing so via non-Belinik-y ways, if i recall). He knows he's not strong enough to challenge the regent from the start, so he's trying to build his followers (temple level) before he becomes overtly aggressive.

-Fizz