How do you balance that with moves that use exp as an incentive for certain actions?

It is still pooled.  For us it works.  The idea is I don't like to penalize folks that spend more time RPing and less time rolling.

So, i am not clear on when you can give a people armor, helmets, shields, and 2harm vs 3 harm weapons.  Is it just up to the person creating the people?  Do they have to pick a corresponding war or wealth thing that they are known for to justify it?

They can stuff their ears with wax and blindfold themselves? 
I guess the question is does the player realize that they are impacting the game this way.  If not, a friendly conversation may go a long way.
I can see how a Solace would be an awesome addition, even in a violence heavy game, but there needs to be balance.  I may be the worse person to comment on this because games I run have a low violence quotient as it is, but...  Some ideas....
Use a hard move to separate the Solace from the rest of the group.
Have the Solace and other PC working on plot point A while a gang jumps the other PCs.
If you have a brainer they can try to puppet stringing the Solace out of the room
Have one of the PCs run interference on the Solace while the rest of the group goes off on a raid.

This looks really cool.  I have a question about the Controlled Scream move.  It looks like it was meant to partner with the old version of the screaming move.  Or am i missing something?  Unless it is to go with a combo of Control Freak / Frustration scream - would it negate the need to gaze or negate the need to scream to gaze (revert to a dark roll)?  Is the pain scream meant to be mandatory (it is on the old one, but not the new).

We had another question about wickerwise - do you have to touch the thing you are charming?  If you want to set an enemies clothing on fire, does that require a roll, or just 2 sacrifices?
 

And the drawbacks aren't that bad.  Got it.  Thanks.

No, sorry, I misinterpreted your question...  If I understand it correctly, I think the below should explain.
for that, Fredo, Bess, Grace, and Ringo are siblings:
        Fredo - eldest Male
         |               |
Prince Gerald   Princess Mary
                               |
                      Prince Wayne

 Bess - eldest Female
   |                 |                  |
Prince Tom  Princess Jane  Prince Don


Princess Grace  (younger female)
            |         
      Princess Alia
          |               |
  Prince Oscar   Princess Adele

Prince Ringo (younger male)
            |         
      Prince George
          |               |
  Prince Ed   Princess Ethel

The Old Ways:  Bess is Queen.  Jane is the Heir.  If Jane dies, Grace will be the Heir.  If Jane marries a peasant, her husband will become a Prince.  If Prince Tom marries a peasant, he will become a peasant.

The Law of Eagles (as Written):  Fredo is King, Gerald is the Heir.  If Gerald dies, Wayne will be the Heir.  If Mary marries a peasant, her husband will become a Prince.  If Prince Ringo marries a peasant, he will become a peasant.

The New Law:  Fredo is King, Gerald is Heir.  If Gerald dies, Ringo will be Heir.  If Princess Mary marries a peasant she will become a peasant.  If Prince Tom marries a peasant she will become a Princess.

Oversimplification I think that there are probably social norms against marrying people with a vast social rank gap.


My suggestion for a change on Law of eagles is: that it is a matrilineal patriarchy and marrying up works either way.
Fredo is King, Tom or Don is the Heir.  If Tom and Don die, Oscar will be the Heir.  If Mary marries a peasant, her husband will become a Prince.  If Prince Ringo marries a peasant, his wife will become a Princess.