RP cost of designating an heir to a domain

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

It's not like there is any real world precedent that huge empires break up into smaller chunks when the mantle of leadership is dropped/passed.

Oh. No, wait, there are plenty of such examples!

I think the pricing is right. Bleed you greedy fuckers! :-)

[X-Tuornen/LF (Geir)]

It's not like there is any real world precedent that huge empires break up into smaller chunks when the mantle of leadership is dropped/passed.

Oh. No, wait, there are plenty of such examples!

I think the pricing is right. Bleed you greedy fuckers! :-)

Tell 'em ! 

[X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune)]

It's not like there is any real world precedent that huge empires break up into smaller chunks when the mantle of leadership is dropped/passed.

Oh. No, wait, there are plenty of such examples!

I think the pricing is right. Bleed you greedy fuckers! :-)

I'm assuming your making a joke here, but you might do well to remember that not everybody shares your sense of humor. I'm still disagreeing with the rules, though I'll accept them like everybody else, but being called a greedy fucker - even in good spirits - just because I think it's expensive and find it a bit weird to divide a temple into different segments in order to keep it united if my regent dies, is not something I enjoy on a sunday morning.

[X-Tuornen/LF (Geir)]

I'm assuming your making a joke here, but you might do well to remember that not everybody shares your sense of humor. I'm still disagreeing with the rules, though I'll accept them like everybody else, but being called a greedy fucker - even in good spirits - just because I think it's expensive and find it a bit weird to divide a temple into different segments in order to keep it united if my regent dies, is not something I enjoy on a sunday morning.

well, a good amount of trouble and crisis should ensue when there is a transition of leadership in any realm as they are in this game. And the rules should reflect that. To avoid such natural upheaval should cost a considerable amount. And even then it should not be a guarantee for success.
Well, that’s my opinion.

[X-DM Jon]

I'm assuming your making a joke here, but you might do well to remember that not everybody shares your sense of humor. I'm still disagreeing with the rules, though I'll accept them like everybody else, but being called a greedy fucker - even in good spirits - just because I think it's expensive and find it a bit weird to divide a temple into different segments in order to keep it united if my regent dies, is not something I enjoy on a sunday morning.

well, a good amount of trouble and crisis should ensue when there is a transition of leadership in any realm as they are in this game. And the rules should reflect that. To avoid such natural upheaval should cost a considerable amount. And even then it should not be a guarantee for success.
Well, that’s my opinion.

 That's the rules view on it as well. Obviously there are all manner of roleplaying related ways of getting around the rules, but since they're completely ad hoc and DM fiat oriented, you're just going to have to try getting there. Or pay the steep price...

[X-Brosengae [Cloene] (Linde)]

Personally I think the price is right.... 1 rp per holding level makes it more attractive to create a vassal. And it also explains why there is no Emperor, as the steep costs for vassalage, coronation and designation is just not payable if your BS is not in line with your domain, or the very least, it will make your domain vulnerable to its enemies when you are forced to save RP for 3-4 turns.

But then again the same is true for your enemies, unless they have a higher BS than you, and if they have that, they deserve some of that divine advantage that comes with it.

But it is not fair to call anyone greedy for asking a question.

[X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan)]

Considering that this is a bigger impact on larger domains, and larger domains tend to have vassals.

Vassals can transfer regency to their leige as a free action if I remember correctly. It wouldn't surprise me if there are clauses in most vassalage agreements that say something, "Once in the term of your life you are required to transfer regency equal to the sum total of your holdings."

Means the vassal is paying for the cost of being made a vassal again, or giving the liege the RP needed to raise a BS in line with their domain size.

Alternatively a liege could also purchase regency from a vassal in return for GB, holdings or other agreements.

[X-Ghieste & HOT/GH (Matt)]

It's not like there is any real world precedent that huge empires break up into smaller chunks when the mantle of leadership is dropped/passed.

Oh. No, wait, there are plenty of such examples!

I think the pricing is right. Bleed you greedy fuckers! :-)

Actually no there really are not. Empires and States do not break up on changes of leadership, but instead when the leadership into whose hands they have ben delivered proves inadaquete or that the infrastructure has decayed past the point of being able to maintain the power and command systems. Rome, China, Mongols, Persia, Zulu, British, French, Russian, Spanish - all have faltered historically for those reasons and not because of the death of a specific leader. The only major examples I can thing of where such have broken into chunks on the death of a leader are the Alexandrian empire, some 11th century kings in europe and the later Mongol Empire, all of which were because of specific arrangements by the leader in question.

The suggestion was not that it should not be expensive but rather that the current arrangement is such that it might be too expensive as it is. As is it does appear that the DM's have offered some possible half way houses, with vassals or through partial investment of heir status, allowing a split of the costing. The problem with vassals is that means the DM's play them, and they drive the deals and we all know from painful experience quite how tough negotiation with the DM's can be (and when it isn't that means you should be even more worried). The partial investment probably is a more suitable path for those who are running larger realms on low bloodscores. *ahem* Not that we know anyone like that of course

And the last comment Niels was poor. Asking a nice open question should not invite an offensive reply in my opinion, even if it is followed by a smiley.

[X-ETN/Maire Cwyllmie (Libor)]

Change in leadership always create turmoil when there is not clear succession. If we take Rome as an example, there were many civil wars fought over succession. Empire was split temporarily on many occasions (after death of Gaius Julius Caesar for example). Most countries expirienced the same, though not in the degree Rome did. If the state is held together only by personal loyalties, it tends to split permanently (such us Mongol Empire). If there are other bonds established, such us common language, way of life, economic ties or there is clear power centre that can subjugate other parts, it tends to reunite over time.

So breaking up of a large domain upon death of its regent is, in my opinion, very likely scanario, unless there is widely accepted designated heir or the domain has long history of being togehther or is unified by culture, customs, or some strong idea. For example upon death of MC, the Mieran part of ETN could wery well split from the main temple, while the rest would probably remain together and find new regent after some period of confusion and quarrels.

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

I apologize to those who are taking my statement much too seriously!

I do believe the price is right. Even if an empire or entity remains united in name, the power shifts and ripples beneath the surface. - That's as far as I'll go describing RL events, you guys know much more details on these things than I do and I am sure you agree, on some level, that when feudal/dictator style leadership is passed, it is quite common for a new faction to become greater players. (Grabbing holdings)

As for ingame... Well, over here on the eastern marches, being a middling fish, hearing someone complain about the price of rulership when holding 83-some levels of holdings... *cough*

Big empires already get rebates on court maintenance and fixed costs such as buildings also get "cheaper" with wider ranging effects as income and the ability to power them go up.

I have sacrificed blood on occasion to even keep my little realm from falling to pieces. I can find very little sympathy for something I genuinely perceive as... Well, it is hard to put into words that will not unintentionally offend.

The cost per level of holding is the same for all. Not having the Blood to take advantage is why, well one of the reasons, people have vassals in the game. Alternatively, increase that line every turn without exception. You just need one vassal to give you a bit outside normal collection and you can do it every turn.

Bah humbug. Man up and cry not. I'll go back to my cave.

[X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan)]

A couple of initial points.

Niels, the joke was perhaps unnecessary.

Everyone else, perhaps we are overeacting a tad.

Back to the topic at hand.

The cost per level of holding is the same for all. Not having the Blood to take advantage is why, well one of the reasons, people have vassals in the game. Alternatively, increase that line every turn without exception. You just need one vassal to give you a bit outside normal collection and you can do it every turn.

The issue that Rune is raising, and one that I agree with is that most temple regents do not have the situation that many landed regents have, of having vassals within their organisation providing regency to them.

Instead temples exist as monolithic structures, supreme (I like to think) and indivisable.

This means that heir designation is almost an impossibilty considering the pile on nature of events and the corresponding need to spend regency that most players face.

Whilst I don't agree or disagree with the rule, I can see that it has a higher impact on temples than on most landed regents.

As for changing the rule, I'm not sure it would be fair considering that some players have already faced and dealt with it as is.

Instead I'd be recommending to current players to look at ways of working with the rule. Ideas covered here:
1) Partial designation of the realm and hope that the lands choice follows suite.
2) Declarations from vassals and hope that the lands choice follows suite.
3) Create vassals within your domain and use them to generate additional RP to pay for the heir.
4) Purchase regency from current vassals and use that to pay for the heir.

[X-DM Jon]

There is no such thing as an unnecessary joke 

And it's easy enough to designate an heir, even if it costs you 80+ RP. You just take the time necessary. 10RP unspent each round and you're set in 8 turns. That's two years spent on preparing the way. In the meantime, perhaps try to refrain from getting involved in too many outside conflicts.

[X-Mieres & SAS/AV (Mark)]

And it's easy enough to designate an heir, even if it costs you 80+ RP. You just take the time necessary. 10RP unspent each round and you're set in 8 turns. That's two years spent on preparing the way. In the meantime, perhaps try to refrain from getting involved in too many outside conflicts.

Also - avoid having your heir kidnapped, that is always a good idea.

[X-IHH/Wallac Isilviere (Kasper)]

Plus make sure the AA you dont want to take over after your regent repeatedly enter harms way. Archbishop Bellamie of Roesonne comes to mind. Or what do you say mark?

[X-Avanil/Aubrae Avan (Thorsten)]

Tristan, you are the voice of reason it seems. I will try to refrain from going out too deep but I feel a need to comment on at least one thing:
I'm not going to use the curse button for this, but I never *never* want to see the F-word on RoE, especially in sentences directed somewhat towards other players. This is my retreat from the idiots who inhabit my daily life and who use that word more than enough. I'd prefer not to read it in here as well. I simply believe we are too mature for that.

As always when writing forum posts, remember that we cannot see you smiling, we do not necessarily know what kind of mood you are in, so chances are someone will misinterpret your carefully constructed joke. Especially if its someone you haven't had that many dealings with IC and/or OOC.
 
/rant

I agree with Rune and Tristan. I have no issue with the cost as it stands for Nobles - Heck, Aubrae has two provinces herself in Avanil, the rest is controlled by her bannermen - but it does seem a bit strange to me when it comes to temples. If I, as a noble, invest part of my domain to a vassal, I can expect his son or heir to pick up the slack should someone off him. I am investing a man and his family with power.
Temples do not work like that, instead electing new Archbishops or whatnot to fill out a role when an old one dies. And considering most high-ranking priests are somewhat old that could in an extreme case mean that a large temple have to designate several new "heir's" instead of just one.

If the cost is to remain, perhaps it could be possible to transfer a bit of RP into the action each turn, with complete designation to take place after the last RP is pooled together? I suggest this, because I know from myself how much my RP/GB pools resemble my own wallet if I am not careful: If there's anything in it, chances are they'll burn a hole straight through.

And if that is possible, then, at the DM's discretion, it might be possible that lands choice might lean towards someone who is, at the very least, partially invested already?