Well, here's my two cents thrown into the pot . . .

--- Joel Elfman  wrote:
> Ibrahim,
>  
>      I love the stuff you have written, your ideas are extremely
> well-written and well thoughtout.
>  
>      I will reiterate two of the points that I think are in  question
> and  I at least would like clarification from the GM.
>  
> First, spy networks take time to develop, a long time in many cases. 
> It has been my experience from playing previously,  that if you don't
> usually get a spy network unless you build it.

Generally true, but I don't know enough about the background of this
particular incident to say more.
  
> Second, you can not write orders for another society, unless the GM
> gives permission.  For example, you can write actions for your
> commanders giving the rebel Taltheran navy orders but you can not
> write orders directly for the navy.  It might just be a distinction
> in how orders are written but it does make a difference in the game
> and has made a difference in the past.

Agreed, but I don't think there's an issue at all here. Like Ibrahim
said himself, it wasn't the entire Taltherani navy that rebelled, only
a portion. It's possible that perhaps unclear writing may have caused
your concern here, Joel. So, I agree that you can't write orders for
another society, but I don't agree that that rule is applicable to
Kaeir and its naval forces, as the situation now stands.

More comments below . . .
  
> Joel.
> 
> Ibrahim Dughlas-gani  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> here's my two cents. Scroll down for more than a few comments.
> 
> At the end of the day, I'm sure everything can be resolved to
> everybody's satisfaction.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ibrahim Underwood
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joel Elfman 
> Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 8:06 pm
> Subject: Re: [Cel] GMs Please Respond - Are We Bending or Altering
> the Rules?
> 
> > 1) the extent of the Tal-Wyr basin which impacts teh current spy 
> > network that tried to assasinate King Villard. At it's shortest 
> > geographical area it covers a semi-nomadic society which would 
> > have little to no need for assassins. Larger the spy network 
> > delves into other societies and could reach as far as Kaeir.
> 
> The Order of Assassins in medieval Palestine-Syria operated amongst
> very similiar conditions, based on a religious-messianic ideology.
> Yet it still had a highly effective spy-cum-assassin network that
> terrorised Crusader and Muslim rulers alike.

I could buy that there's a quasi-religious order of assassins hanging
around out there in the ruins of Wyr, Sarunor or Hadrair, but if they
do exist, I think I'd be more comfortable if they were a NPC society, a
tool that the GMs could use, for example.

> > 2) I have requested a GMs perspective of King Agrigax of 
> > Taltheran. Supposedly Agrigax has recently lost Tirmar & his 
> > Navy. Is this accurate? Is he regarded as a weak king?
> 
> Though I'm not the GM, in my opinion he's not weak, just failing
> miserably at centralising royal power in attempt to move away from a
> feudal model of government (and thus a aristocratic reaction).

I agree with Ibrahim here. Taltheran has been going through a typical
power struggle between King and Aristos. It's a motif we can see in our
own history. In France, the Bourbon kings succeeded in establishing
their power over the nobles, a power that reached its peak with Louis
XIV; the Russian Tsars did the same thing, first with Ivan IV the
Terrible, and then with Peter the Great. Both formed absolute
monarchies under the divine right of kings theory. In England, King
John was forced to compromise with his barons, eventually creating the
constitutional monarchy. Finally, the Holy Roman Empire and the
medieval Kingdom of Poland are both classic examples of states where
the aristocracy dominated the nominal monarch.

Agrigax isn't a weak king in the sense that, say, Edward the II of
England was weak. He's simply not as strong as some of his nobles.

> > 3) The last question above raises an even broader game issue and 
> > potential violation of the rules. In the past, it has been 
> > regarded that all borders of societies are pretty much sacrosanct, 
> > and that only the society could dictate its own actions. 
> > Recently, it seems that Tirmar in Taltheran has been taken over by 
> > Mir. And again in Taltheran the Navy has been taken over by Kaeir.

I would have to say here, Joel, that Tirmar is a special case
situation. Tirmar was not originally part of Taltheran. In 1407-1408,
Cedonia invaded Tirmar to reintegrate it as an Imperial province. King
Agrigax complained to the then-Empress, Yzara, about the flood of
refugees this was causing. The result was that Tirmar was partitioned
along the border shown in the Qaiyore map for 1412 on the website.

While I ended up having to drop out of the game before the final battle
against the Sinari, I suspect that the reason Tirmar was repartitioned
along the lines shown in the 1428 map was simply that Cedonia and Mir
had the two largest military forces left in the area, and they filled a
power vacuum.

I do think, though, that we should get a ruling from the GM on whether
or not Mir's action is OK. I'm slightly in favor of it, because I think
it could give rise to future "plot points". And, as I said in a
different post, Tirmar is the Poland of Qaiyore, always being
partitioned by greater powers.

> A political division in Taltheran wrested control of a major portion
> (not all) of the Taltherani Navy from government forces, into the
> hands of a republican government established in the Kaeir islands.
> 
> > 
> > In Taltheran the same question appears in regard to it's Navy. 
> > Kaeir's actions appear to have ripped the Navy from Taltheran. 
> > While Kaeir has that potential right, any orders it generate must 
> > be carefully written to respect the rights of the non-player 
> > society. Again, if there was a Taltheran player he could write 
> > actions for a rebel navy but Kaier can not. Kaeir can only write 
> > actions for itself. Kaeir can write actions for its leaders or 
> > its men aboard the rebel Taltheran navy but not for the navy 
> > itself unless the GMs are going to change the definitions of 
> > Taltheran society.
> 

(Ibrahim's explantion of Kaeir snipped for space)

> > At least, these were the old rules as I understood them. If I 
> > am incorrect, I ask that the GMs please provide clarification.
> 
> So i feel that I am more than within the bounds of the game rules.
> 

Clarification is always good.

Andrew Janssen


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.