Use of Investiture SPELL

[DM B]

Question:

Should the use of the Investiture SPELL be reserved for the transfer of PROVINCES only (i.e. you can transfer manor, law, and temple holdings with just the ceremony, not the spell?).

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

I think it would make things both easier for non-temple realms, while at the same time more dangerous by removing the need for a spell (as you wouldn't need a priest present to force an unwilling and possibly unlawful transfer, just the current owner).

I've always found it rather silly, that the game-mechanics needed divine intervention for a magister to take over and use another magisters propperty short of contesting the holding to (0) and building your own up (and then it wouldn't be the opponents propperty, but your own freshly invested thing) but put it down to the special blood we regents have.

I like the notion. It would break some of the power of the temples, but I'm cool with that (we seem to have more than enough to deal with, as it is). You could perhaps keep the spell as it is, but give the option to people of transfering manor, law etc. with a small (1-2) regency loss for diverting from tradition (ie. going above or around the temples)?

[X-DM Jon]

I think keep the old version, but open up an option wherein a scion may spend a hefty fee in RP to circumvent the temples.

Reason:

 The control of holdings is tied to the divine essence of dead gods (RP). The blooded is a lesser controller of this divine essence than is the living gods. They hold such awesome powers that, by their will, the control of the land may be transferred more easily than were the blooded to do so themselves.

 Obviously trade holdings are excempt from this, since they give no RP. And source holdings are connected to the "urkilde" the original wellspring whence all energy spring.


In addition:
 You could conceptually allow realm mages to cast investiture as well... Giving more reason that the temples have been vocal in persecuting them. They should perhaps only be able to transfer control of provinces, which conceptually is equally connected to the "urkilde" as they are to the divine. Since human holdings are intrinsically tied to civilization and their deities, these would be harder to transfer for a realm mage.

[DM B]

The main issue here is; why are guild holdings different from other holdings?

Sources too, but they ARE different.

[X-ETN/Maire Cwyllmie (Libor)]

I think it should depend on magnitude of levels transferred (perhaps compared to recipient's bloodline score). Minor transfers (such as those between TrB and WO last turn) should not require Investiture, but some huge transfers as all or considerable portion of domain would need a divine help.

[X-DM Jon]

The main issue here is; why are guild holdings different from other holdings?

Sources too, but they ARE different.

You made the rule about the guild holding... If it were up to me, anything that garners you RP shouldn't be easily transferable without Land's Choice doing it for you, gods paving the way, etc.

 Sources are in vanilla BR, originally of elven origin. Humans learnt to use them, whereas the elves never took to the divine - even after they'd gained bloodlines after Deismaar.


 However, if you want to change the fundamentals of the game. Remove it from the original BR idea and turn it towards a more mundane version. Why even bother keeping the investiture rule? You could easily explain the nature of RP in a load of different ways. More Darwinian perhaps.

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

Well... In theory, the guy giving the orders, are not by necessity the one receiving the RP.

In a situation where the "owner" is not in touch with his domain, it can still function, albeit more limited as it doesn't have access to the much better actions available to a Regent.

So, by assuming a situation where part of a domain is "sold" but no investiture is made, or the new head is unblooded, the regency will flow to the former head or if unavailable "Land's choice" is likely to kick in and funnel the power somewhere.

My opinion is thus, that if regency is generated by the type of holding, then investiture by priest and ceremony must be performed if the new owner is to receive this flow of regency. I do not think its a good idea to expand on the number of holding types, nor indeed have Any, that do not require investiture to transfer. - It forces the temples to be part of what goes on.

[X-Bellam & BC/TB (Bobby)]

I'd be fine with provinces being the only ones requiring the spell to transfer.  The RP comes because of rulership and control strengthening your blood.  Fine.  By that token, anything you rule or control will give you RP.  If every sheriff, judge, and constable in a province has been ordered to do what you tell them to, you're running the law there.  Whether or not a priest blesses the transfer seems irrelevant.  Ownership of a province is a lot less clear on a mundane level, though - what does it mean?  No one listens to you or does what you say.  You have no power, just "ownership".  That's a more mystical connection, in my mind.

[DM B]

Guilds are transferable w/o spell in vanilla BR

[X-Points East]

Question:

Should the use of the Investiture SPELL be reserved for the transfer of PROVINCES only (i.e. you can transfer manor, law, and temple holdings with just the ceremony, not the spell?).

The main issue here is; why are guild holdings different from other holdings?

Sources too, but they ARE different.

Guilds are transferable w/o spell in vanilla BR

OoC:

Does the absence of a spell requirement, with respect to guild holdings, tend to make ceremonies involving guild holdings easier to arrange and/or more frequent (at least conceivably) than ceremonies involving provinces, law holdings, temple holdings, and/or manor holdings? . . . If so, there may be some sense in the current rule (if relative ease and/or frequency, with respect to ceremonies involving guild holdings, be deemed appropriate), no? . . .

[X-DM Jon]

Guilds are transferable w/o spell in vanilla BR

Right you are, Book of Priestcraft rule.

 Well, in the BoP the rule is special for guilds and wizards since they aren't nobility and not expected to act accordingly. So it seems to be a social convention... However the BoP also speaks of investiture as being a "mystical" event of great significance.

 And the BRCS has gotten rid of the investiture spell completely.

[X-DM Jon]

Ok here's my take on the social convention thing.

 The original BR rules seem to be working with a concept that it's not so much a question of actual divine necessity that you use a spell to transfer control of holdings, but because it holds great importance to the people that a transfer be done properly and with ecclesiastical blessings. All the investiture spell does, is ensure it actually happens without error.

 So; guilds and sources are relatively unimportant to people in a "what is best for us and our nation" approach, which means it's not necessary to acquire the blessings of the local priesthood. It is like today when we couldn't care less who actually owns a corporation, but we do care who the police is ultimately responsible towards.

 In a Birthright setting you have the temples as the traditionally guaranteeing factor of a certain ideal, in a modern setting this has expanded to include a lot of organizations and factors.

 This leads me to the conclusion that you could eliminate the investiture spell completely and without any harm to the idea of the game, it is basically a matter of rpging it properly. F.ex. Any transfer of land or authority (provinces, law, manor and/or temple), will require the willing participation of a local temple or trouble will certainly arise.

 What I don't think is useful at all, is reducing investiture to "just" concern itself with provinces. First of all because it reduces the spell to near uselessness. Second; what's so special about provinces? Should it be because it's the "land"? Because it is a solid element compared to the more insubstantial holdings? Manor holdings deal with land as well, is most likely primarily a depiction of how efficiently the human resources are spent on agriculture and what have you.
Third; Elves don't need investiture spells to transfer control of their land, never have, never will. So it stands to reason that this whole investiture business is in fact a solely spiritual element, it is something that has to do with our being, the mystical element, faith, religion - you name it.
Just like any ceremonies of today. The difference is noone casts a spell that ensures complete success to whatever the ceremony is about.

So, my opinion is: Either keep the spell as it is or loose it completely and let investiture become yet another exciting event-machine as the complete certainty of succes is removed from the action, but don't make it a useless apendix with little reason behind it.

[X-Tuornen/LF (Geir)]

keep it

[X-DM Jon]

Actually what I said concerning "complete succes" isn't exactly correct. It's probably going to be the same situation in a future without the investiture spell as it is now. Most investitures will go through without issue - as long as you placate the public spiritual need for understanding. Currently that means getting the sanction of the temples. But other places could have other factors.

[X-IHH/Wallac Isilviere (Kasper)]

I say keep it as it is though saving the actions and RP/GB would be nice for me