Monopoly

[DM B]

Very few realms have any domains that monopolize a specific aspect of life (temple, guild, source). There are a few exceptions of course, the OIT has a virtual monopoly on temples in Diemed for example. Some mages also enjoy a monopoly - or near.monopoly, but that is mostly because they are so rare.

The reason is that having a monopoly gives you a whole lot of power, and as a sovereign you don't want that. As long as you rule a LG realm with 3 LG domains played by your very best friends you're OK, but as soon as that's not the case you're in trouble. If one, or god forbid 2 or 3, band together against you you're in a whole lot of trouble! Sure, you could crush that guild eventually, but what will it cost in lost revenue and wasted actions?

What you DO want is one powerful temple that is loyal to your rule, one powerful guild that is loyal to your rule and one powerful wizard that is loyal to your rule. Powerful, but not with a monopoly. If they have much more than 1/2 available holdings you should be thinking things through, and by the time they pass 2/3 it might be too late.

So a wise ruler tries to plan long-term and balances several domains of the same type against each other. You don't even have to have the most powerful domain of a certain type as your state faith/whatever. You could help balance the power of a big temple by making a smaller temple your state faith.

Of course it doesn't always work out this way. Politics is a strange beast, and sometimes things end up very differently...but this is what a good ruler should strive for.

[X-Coeranys/WD (Greg)]

Thank you for that writeup on monopolies Bjorn!  Valuable insight for newer players.   

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

A possible counter point is that if the temple domain has a monopoly on the temple holdings in your domain, then it has put most of ts eggs in one basket - yours.  that means you can almost guarantee a steady stream of favours - the last thing any temple wants is the opposition of the local land regent!  Pity the realm ruler with many competing temples - their realm is but a distraction to each temple domain and thus unlikely to gain any significant benefit.

Disclaimer:  This view is entirely impartial and not affected by the players role as head of a temple domain whatsoever, no sirree, no partiality here.   

[DM B]

Not valid - the realm ruler wants a temple that's strong enough for it to compete with oter temples, and with a majority of holdings in HIS realm so this it is the most important one for the temple, but not one that has monopoly.

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

I want monopolies! I do!

Of course Bjorn is correct that allowing monopolies is a dangerous game for a Realm Ruler. It is the tension derived between the wish to monopolise for guilds and temples, and the need to maintain some form of resource division by the Realm Lord that provides for much of the fun after all....

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

Darn, he noticed   

The realm ruler must weigh up the pro's and con's - if multiple domains compete for resources than that competition will reduce the 'profit' that can be creamed off by the realm ruler, and the intrigues may spread beyond the holding boundary causing issues that need to be resolved.  The cost of that competition and spillage risked must be weighed against the risk that a monoply domain will feel no need to offer support (they do not compete for favour) and may even become assertive demanding favours for their services.

I'd note that from a non-monopoly side, the second party should be spread across the realm - if they are, say, boxed in the southern two provinces, then the realm effectively has a monopoly in each sub-region with all the consequential issues regardless of the nominal competition.  Ideally the competitor domain would have 1/3 - 1/4 of the holdings in each province so that the ruler could encourage a rapid holding shift if necessary.

As a non-landed regent the issue is avoiding a 'monopoly of realm rulers' - if your holdings are in only one realm then you are heavily dependent on that one ruler, if however your holdings are spread over a number of realms then you can afford a certain degree of freedom - with the downside that you have several rulers demanding your attention.

The worst position for realm ruler is many tiny domains all of which compete resulting in low holding levels across the realm and thus low law collection - even a hostile monopoly has to offer some support or risk its own position.  For the non-landed regent being totally dispersed means being unable to leverage support from any realm ruler without disproportionate cost and consequently higher costs for all actions and likely death by nibble on all sides.

The 'optimal' position from a maximise resource production efficiency perspective is everybody be sweetness and light towards each other  which generally only occurs in d4-1 games - for a variety of reasons some of which are cause and some of which are effect.

[X-Tuornen/LF (Geir)]

so what you are saying is that regents should go active in and se to it that things are they way they want, or make them so.




:-)

[X-Medoere & RCS/KE (Thorsten)]

Right! That's it! You RCS guys, you have way too much power in my lands.. out! OUT i say! I wan't the HA to take *half* your temple slots! Obey me, of suffer the consequenses! 

Anyways, i agree with most of the things said, but feel i must add, that it doesn't always comply to regents, like for example a small theocracy on the south coast.
Of course that still leaves other holdings to keep an eye on, but at theres less to ponder upon, than others may have.

Besides, i've had fun games as Diemed, backing the OIT up completely, and even going as far as sending Diemeans troops with the priests, so they could arrest whomever they felt broke Haelyns law, without sparking conflicts between state and church. Temples potentially have a lot of power, especially if the regents doesn't start to go all "modern day thinking" on them. I like my temples devout, bordering fanatical, and with no common sense, whatsoever.

[X-Roesone/ARR (Robert)]

Roesone's also in a peculiar situation. The baron is a Cuiraecen paladin with a Haelynite state faith. Even if he wanted a Cuiraecenite state faith (which would be a natural tendency I guess) the only one available in the area is MOC which has a maniacal patriarch that likes to cause trouble all around (or he did in RoE I , a former Belinite as successor (who also destroyed the Church of Storm Height)  and they've a track record for betraying their liege (opening the gates of Bhalaene).

Isn't that a nice conundrum?

[X-DM Jon]

Right! That's it! You RCS guys, you have way too much power in my lands.. out! OUT i say! I wan't the HA to take *half* your temple slots! Obey me, of suffer the consequenses! 

Anyways, i agree with most of the things said, but feel i must add, that it doesn't always comply to regents, like for example a small theocracy on the south coast.
Of course that still leaves other holdings to keep an eye on, but at theres less to ponder upon, than others may have.

Besides, i've had fun games as Diemed, backing the OIT up completely, and even going as far as sending Diemeans troops with the priests, so they could arrest whomever they felt broke Haelyns law, without sparking conflicts between state and church. Temples potentially have a lot of power, especially if the regents doesn't start to go all "modern day thinking" on them. I like my temples devout, bordering fanatical, and with no common sense, whatsoever.

 Ah! The good old days! You certainly got loads of no common sense from me

[X-Medoere & RCS/KE (Thorsten)]

 Ah! The good old days! You certainly got loads of no common sense from me

I usually do, Jon... I usually do. 

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

Hehe, reading this post I realise Elinie has both a Temple and a Guild monopoly to balance. If we stand together, we'll blow through the roof in growth... if we fall out... ouch.