Blood Abilities: Domain Level

Dungeons & Dragons BRCS 4th Edition
41

And even more from the same source

[LEFT]Good role-players whose characters possess bloodlines probably already attempt to work with any dichotomy in their natures. Warriors with
Vorynn’s bloodline could develop an interest in the workings of magic, or in the strategic application of spells on the battlefield. Rogues possessing the Anduiras bloodline derivation might decide to become “honorable” thieves, stealing from only the evil or “those who can afford the loss.”

The pull of a signature blood ability can be used to emphasize this possible contradiction. The player might choose to use his signature ability (or abilities) only when he thinks it should be used—in a role-playing, rather than practical, sense.

[/LEFT]
[SIZE=2][LEFT]DMs should not be shy about suggesting uses of signature blood abilities that support the nature of the god who supplied the bloodline in the first
place. They needn’t force players to go along with these suggestions, but might indicate when something “feels” right or wrong to the characters.

However, DMs should never allow the bloodline to take the place of problem - solving or moral debates. Players should come to realize that the bloodline is not a cognizant entity within them, but rather a part of their own natures. And it might not always encourage PCs to act in their best interests .[/LEFT]
[LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[/SIZE]

42

But there is good taste and bad taste. As Edmund Burke in his work, On Taste tells use taste is a product of experience.

In one case, a player picks a derivation to support a backstory (I would prefer to say a character concept, because it goes forward as well as backward). In the other case a player picks a set of powers and doesn’t want to be bothered with where these come from or how else they might influence the character.

take 100 people who know the game. Give them an attack modifer, give them an AC, and ask them the number needed to hit. All 100 will come to the same number. That’s a well designed rule.

The difference between mechanics and constructing a culture is that mechanics are clear. But role playing is impossible without a culture as a medium in which to interact. Checkers has game mechanics. But its not normally thought of as a role playing environment. Role playing on the other hand, needs a set of expectations about how people act, so that my kind act to the begger in Haes has meaning. Culture is not clear and obvious, or mechanical. So cultural aspects have to be adjudicated by each DM in his own way, based on their own theories of society and their theory of the society created in the game. How strict is chivalry in this place? In that place? Before this audience or that?

So much of role playing is not mechanical (indeed you can construct a perfectly fine RPG with no mechanics). So the fact that what it means to be a scion of Anduiras is going to get different answers depending on who you ask is simply a feature of what role playing is. The interpretation of the norms of dead gods, living gods, cultural expectations, occupational experience. Hence: “Welcome to role playing.”

43

At 06:49 PM 6/11/2008, irdeggman wrote:

>I think these qotes help to emphasize where I am getting my basis
>for how bloodline derivations tend to govern (or draw) a scion to a
>certain behavior. I knew I didn`t make it up on my own.

If you (and by “you” I mean anyone who might want to venture an
opinion) were to quantify the affect of this influence on behavior
from derivation, how might you characterize it? That is, I`d suggest
that if you had a list of 10 general, wide-ranging characteristics to
describe a person, derivation might account for 2-4 of them. A scion
of Azrai might get 4-6 of his characteristics from his derivation,
and maybe more as he levelled up and his bloodline began to take him
over. How do other folks see this?

G

44

I think that things like culture, religion, derivation, and other markers about who you are (social class -royal, noble, merchant &c, game class, fighter, cleric, wizard, &c) interact. Some characters will line these things up and they will reinforce. The Brecht guilder who worships Sera and has a Brenna bloodline, for instance.

If a character is all over the place, like the Rjurik wizard who worships Haelyn and has a derivation of Maseala, each of these components is arguing for something different. Sometimes one wins and then another has to lose. Just being a wizard says that some Rjurik sensibility was overcome. Sometimes influences will cancel one another out and you have a blank slate to work with. Such characters will be pretty eccentric.

So like influences reinforce, and conflicting influences both conflict and cancel one another. A character who has reinforcing influences, except for their derivation will be generally able to resist that influence by relying on their other influences, at least to a point.

As for Azrai, I don’t think its more powerful in its influence, but rather more seductive. It does this in part by pretending to be other influences. It used things we might call Freudian defense mechanisms to trick the character into thinking he acted on his religious sensibility or his cultural inheritance, when in fact the blood of Azrai was misrepresenting itself about its own influence. It doesn’t tell you want it wants to tell you, it tells you what you want to hear.

45

You can read the descriptions of the types of players, nowhere you will find that someone has worst or better taste, plays the game worst or better or anything related to that way of thinking. It’s a game, there are lots of ways of playing it and all of them are equal (common sense). You may like some of them more than others, that’s natural, but saying they are the way the game is supposed to be played is simply not truth.

And before someone says something like setting wins over common sense or things like that and also answering to The Book of Regency quotes: there’s a more important word that should be bolded that appears on the first page of that book, Accessory. There’s a reason why Heavens of the Great Bay is a Campaign Expansion and The Book of Regency is an Accessory.

46

Since I don’t confine my reading to the 4e DMG, I don’t regard all playing styles as equal, nor do I regard that as sensible, though it may be common. Nor do I regard Superman comics to have the same value as Aeschylus, though both influence RPG’s. But to observe that some things are better than others is not the same thing as saying that the game is supposed to be morally, spiritually, aesthetically uplifting or strive to be better. Some people play for simple amusement, others attach a deeper level of interest in the game. Both are good, but the one is not as good as the other. To argue otherwise is to suspend judgment.

This is a game that presumes people get better (advance in level), but that doesn’t apparently apply to the players.

No one is telling anyone how to play the game. That’s a false argument. But to claim that the game is as good with only part of the materials as it is with all the materials is just silly. You can play a good game never leaving Roesone. More is better. Even bad products like the Sword of Roele offer something (good maps of the river valley between Coeranys and Baruk-Azhik, descriptions of the Three Brothers Mages) that adds to the game.

47

The 4e DMG was an example that as there are people who think like you, there are people who don’t think like you. I won’t be bothered to check all the PHs/DMGs I have around, but sure they tell the same more or less: play the game the way you have more fun. You can think one way of playing is better or worse than other, good for you, but if you fail to see that a big part of the world will disagree with that you have a problem. And saying a set of things are equal is judging them as much as saying they aren’t equal.

And about the materials thing, I think you are mistaken: AD&D 2e is a perfect example that trying to use all the materials published was a horrible mess. Saying something with an accessory has to be better than the same thing alone has no logic base and has lots of examples that show you wrong. And more horrible if it’s a game with lots of accessories that will end contradicting themselves in multiple places, let it be rules, history, etc etc.

But the funny thing is I never claimed it was silly, I claimed The Book of Regency was accessory (as the book itself says!): something you pick if you want or you don’t pick if you don’t want, you can use some parts (as you say with the Sword of Roele) and trash others. You can trash the full Book of Regency and the setting is as Birthright as not trashing it.

Either way, I’m out of this talk, it doesn’t help moving forward a 4e conversion and it’s as useless as talking about politics, religion or other personal visions about whatever topic.

48

Well you’ve established that businesses don’t like to judge why their consumers buy their product: they want everyone to buy. On the other hand you could check out settings designed to brand for a niche market.

Pretending that there is no such thing as a good game and a better game makes sense for a marketing department. Its a particularly bad trait in a conversion project. Any choice is not as good as any other choice.

49

Being an Accessory does not make it any less “official”.

It makes it another source for reference to use to determine what the intent of the designers was.

That is where those of us who have insisted that bloodline derivation has a lot to do with behavior and thus “alignment” comes from.

So merely state that there is no connection becomes merely an opinion when there is evidence that there is indeed one (whether or not that evidence is used or not).

Blood Enemies is also an Accessory

So is the Sea Battle rules (the separate product version not the ones contained in Cities of the Sun).

And all of the Player’s Secrets

I am also pretty sure that Blood Spawn was classified as an “Accessory” too.

What is really the difference between and expansion and an accessory in 2nd ed? I do not believe those terms have been used in 3.5 (and most likely won’t be used in 4th ed either) - either something is in the core rules books (PHB, MM and DMG) or it is in an “optional” book. But everything WotC publishes is considered “official”.

Both were entirely “optional” and both were equally “offical”.

I think you are just looking for a reason to dismiss and “official” source because in your game you didn’t play things that way. That is entirely allowed and understandable - a DM has always been able to “tailor” his/her game the way he/she saw fit.

But when it comes down to hard facts and quotes it comes down to whether somethig is “house-rules” or “official cannon”.

I have provided the “official” quotes.

50

I didn’t want to answer, but I think it’s better to clear future problems: this is not true, point.

As I posted in another thread I only play Birthright on the domain level and my game is so tweaked by house rules that is completely different than 2e or the 3e conversion (I posted some on the old BR-list long time ago, I will maybe upload it to the wiki someday). I have no intention or desire to try make 4e conversion feel like my own house rules, so don’t worry, when I post something is for what I feel will be the best for the conversion, not to suit my own needs. I’ll be right or wrong, but my intention is the same as the rest of the people around: to have the best possible 4e Conversion for Birthright we can come up.

So end point: please do not think I post because I want BR to feel like my own creations, it’s not based on any logical argument and more importantly, it’s not true.

P.D.: about the accesory, supplement and other keywords, please check any 3e product cover… You also know what the word “accessory” means.

51

irdeggman point still stands.

Book of Regency and City of Suns are at the same level as far as flavor and how ‘official’ it outlines the world and flavor of the game.

For me, the Player’s Handbooks, the additional region settings, adventure sets, novels, and additional rule books all add flavor to the game and consistency (I know, ironically using that word when speaking of Birthright which is known for its inconsistencies.) Any of these can be ‘trashed.’

Regardless, back to the discussion, I feel that watering down the uniqueness of the blood abilities and how they separate a blooded individual from a non-blooded individual goes against the spirit and original purpose of the setting. Not all things need to be equal and sometimes attempting to ensure balance of everything leads to derailing the setting.

52

Sigh…

First, the “bloodlines should be tied to an alignment” thing is not something that would be needed to be converted from 2e to 4e. It’s rules-invariant so I don’t see why it should appear in a conversion as nothing needs to be converted. So no matter who is right or wrong here, it won’t be a problem for the conversion.

Second, Cities of the Sun is a Campaign Expansion (official and cannon) and The Book of Regency is an accessory (official and as cannon as you want it to be). It’s not the same.

But better see one example of this “accessory (flavor) = cannon” behavior: The Book of Magecraft and the BRCS 3e Conversion :slight_smile:

There’s some cool flavor text on The Book of Magecraft about caerbhaighlien. I suppose it has to be really important because if you check the BRCS 3e Conversion you can find it in chapter 7. It’s puzzling why flavor text should be converted, but it’s more puzzling why someone invented a rule for it in the conversion process: caerbhaighlien sources aren’t counted in the sources levels for the province. I have no idea why this was added but there it is.

Now let’s advance a little more in The Book of Magecraft. You will find an action called Ley Link who allows people to share sources and ley lines. It’s a very simple action so I suppose it’s official and cannon too. Let’s go to the BRCS 3e Conversion: you won’t find it in the actions (chapter 5). Let’s check chapter 7: here comes the big WTF.

[quote=““BRCS 3e””]

Ley lines are a non-transferable domain asset. When a regent dies, her ley network is destroyed. Ley lines cannot be used or invested to another caster. The only exception to this rule is the use of the ley lines by the regent’s lieutenant as part of a lieutenant domain action.

[/quote]

I could have understood (to some degree) not translating the action as it’s pretty simple. But contradicting it? There’s no ground on the Campaign Setting or The Book of Magecraft for that. Also I haven’t found the level 7+ source equals a level 0 guild holding to create trade routes is on the conversion (I haven’t searched much, could be somewhere).

So much for accessory = cannon…

And no, this is not an attack to the impressive work done in the BRCS 3e Conversion. It’s just an example that the “accessory = cannon” thing has not been followed on previous work, so do not try to sell it now.

53

The word is “canon” and the adjective is “canonical”. All rules produced for the Birthright setting are canon, regardless of how mixed up or consistent they are. In cases where these clash, either the prime source (usually Ruins of Empire) takes precedence or you go with either common sense or personal preference.

The novels are not canonical, with regards to the rules, but provide some interesting back story.

54

Caerbhaighlien sources are not controllable, therefore they either replace usable source holdings with unusable ones or effectively reduce the source potential of a province. The BoM deigned to mention which interpretation was correct. The BRCS team appear to have figured that something described as rare and wonderful should be positive, figured that a plot device McGuffin (we need to access the ancient caerbhaighlien to have the power to defend our province) was better than a sore point (ok GM, how do I get rid of the Caerbagh crap polluting my source?) and so decided that the Caerbhaighlien sources would be additional to the normal sources of the province, not instead of them.

Leylink has similar issues; it was out of sync with the treatment of other domain types and also become obsolete with the concept of control by a council of scions rather than a single scion - the BRCS therefore removed the existing 2e anomaly and fixed it with a more versatile generic mechanic.

Part of the 2e to 3e conversion was to remove randomness from holding income thus technically all the old income rules were ignored… The ‘high level sources act as virtual guild rule’ was retained as an optional rule in BRCS and is used in some PBEMs.

In general the BRCS appears to have tried to follow comments in all products as far as possible, I have to admit I’ve not been aware of anyone splitting the ‘accessory’ and ‘expansion’ concept in the way you have, to me the terms are interchangeable, but everyone will rank products in terms of importance based on a number of factors, this can put RoE on top (prime source) or the bottom (first attempt corrected in later books) dependig on point of view. Personally I go for whatever works best and is most consistent in my campaign.

My understanding is that flavour text will convert either to explain issues which came up in play with more clarity, reflect the fact that the typist gets bored just copying, or be an attempt to avoid copyright issues. Rules issues will tend to change to improve consistency across the ruleset, fit with the 3e philosophy better (i.e. the change from random income to fixed), update earlier ‘canon’ for later ‘canon’, or because the players on the forum at the time simply preferred the new rule in gameplay.

Alignment as a ruleset has changed frequently from system to system and that does need to be reflected in the conversion; to be honest though alignment is so poor a system given modern personality tools that I find it meaningless - I’ve had characters described as CE by half the group and LG by the other half based on their interpretations of the characters actions - the 4e version which assumes that chaos is bad and law good is even more broken than the 2 and 3e ‘balance’ alignments imho. This is one sacred cow which should have been slaughtered early in the 4e process…

Part of the 4e conversion will be not only considering the relative importance of sources, but also identifying ‘canon’ that is inconsistent with 4e philosophy. My current worry is that BR was aimed at the gamers who wanted the ‘outside combat’ stuff and ‘role not roll’ play, whereas the 4e conversion seems to have dumped any consideration of either game style. I have no problem with a game that consists wholly of PC creation, shopping, and random acts of violence, but I want more from BR and a conversion may wind up having to ignore significant chunks of 4e design philosophy.

55

It is a vast mistake to confuse behavior and alignment. Bloodline draws one towards the values and behaviors associated with the god of its derivation, not necessarily anything at all to do with alignment.

I would be perfectly happy to abandon alignment of any kind (2e, 3e, 4e) in favor of descriptions of the gods and their ethical views on things. A Vorynnian worldview is something that is fundamental to the game. Its manifest in bloodlines, in the temples and teachings of Ruornil, the life ways of the old Vos, in the use of sources, the casting of spells, and all sorts of secret lore.

But apparently upholding the ways of Vorynn and Ruornil are too limiting, even though you get to choose of Vorynn is your guy, or not, or match him with a current god for a little hybid philosophy? Still to limiting?

Inside the game, sure derivations are proscriptive, they proscribe behavior.

But as a player, you picked this derivation, you described it as a way you wanted to act. It doesn’t control action any more than any other decision. You can’t be armored and unarmored at the same time, but you do get pick which one you want. Even derivations can change if the DM is willing to throw the right scion in your path.

But all of these concerns about things impinging on the character seem very un-Brithright to me. Birthright is about obligations and looking out for those who have sworn obedience to you. Its about embracing the super-ego, not the id.

56

Actually, you are wrong. The first published books serve as a starting point. As other books get published, they take the precedence because they are newer and possibly better worked out, revised and expanded.

You’d compare, for example, one tribe in Rjurik Highlands campaing expansion with the same one in, let’s say, Player’s secrets of Stjordvik and see that if it holds no other entry than “As described in Rjurik Highlands CE”, you’d go for that book as reference. Otherwise, you’d stick to the new one, if it suits you. That’s your first line of common sense.

Why would anyone want to use the scarce info in RoE for Tuarhievel when they have a whole PS on it where the prince “left ages ago” to have a cup of tea with the G.?

57

Because the RoE was written by the setting designer whereas PSoT was written by a hackjob author who had no input on anything before or since and made glaring setting errors? If the gheallie sidhe wouldn’t tolerate Ibelcoris as queen for being to friendly with humans just how long would Savane last on the throne? Not to mention the bizarrity of Fhileraene, an independent sidhe of a powerful elven realm meekly walking off to Kal Saitharak because the Gorgon demanded his attendance…

58

Here is one of the few times where Kenneth and I agree almost completely.

Vicente,

First, the “bloodlines should be tied to an alignment” thing. . .

I never said that bloodline derivation was tied to alignment only that they drew a scion to a certain behaviour - which is in BoR. Azrai is the one exception because behaviour is equated to alignment there. Pretty much in 2nd ed alignment was connected to behavior, also it was in 3.5, in 4th ed the connection is lessoned but the abstractions are still there.

It is possible for a scion to go against his nature, but it is supposed to be difficult. There are plenty of written examples of this in the Br 2nd ed literature.

59

Bad example.

This is one of the places where it has been pointed out before that there were “errors” in the BRCS. Another one was the number of trade routes that a port can have (Havens of the Great Bay pointed out that they get twice as many as normal, although the increase is for sea trade routes alone) while the BRCS says they count towards to total (which is clearly in error).

So do not assume this was an intentional interpretation of how to combine “canon” material there are quite a few “accidents” in the BRCs that need to be corrected and then try to use them as basis for a point to be made is a discussion.

60

irdeggman, your explanation and AndrewTall explanation about the points I remarked from the BRCS 3e Conversion clash completely. And I think his post explains much better what happened on those three examples (adding/explaining a rule, going against a rule and making a rule optional). Maybe the three of them were mistakes as you say, feel free to post links who talk about that subject and support the mistake argument.