I`ve never felt 100% satisfied that different approaches to exploitation can be handled with just descriptive approaches or generalized into the level of the provicnes in question. Invariably this relates only to guilds. The published materials exibit a strong theme of conflict between an enviromentalism and commercialism. Some realms, like Cariele and Talinie, put this conflict in the forefront, while each of the various Cerilian nations has its own characteristic approach to the problem. So the question is, if serious impact is implied by aggressive guild action, what game effect should it have?
For the most part I have been content to explain this in terms of province levels. (Full disclosure: I regard province levels are representing development, not population.) The mechanics work this way: a guilder wants more money, gets the province level increased, the greater prosperity means more taxes paid and more tithes offered. The mebhaighl is disrupted, and sources decline. That`s fine to a point. But I have two problems with it. One is that the throttle of growth is in the hands of the province ruler. Not the law ruler, not the guild ruler, but the province ruler. How does that person encourage or discourage growth when there is an aggressive guilder (who may also have the law in the province) attempting to expand the economic activity? Even if we fall back on the old population theory of province levels, why of all the rulers does the province ruler control the rule action for the province?
If I ditch the whole province level represents development I haven`t solved the problem, only left myself with the need to represent varying degrees of guilder exploitation on the one hand and figure out province levels represent on the other.
My second problem is the two identical provinces, one described as under threat from rapacious guilders destroying the natural beauty of the land, and one of identical level not described this way at all. Why adopt a more harmful approach, unless it means more money, especially in view of the opposition in many parts of Cerilia. Wizards, druids, and rangers will certainly object to destruction of nature for no good reason. Theyll object to such destruction for a good reason too, but at least the guilder might judge that his good reason is of more benefit to him than a bunch of irked spellcasters is a harm. So there can only be two reasons that a guilder would adopt an exploitative policy: 1) they are on board with the exploiter, or 2) the exploiter feels that hes better off doing the exploiting than he is playing nice with the spellcasters. Option number one is really a false choice because many of the examples of such guild activity don`t include cozy relationships with the source holders or druids in the locale. The second case is strengthened by the fact that the descriptive material implies that the ruthless guilders are making more money, although there is no mechanic to validate this assumption.
Take Stjordovik. I do. You have the Three Trees Traders, described as enviromentally friendly enough that their practices dont seem to bother the druids of Erik. Maybe its just a lesser of two evils phenomena, but there does seem to be some suggestion that they practice acceptable nature-benign guild activity. You also have Storm Holtsons guild, the Stjordvik Traders. These are the bad guys in terms of natural protection, trade practices, and overall niceness. Does Storm Holtson make as much in Arvaald (2 levels of guild in a level 2 province) as Three Trees does in Namverg (same as Arvaald)? Certainly the must be some advantage or he would operate in such as way as to not irk the powerful Rjurik druids.
The Talinie PS has an optional devestation rule. But what is going on in Talinie that`s not going on elsewhere? Why not generalize the rule for all of Cerilia?
The province ruler can collect three levels of tax, or collect no tax. As a result of his choices, he gets a loyalty effect. He decides to use a tax level on the basis of a weighing of loyalty in a province against his need for money. Surely guilders must also be weighing their enviromental impact against their desire for wealth too.
So, I am seriously considering (as opposed to just toying with) having guilders have three levels of income. Eco-friendly guild operations are the only ones in which provinces “recover”. Provinces may need to recover from guild exploitation, battles, or realm spells. Whatever reduces source potential. Sixteen turns (four years) at this level restore a level of source material. The effect on the guilder is to suffer a -1 modifier to his Guild Collection result on table 18. If whole catagories (mining, logging, fishing, &c) have to be abandon, there is also a loyalty hit in the province. The middle level of income represents normal guild operations. No harm to sources, nor recovery of the land. High income reflects ruthless exploitation. Remeber that more profits means more taxes are paid and more tithes are offered. When a guilder operates at this level, the whole realm benifits, except the source holder and the land. During severe exploitation, taxes, tithes, and guild income rolls are performed twice, and the higher result is chosen. On the other hand, the source suffers a -1 value penalty (a level 3 source acts like a level 2 source while the guilds exploit the land) and the devestation system from the Talinie book is used. Every time the guilds (collectively) make more money than half their total holdings in a province a devestation point is assessed. 20 devestation points permenantly lowers the maximum source potential of a province. At this rate you`ll lose a level of maximum source potenial about every five years. A guilder might fall back to normal guild operations to give a wizard full use of his sources, but the devestation points remain.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
