|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Apr 27, 2017 3:19:24 GMT
So after a bit of wiki surfing that started from some links SWT posted I thought I'd do a set of posts about how realms legitimately acquire new provinces.
Particularly important for lawful realms as lawful is acting within social norms.
Rough ideas I've come up with. Voluntary transfer - gifts (for service, etc). - marriage contracts. - inheritance.
Involuntary transfer - conquest (agreed at peace treaty & likely dependant on valid cassus belli).
Other - discovery (with or without local inhabitants).
Ideas for other options, comments, etc.
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Apr 27, 2017 4:04:39 GMT
Well contesting and ruling might is essentially a form of involountary transfer. It's probably requires a less extreme provocation than a war, but you might still need some excuse in order for it to be viewed as acceptable, or perhaps not.
|
|
|
Post by Alined on Apr 27, 2017 4:16:44 GMT
I'm pretty sure conquest and inheritance are it. Colonization isn't practical unless you bring an army with you, and even then, if you want to keep the new holdings, you're probably not going home again. Most realms only have one or two provinces, so they can't afford to grant them to anyone for any reason unless they're about to lose them, anyway.
For a realm that has only one province, they can't cede territory in a mere peace treaty. If someone else acquires the province from them, that'd have to result from capitulation. More likely, they fled and the province had to be divested to undergo a ceremony of recognition, or they were captured and made subject to total divestiture, against their will. Assuming there was a good reason for the war in the first place, I don't think either of these would be 'unlawful', otherwise a stubborn ruler could defy occupying forces and refuse to cooperate until assassinated, which would seem to favour the cause of chaos far more than it would lawfulness.
Contesting holdings is a very difficult way to acquire a province! Especially since even having full control of the holdings in a province still doesn't allow you to contest the province directly. (I don't know about these rules, but in the other ones a province needs to reach the lowest loyalty level and become rebellious, first.) Contest actions may or may not be 'lawful', but I'd expect them to be legally grey most of the time--manufacturing claims, intimidation and bullying, undercutting competing businesses and cornering markets. It's only 'lawful' for someone who makes the law, really.
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Apr 27, 2017 4:29:32 GMT
Well even for a one province realm you could theoretically cede a manor or even law holding as a peace settlement. I imagine that cntest and rule is most relevant for Guild and temples particuarly if they have law support (basically if the local ruler decided to switch out their guild/temple. COntest and rule would then IMO be a significantly less extreme option than occupy and divest.
You can also make holdings change alligience through mind control spell either the divine spell conversion or a level 6 arcane one. I imagine that would be considered pretty controversial, but Umbria for example think that TOR aquisition of TOB holdings by conversion spell was perfectly fine, but then we think most things are perfectly fine if they're targeted at Lothia/ToB or Bayard.
ETA: And I can see that Carleon wrote provinces, not holdings, so I guess most of what I wrote was based on a misunderstanding oh well.
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Apr 27, 2017 4:33:28 GMT
Though in case of provinces Lands choice is also a valid option and settling new provinces in possible if you ethnically cleanse them first, not that anyone would ever do such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Apr 27, 2017 5:20:06 GMT
I was deliberate with provinces (and not holdings) because I don't think that anyone has a right to a holding other than actually having it. Furthermore I think that a ruler promising a right to a holding is nothing more than a promise to support expansion into that holdings (or conversely protect the existing holding).
So as an example in Caerleon Jessica Caerleon asserts ancestral rights to all the law and manor holdings, by virtue of the fact that she already has them, if someone else had them I could contest and challenge them for it but that it would be unacceptable to call out the army and divest/pillage/raze them. Similarly I have "given" the rights to all temple holdings in Caerleon to the TOG, which basically means I support his holdings in Caerleon. But if TOR built a holding and contested TOG I am not justified in calling out the army, I can however express my displeasure in other ways.
That said all the methods I've listed for province transfer as an option realistically work for holding as well, I'd just add contest to the list of socially acceptable transfer methods.
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Apr 27, 2017 6:16:52 GMT
Vassalage? I know it falls under gifts, in a way, but if you conquer two or three provinces, I think you could hand those over to someone else in exchange for vassalage.
I also agree that contests can't be considered hostile in the same way that war can be. Exceptions would apply of course - SWT and Slavers contesting each other likely involves a lot of violence.
Also, the historical fights between town and gown is kinda like contests, where the real winner (I.e. the one that ends up with the holdings) is the one that somehow ends up as the more innocent party.
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Apr 27, 2017 19:40:03 GMT
I was deliberate with provinces (and not holdings) because I don't think that anyone has a right to a holding other than actually having it. Furthermore I think that a ruler promising a right to a holding is nothing more than a promise to support expansion into that holdings (or conversely protect the existing holding). So as an example in Caerleon Jessica Caerleon asserts ancestral rights to all the law and manor holdings, by virtue of the fact that she already has them, if someone else had them I could contest and challenge them for it but that it would be unacceptable to call out the army and divest/pillage/raze them. Similarly I have "given" the rights to all temple holdings in Caerleon to the TOG, which basically means I support his holdings in Caerleon. But if TOR built a holding and contested TOG I am not justified in calling out the army, I can however express my displeasure in other ways. That said all the methods I've listed for province transfer as an option realistically work for holding as well, I'd just add contest to the list of socially acceptable transfer methods. I don't fully agree with that. Umbria definetly thinks that we have a right to the law and manors in Umbria, and if some interlooping human decided to contest them I might very well occupy and divest his holdings. Contest is a less agresive method than occupation and divesteture, but I'd argue that the step is smaller for law holdings as law is always backed by violence or the threat of violence (unless it's a level 0 holding I suppose).
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Apr 27, 2017 20:48:16 GMT
The beauty of that is that the game mechanics already makes contests inherently more acceptable than occupation. Consider: Contest + Rule countered by a Contest + Rule (current holder probably has some sort of inherent advantage in that competition) vs Contest + Rule countered by [existing troops paid for by upkeep] + a military action to occupy (and sufficient troops to do so) + a realm action to divest and recognize (~1 prosperity loss for occupation, more if other things apply) vs Contest + Rule countered by the same, but followed up with a pillage + rule action (~2 prosperity loss for occupation + pillage, more if other things apply) --- So if we go by "Prosperity loss indicates dissatisfaction among the people" then contests and rule actions are best countered by contests and rule actions (and influence). Also, you'd probably lose in the long run if people found out they can encourage you to spend your realm actions on investiture by contesting and ruling up law holdings
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Apr 27, 2017 23:31:52 GMT
I was deliberate with provinces (and not holdings) because I don't think that anyone has a right to a holding other than actually having it. Furthermore I think that a ruler promising a right to a holding is nothing more than a promise to support expansion into that holdings (or conversely protect the existing holding). So as an example in Caerleon Jessica Caerleon asserts ancestral rights to all the law and manor holdings, by virtue of the fact that she already has them, if someone else had them I could contest and challenge them for it but that it would be unacceptable to call out the army and divest/pillage/raze them. Similarly I have "given" the rights to all temple holdings in Caerleon to the TOG, which basically means I support his holdings in Caerleon. But if TOR built a holding and contested TOG I am not justified in calling out the army, I can however express my displeasure in other ways. That said all the methods I've listed for province transfer as an option realistically work for holding as well, I'd just add contest to the list of socially acceptable transfer methods. I don't fully agree with that. Umbria definetly thinks that we have a right to the law and manors in Umbria, and if some interlooping human decided to contest them I might very well occupy and divest his holdings. Contest is a less agresive method than occupation and divesteture, but I'd argue that the step is smaller for law holdings as law is always backed by violence or the threat of violence (unless it's a level 0 holding I suppose). I think part of the issue is that some players have a functionally incorrect understanding of what a regents holding level actually represents. To be explicit: - a holding level represents functional control of the holding. - it does not represent ownership.
So as a practical example, in Caerleon the SWT control 4 guild holding levels, does that mean that they own all the businesses and all the merchants work for them. Definitely not. What the SWT has in the influence and ability to manipulate, bully, cajole and otherwise direct the actions of the guild holdings. In essence they have organised pre-existing independent entities to work co-operatively under their direction.
So to move to the law holding example, lets pretend I establish a Law 0 in Umbria. It doesn't necessarily mean that I've moved in a bunch of humans to take over the Law, it could mean that I've built influence with Aelven sheriffs and the like and that they now respond to requests from Caerleon with more alacrity that those of King Caern.
Most of what people call their "right" to a holding is just pre-existing control, and/or support of a dominant regional partner.
Moving on to what SWT posted I think an idea of what is considered a socially acceptable response needs to be considered. If some starts trying to contest my holdings then it is acceptable for me to: ... contest them back. ... negatively agitate in their lands. ... make hostile decrees. ... conduct espionage.
That's the rough standpoint that I'm working from, and as a lawful realm I need that standpoint.
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Apr 28, 2017 1:14:44 GMT
In part, I'd say you can reasonably threaten war on account of what is perceived as hostile contest / rule actions.
But it goes both ways: if you threaten war, the other party probably has a reasonable casus belli to go through with your threat.
Obviously case by case.
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Apr 28, 2017 4:03:39 GMT
I think part of the issue is that some players have a functionally incorrect understanding of what a regents holding level actually represents. To be explicit: - a holding level represents functional control of the holding. - it does not represent ownership.
So as a practical example, in Caerleon the SWT control 4 guild holding levels, does that mean that they own all the businesses and all the merchants work for them. Definitely not. What the SWT has in the influence and ability to manipulate, bully, cajole and otherwise direct the actions of the guild holdings. In essence they have organised pre-existing independent entities to work co-operatively under their direction. I can't speak for other players but I understand that quite well, though in most cases I’d say that functional control requires some level of ownership at least for higher level holdings. So to move to the law holding example, lets pretend I establish a Law 0 in Umbria. It doesn't necessarily mean that I've moved in a bunch of humans to take over the Law, it could mean that I've built influence with Aelven sheriffs and the like and that they now respond to requests from Caerleon with more alacrity that those of King Caern. That works for a level 0 holding to be sure. As soon as it’s a higher level holding though you are in some way skimming of taxes. Perhaps for a level 1 holding in a higher level province you could argue you’re hust influencing nobles/clan leaders to make certain expenditures that used to be influenced by king Caern, but for one thing I could argue that a foreign power attempting to influence my subject to much would be a valid casus beli and secondly this fiction becomes less and less plausible the more law control you have. If you’ve contested and rules all of the law holding in North Umbria then whatever fiction you attempt to justify it with you’re stealing/collecting all the taxes that I would argue King Caern has a right to collect and you’re influencing sheriffs/Nobles and peoples to completely ignore the rightful authority of King Caern. If people attempted to bribe my people to undermine my authority you can be sure I’d escalate to a military level if I could. Most of what people call their "right" to a holding is just pre-existing control, and/or support of a dominant regional partner.
Moving on to what SWT posted I think an idea of what is considered a socially acceptable response needs to be considered. If some starts trying to contest my holdings then it is acceptable for me to: ... contest them back. ... negatively agitate in their lands. ... make hostile decrees. ... conduct espionage. Rights are subjective. From my perspectiveI have the right to a monopoly on law and military potential in Umbria (law and manor). If I send out a decree promising exclusivity in temples or guild then I and that temple/guild could claim the right to those holding but anyone who wanted to contest them would likely claim that I did not have the authority to grant those rights. My willingness to escalate to a military level would depend on the specifics. Say if ToG was to attempt to contest the NSE out of Umbria and replace them I’d probably give law support to the NSE. If TOR who I’ve got a more iffy relationship with attempted the same I might give law support and add in contest actions and decree of my own. if ToB did it I’d murder them all. Similar if NT was contested by respectively the SWT or the slavers where despite not being at war with the later I’d probably be willing to escalate to military to keep them out. That's the rough standpoint that I'm working from, and as a lawful realm I need that standpoint.
Fair enough, but I don’t fully agree, particularly not when it comes to law holdings.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Apr 28, 2017 4:39:43 GMT
Reasonably presented points. I don't disagree with anything you've said, the whole area is subjective. As you indicated a lot of it depends on who is taking the actions, how much effort they put in, how often they do it, the tenor of your pre-existing relationship, etc.
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Apr 28, 2017 19:47:57 GMT
Getting back to the actual topic rather than my misunderstanding of it I wonder how aquiring provinces by conquest is seen? From a balance of power perspective given the small realm sizes it's a really big swing. Taking a province from someone in a war therefore require a really, really good casus beli something along the lines of both a legitimate claim and a long history of extreme misbehavious from the offending state. I'd expect transfer of a few holdings would be a more normal outcome or perhaps enforced vassalage though that would probably also require some legitimate claim. At least for the LG types..
Clearly what we're doing in Lothia is very extreme. I was actually really suprised that the coalition went along with it. I figure this is only acceptable in any way because Lothia is well Lothia and about as far outside the community of civilized realms as it's possible to be.
|
|