Birthright: Chimaeron

TA - Niall Cole wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 4:46 pm

Maybe if you die with no heir designated?

I'm imagining like some peasant boy with 3 18's(lucky genes) being chosen by the bloodline when the owner dies.

I assume 'designated' means you gave it on death to your heir via triggered contingency, investiture (part of naming an heir).

Yeah it mentions you need to invest your bloodline to your heir, either by transfer or designation as heir.

So you will take your bloodline to the grave with you if you never took part of an investiture, (Or Tiehmaevril bloodtheft prevents the designation)

Makes Bloodbank and Inheritance Assurance spells valuable...

I see how it is... the first couple rushes from investitures are free but once you're addicted they start charging. Well forget that...I can quit Investing/Divesting anytime I want.... I mean maybe a holding here or there recreationally... or on holidays.... Aww who am I kidding? Daddy needs his transfers! The Red Lightning! The Blood Bango Wango! GIMME THE JUICE!!!

Failing to respond to attacks can result in regency loss, so giving away holdings for no good reason should result in regency loss, too. You're essentially saying 'welp, I know you trusted and had faith in me as your leader, but... ooh, shiny!' Not blooded scion material.

The purchaser might find they didn't get what they paid for, either. If someone has no right to rule except that they 'bought' holdings, then the holdings could disband or rebel.

Assuming the problem isn't simply regents abandoning or neglecting their followers when making investiture decisions, punishing the priest regent who conducts the investiture seems more to the point. By agreeing to perform the ceremony, they're putting their reputation and clout on the line to persuade thousands of people, and the land itself, that a new regent should be bound to the land and holdings.

If they're doing that without a care, it doesn't seem like the land, the people, or their god would be happy, or give the priest regent as much respect as they did before. That's the sort of thing bloodline strength represents.

I imagine after resurrecting you would have to get a new bloodline - either through knife to the heart, investiture or inherit being the three most common. As death would likely strip the bloodline along with the holding.
Wish, restoration or similar spells might be another way.

Wasn't there a picture on one of the books where a priest was divesting a wounded dying regent? I don't think the blood score and powers are supposed to pass to the heir through death without a priest actually taking it and putting it in the heir. If the regent dies without that ceremony then the heir only has the blood he was born with.

Like the land is tied to the bloodline of the regent. The Land and the King are one. If a priest is there at death or upon retirement to transfer the actual bloodline to the heir then the realm transfers flawlessly.

If the regent dies without actually transferring his bloodline into his heir I think there should be some check on holding loss depending how close in personality the heir is to the regent. If same alignment and class it should be a low role to see if any holdings randomly are lost. If the heir is different alignment and wrong class the roll should be higher chance for holdings randomly choosing another regent. If the heir is not a blood relative of the regent and is very different in race and personality and class there should be a very high chance holdings are lost to others of the lands choice. And maybe a chance for lands choice sniping some for those taken and transferred in war.

Could make an RP cost to lessen or negate this chance?

The only two types of holdings (not counting provinces) which were intended to require an Investiture were law and temples.

Neither guilds nor sources were intended to require an actual ceremony.

I think it would add something if you had to be a member of the faith in good standing to have any investitures or Blesses or pop growths done. Or in the case of war at least one party had to be of the faith of the priest doing the divestiture.