Trade route actions

Dungeons & Dragons BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
21

Ilien’s temple holdings are split 4/3 between the IHH and the ETN, as I recall, and the ruler’s heir is a priestess in the “lesser” temple.

Avanil doesn’t enforce a unitary faith on lands subject to it - there are a host of temples in lands recognising (one way or another) the Prince’s authority, including some (e.g. worship of Sera) that might be seen as antipathetic towards the dominance of noble power even though that is part of the remit of Haelyn.

If memory serves, Medoere exists as a separate state as a reaction to the exceptionally (for Cerilia) Papal approach to power favoured by the OIT in Diemed… and within its own territory, the theocracy of Ruornil cohabits amicably with the IHH, doesn’t it?

As I recall, the only state faith in Rjurik lands is that of the White Witch: elsewhere, the worship of Eirik predominates but isn’t required by law, and people are free to follow other deities.

Vosgaard… certainly some of the states have a state pantheon. I’d forgotten about the Vos, I admit. But even there, I don’t remember there being too many state-mandated temples: torva Vos usually permit competition between priesthoods, I think, while the nona Vos even permit other faiths (e.g. Lirovka) to gain real power (i.e. holdings).

For the dwarves - one of the major decisions made by Rich Baker that separates Cerilian religion from that of medieval Europe is that the humans have no creator deity. There’s no god revered as the progenitor of either the world or the human race: all the human deities gained divinity at or after Mount Deismaar, and most were once human themselves. None of them invented any aspect of their portfolio, let alone aspects of the physical world.

But the dwarves (and most other humanoid races) do have surviving creator deities. And the peculiar circumstances of dwarven existence (subject to millennia-old genocide attempts by rival races) makes racial identity especially critical to them. That they have a close relationship with Moradin and his divine offspring is no surprise - but nor is it a guide to human religion, since the relationship between the two races and their pantheons is very different.

22

What does any of this have to do with law holdings. Perhaps I am just missing the point, but it seems to me like a very long non sequitor.
[ul]
[li]The domain system makes it very easy to own law holdings.
[/li][li]There are many law holding slots empty
[/li][li]There are two deities with “Law” as part of their portfolio
[/li][li]Its easy to imagine what the law holdings over every one of the gods might look like
[/li][/ul]

And yet there are no examples of temples holding any law holdings anywhere where their regent don’t also own the land. None I can think of at all. Not one here and another way over there, just to remind is that its theoretically possible.

There can be realms where the regent neglects his realm and leaves his people lawless, and never once does a temple of Haelyn or Avani step in and have a smattering of law holdings?

It takes no complicated argument to answer why nearly all extant law holdings belong to landed regents. Without the ability to rule up their provinces at will, law is the natural outlet for a landlord’s attempt to control his land. But where the landlord is weak, deficient, or distracted we are given an at-start situation where it has never happened before, yet its the easiest thing in the world for PC’s to do once they start running the show.

That is the question I would like to see answered. I have no idea what arguments you were objecting to in your previous post.

23

“the legal power of many churches was quite high in medieval times - and this should be reflected by law holdings under Br mechanics”, to quote the first reason you gave in your original post arguing for temples to have Law holdings.

My historical “non sequitor” was a direct response to that, and to irdeggman’s follow-up.

As for why they don’t hold the range of holdings you also say in that first post that you think they should have - you alluded to one very good reason yourself. Game balance. There are four primary classes, and four primary types of holding. Each class “got” one holding as its primary. Give cleric regents significant quantities of other holdings on top of their income, troop-raising, agitation actions, realm spells, and role in investiture… and the game balance shifts. If it becomes culturally routine / normal for priests to hold law as well as temple holdings then those temples without them will begin to argue that they “deserve” / have a right to them - after all, their rivals elsewhere hold such rights… Only if law-holding temples (and guilds) are the exception rather than the rule does the culture of Cerilia support the OOC game balance.

As written, Cerilia never developed a culture of temples routinely directing legal affairs (something that prompted wars over many centuries and was never wholly accepted even in Europe). Cerilian faiths simply do not correlate closely with the churches of medieval Europe - they have a different theological basis, different strictures, exist as part of a pantheon, and have to deal with rulers who are all themselves demonstrably part-divine. Guilds and nobles fulfill much the same roles in society as their historical counterparts, but there’s no prospect of the head of any temple in Cerilia managing to proclaim himself the mortal vice-regent of all divine authority - the temples don’t, and can’t, operate in the same way that the Papacy tried to in history. And it was only on the basis of that claim to an unique divine mandate that the Papacy had success in securing what temporal legal power it held beyond its immediate territorial conquests.

The failure of Law-affiliated temples to acquire some measure of Law in lawless provinces they influence does sound like a wholly appropriate concern, however. I can’t bring any such provinces to mind, but it’s a very long time since I played in Anuire or the Khinasi lands… Is Taeghas somewhere with Haelynite temples and a lack of law, perhaps? On the whole, however, most Haelynite temples will - as part of their portfolio - back the existing hierarchy of society. Their god, after all, formally supports nobles as well as law.

24

No one argued that because medieval Europe something, Cerilia ought to have it. No one made a game balance argument that temples should have law holdings.

My argument, is that the game rules make it as easy (as easy as anyone else) to rule up law holdings. The principle I apply is that if it is possible, indeed quite possible, it should be witnessed, especially if PC’s can do it. When a PC looks as a province with empty holdings, they ask themselves what they should build and do not assume that they can only build the kind of holdings they already have. Why are NPC’s different?

Game balance arguments are worse than useless here, they are counter productive. Game balance arguments belong in a rules discussion. Not a role playing question. If the rules make it too easy on temples, then fix the rules. Don’t do an end run on the rules and ask Temple regents to play with one hand tied behind the back.

Then there is the copious reference to the way the game world is written. To whit:
PS Ilien: Page 19, “Priests of Haelyn are asked to magically divine the truth about guilt or innocence of the accused.” This sounds like priests of Haelyn have a natural role in the law, at least in some kinds of cases. But there is more. P. 25, “The impregnable Heart itself commands a great deal of respect in many factions of Ilien’s government, and priests of Haelyn often perform as arbitrators and statesmen in diplomatic matters. Decisions made as arbitrators can be as small, such as determining who pays for a newly paved street to the market ward to as large as negotiating treaty terms between waring lands.”

Wow. Sounds like temples of Haelyn are virtual law holdings, deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused, determining who pays taxes for what public works, and ultimately matters of war and peace.

But you claim “As written, Cerilia never developed a culture of temples routinely directing legal affairs.”

Not to worry, I have all the PS, we’ll be thorough.
Binsada: P. 11, Government: “Binsada may loosely be called an oligarchy […] In another sense, Binsada is a theocracy. The word of a priest of Leira, especially that of His Righteousness, Haswan Mandil, is beyond reproach or appeal even by the Queen.” And in Crime and Justice, p.13, Binsada used to have a harsh system of eye for an eye justice that perpetuated endless feuds, but modern Binsada has a softer system based on redemtion and restitution connected with Leira. “It is said that beauty is truth, and Leira, goddess of beauty does not look kindly upon those who sully fact with lies. According to folklore, perjurers who provoke the wrath of Leira herself, setting the pendicle ablaze with her hold blaze. [… list of guidelines …] Every clan elder memorizes the Pendicle litany.” Here, "Haswan Mandil, high priest of the Binsadan Temple of Leira, controls a law (1) holding in Khesselim (where the priests double as constables)

Halskapa: p. 24, Law holdings: “The provincial jarls hold the law today and each sets the level at which they enforce the laws and punish the guilty - with some measure of Erik’s favor, it is hoped. Unfortunatly, that is not always true.”

I’m not sure how anyone can write, “As written, Cerilia never developed a culture of temples routinely directing legal affairs,” with a strait face. Temples seem to be involved in the law everywhere, and every sect. Its hardly a surprise that Haelyn has a big well described role, being a god of law.

So, not even consulting the actual theocracies of Talinie, Medoere, Ariya, or the dwarven realm of Baruk-Azhik, there is a clear role for the priests in matters of law. Their influence may be subtle, or direct, but to say there is no culture of temples in the law is just not consistent with Cerilia as written.

25

Just because there are other temples present does not negate the “state religion” lable - see Book of Priestcraft for what that means. They mention it becasue it os not “rare”.

Ilien’s state religion is IHH (it is the main temple for that religion).

Avanil doesn’t enforce a unitary faith on lands subject to it - there are a host of temples in lands recognising (one way or another) the Prince’s authority, including some (e.g. worship of Sera) that might be seen as antipathetic towards the dominance of noble power even though that is part of the remit of Haelyn.

You are confusing unitary faith and state religion. Again see Book of Priescraft for what state religion means in the setting.

The state religion has a lot of power - especially when it comes to investitures and ceremonies. Essentially no one takes power without the blessing of the state religion.

If memory serves, Medoere exists as a separate state as a reaction to the exceptionally (for Cerilia) Papal approach to power favoured by the OIT in Diemed… and within its own territory, the theocracy of Ruornil cohabits amicably with the IHH, doesn’t it?

Again Moedore has a state religion even though there is a “peaceful” relationship with IHH (to an extent).

As I recall, the only state faith in Rjurik lands is that of the White Witch: elsewhere, the worship of Eirik predominates but isn’t required by law, and people are free to follow other deities.

You seem to be confusing having only 1 church and having a state religion.

Vosgaard… certainly some of the states have a state pantheon. I’d forgotten about the Vos, I admit. But even there, I don’t remember there being too many state-mandated temples: torva Vos usually permit competition between priesthoods, I think, while the nona Vos even permit other faiths (e.g. Lirovka) to gain real power (i.e. holdings).

Check the Tribes of the Heartless Wastes for descriptions of how much “power” the 2 religions (B & K) actually have - it is tremendous. That is what we are talking about with a state religion - the amount of power they wield. “Nothing” goes in Vosgaard without the blessing of B & K and K is usually the power behind the scenes.

For the dwarves - one of the major decisions made by Rich Baker that separates Cerilian religion from that of medieval Europe is that the humans have no creator deity. There’s no god revered as the progenitor of either the world or the human race: all the human deities gained divinity at or after Mount Deismaar, and most were once human themselves. None of them invented any aspect of their portfolio, let alone aspects of the physical world.

But the dwarves (and most other humanoid races) do have surviving creator deities. And the peculiar circumstances of dwarven existence (subject to millennia-old genocide attempts by rival races) makes racial identity especially critical to them. That they have a close relationship with Moradin and his divine offspring is no surprise - but nor is it a guide to human religion, since the relationship between the two races and their pantheons is very different.

But doesn’t that meet your criteria for state religions?

Personally I think it was because the setting was designed to be human-centric and the humanoid races were given very little attention in comparison. Most of that attention was focused on the elves because of Roubhe and the human-elf wars, IMO.

You are wrong on human deities in Cerilia - all of the present ones gained power (and their very existance from the death of the old gods). But even the old Cerillian human deities did not have a greater god - it seems to have been something contrary to the human-deity nature for the setting.
Note that there is only 1 dwarven deity recoginzed as having any holdings - so it is much greater than an overgod concept when it comes to politics.

26

Someone plays too much Europa Universalis.

27

How can you play too much?

28

I like the idea of a trade holding, but I also like the idea of linking a trade holding to a foreign destination.

How to match the ideas?

One idea is that each trade route is just like in 2e, the trade route from say, illien to endier would be a 6.5GB trade route. If you want that route, you build a trade holding in each location. Maybe each level of holding would allow you to collect up to 1gb of the trade, and you must have a holding at each end, so a trade (7) in illien and trade (0) in endier would do the trick.

So, you’d first create the route (major routes should already exist, even if no one is using trade holdings in the routes), then you (or someone else) could build trade holdings in the route to collect the money.

(And Eu3 is soooo annoying, gosh darn frenchies messing with my every plan, its like, every day you wake up and say “What can I do to hurt France today”, or else you just die to them. and you probably die anyway. Darn frenchies.)