Guild and Temple Holdings [Archive]

kgauck

11-02-2007, 08:41 AM

Instead of looking to the rules and saying what can these holdings do, I would look at the world the DM (whether you or another) has created and ask, what would these holdings be doing, and then consider how the rules would support that.

Let's take the issue of who can raise troops. Generally anyone with money can raise troops. Even in a modern state where the state can effectively maintain a monopoly on violence, its possible to raise troops with ready cash. With the approval of the state you are a security company. Without it, you're a gang or maybe a cult. If the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence (and I rather think its very hard to establish one without several modern conditions), then nearly anyone with ready cash can effectively raise troops and the state can only compel its will by counter-force.

Under such conditions its not necessary to allow any holding the full access to any troop type. Most obvious are knights. As members of the feudal order, many would have sworn fealty to the land lord, they might be exclusive to landed regents. Or you may decide that churches with a warlike nature, especially one suited to knights can raise a single unit of knights or a unit per so many levels of holdings. On the other end of the spectrum, anyone should be able to raise a unit of irregulars.

In addition to what kind of troops you can raise, there is the issue of how many troops can you raise. At one extreme, you can effectively only recruit from among your own organization. At the other you can freely recruit among the whole populace.

Its hard to imagine guilds without gangs to enforce their will. These gangs may normally assemble as small bodies of one or two dozen, but certainly if I have gangs throughout the province I could bring them all together. Likewise if I put out the call to my guild members, some of them would show up with some kind of arms, prepared to fight. One of the causes of the Hundred Years War is the English support for the Flemish cities who defied the Count of Flanders and through him the King of France. The cities repeatedly through out the Count of Flanders in the 1330's, as the guilds were powerful and the count was weak. (The old house of Flanders died out, the King confiscated the county and handed it to another, and the new count never effectively had control.) The English didn't send arms or men, but wanted to trade with the cities as they purchased English wool, so conducted trade with these "outlaws" despite being, as Duke of Aquitaine, a vassal of the French king.

My general reading of that is that as the towns get bigger, the guilders get to eclipse the power of the landlords. Where that point is is really up to the DM, but I would say its at the very top of the scale, 8, 9, and 10 or so. Maybe at 6 or 7 the guilder is equal or just slightly less potent than the landlord. Of course one way for the landlord to tip the balance back in his favor is to make sure that the guild holdings are held by two rivals, and to always support the weaker guilder, so that no one guilder can overawe him.

Just as the towns have gangs that can be assembled unto a body of irregular troops, there is also the case of temples, who can always raise some body of troops. Its hard to imagine, for instance, that a temple to the god or war or battle couldn't raise troops. You always have your membership, and then you also have followers, so some body of troops is possible.

The question, as always, comes down to what kinds and how many. This is ultimately a question that the DM has to figure out based on how they imagine the social order.

AndrewTall

11-03-2007, 04:12 AM

In terms of expenses don't forget influence over the king. As a guilder I may be barred from mustering large numbers of men, may not be able invade a neighbour, etc - but if the king relies on my gold to maintain his armies and castles then I can certainly make some strong suggestions. :)

As noted there are also parties and great works - I'd allow any regent to convert GB to RP at, say, 1:4 by means of a great work of art, festival etc to show off their splendour. (1:4 not 1:5 cf troop maintenance to reflect exchange losses).

Similarly there is no reason why I can't encourage the realm ruler to rule up a province or two by offering to sponsor the cost, why the guilder can't build a wonder, why they can't build a large fleet or expand their operations, etc.

BR doesn't have a lot of rules for spending serious money in terms of clothes, jewels, retinue's etc but it does have courts that act in a similar manner - a guilder may well have a better court than the king - and embassies in other realms.

A guilder in short often spends their gold to gain the influence that birth denied them...

kgauck

11-03-2007, 09:34 AM

Why are guilders any lower born than anyone else? Are their ancestors not champions of Diesmaar too?

RaspK_FOG

11-03-2007, 10:55 AM

Actually, a guilder is almost certainly of lesser blood (in terms of Cerilian society and the metaphysics of the setting), or else he would generally not be a guilder; while he could be a legitimate heir if most of the line did perish, a person who is blooded and does not go much above a guilder in station generally happens to be of lesser progeny (or very much the type to want to keep the lowest of profiles).

As Andrew said, a guilder may be unable to muster troops.

A guilder being unblooded is also not unheard of.

AndrewTall

11-03-2007, 01:39 PM

Why are guilders any lower born than anyone else? Are their ancestors not champions of Diesmaar too?

I was looking at an Anuirean viewpoint only. Any successful guilder will in Anuire inevitably buy nobility - thus a regent who is a pure guilder without significant lands ownership will likely be 1-2nd generation rich only in my view - or be a second/third son who had a bloodline and some funds but not land and so had to take to trade.

In Brechtur where merchants are socially as successful as nobility (in theory if not borne out by practice per the Havens of the Great Bay) a guilder might well not aspire to become a significant land owner and so guilders and nobles might have equivalent standing.

The Khinasi would imo likely follow an Anuirean model, The Rjurik and Vos would do so to an extreme degree - wealth is far less able to buy respect in their cultures and so any highly successful merchant would be driven

In terms of bloodline I'd tend to work on the basis that high bloodlines lead to high status over the generations, partly by a behind the scenes mechanic (bloodline encourages respect, adoration, agreement etc) and partly by inheritance and the like - anyone who rules a large domain needs a spouse of high bloodline (in 2e, 3e does not have inherited stat mechanics) thus elevating the status of those with high bloodline over time.

Also behind the scenes RP gains and losses are more likely for public figures than others. Since bloodlines exist 15 centuries after Deismaar these RP gains must at least slightly exceed RP losses over time and so public figures - i.e. nobility - would be expected to have higher bloodlines than commoners regardless of their actions at Deismaar. This is however not borne out in the BRCS where RP losses appear to be almost routine unless a regent spends their time constantly firefighting - at least as I read the random event mechanics.

kgauck

11-03-2007, 09:44 PM

RaspK_FOG

11-04-2007, 02:22 AM

Actually, I won't argue that "classed" guilders are scions of Brenna by any means; I expect that most of them would be exactly that.

However, when it comes to "guilders" (i.e. any person operating a guild or holding), I don't expect every single one of them to be a scion; and that's what I meant earlier; furthermore, of all the kinds of holdings and all, a guilder is the most likely, by all means, to be non-blooded (a military ruler inspires greater loyalty if he is a scion, a priest has part of the essence of gods, a wizard has to have a bloodline, and a guilder is, practically, a merchant leader... I guess you can see how much less he needs that bloodline).

Otherwise, there is a whole lot of things to consider; for example, the Germans felt that they had to be equally fair with their children, but such methods diminish property, while the English felt that the name, the family, comes first, and thus all male children have equal rights to family estates... as long as those before them don't prove incapable of taking care of things. Note that, of course, a female child would get the titles and name if an only child or if all males proved false, but the latter would only be extremely rare, since that would only mean that her spouse would take all!

P.S.: Your analysis is correct, but aren't such results normally to be expected? At least, it proves that they did not fumble in this matter, correct?

AndrewTall

11-04-2007, 04:15 AM

I seem to read two meanings of "nobility". I'm not concerned with social status, that will very so much by culture, religious affiliation, even realm, that its really not even possible to generalize. The other meaning, which is my only meaning, is that any scion is a noble. Blood makes you noble, not status.

In this I approach the question from the opposite end. The term 'Noble' to me denotes social status just as would 'peasant' or 'upper/middle/lower class'. Powerful bloodlines will congregate around and gravitate towards the nobility as they encourage social and other forms of success. In your system I wouldn't bother using the term 'noble' at all - I'd just use 'scion' since it has identifies the same people without the possibility of confusion with social rank.

As each nation has different ways of viewing the upper class, and different ideas of what 'successful' people do, the bloodlines will gravitate towards different areas in each nation. In each therefore while we use entirely different views of what makes someone 'noble' we should end up identifying the same people (barring the small fry).

The titles given to the upper social classes will differ from nation to nation, if you used a German system of inheritance I expect that two 'noble' classes would swiftly emerge - those who inherited the family bloodline and controlled large domains and those who didn't and had nothing beyond their names. I don't see much benefit to calling both groups noble as the commonality of function is low.

The occupation of the noble, be he landlord, priest, guilder, or wizard, should not make any absolute difference to his status, these are only local variations as he travels among the different peoples and places of the world.

There are no metaphysical principles at work to demean guilders.

I think you and I are differing on where we see cause and effect, primarily arising from the different definition of 'noble'. If in Anuire law holdings are seen as inherently better than guild holdings as they denote control of land and law, then to me the powerful bloodlines will be found amongst law holders since the minor bloodlines get forced out through high competition. To me therefore in all nations bar Brechtur there are very powerful social factors demeaning guilders which inevitably leads to them having both lower social status and likely weaker bloodlines then regents of more favoured holdings.

Notions of the poor younger son who receives no inheritance and so must make his own way in the world is particularly English. The French acknowledge you as noble as long as all four of your grandparents are noble. You could be the 8th son of the 8th son of the 8th son, and you're just as noble as the eldest of the eldest of the eldest. The Germans divided everything among all of their sons, including the use of the family title. Every son of a Duke of Bavaria is himself a Duke of Bavaria. Only the English model produces the sad younger son who must turn to trade. Why is that the right understanding for who is noble?

I note that the mechanics of bloodline inheritance in 2e at least, would strongly lean to the English approach to inheritance not the German - if one child inherits the family bloodline and has double that if their siblings, they will be far more able to rule a large domain - encouraging the entire domain to pass to a single child with at most nominal consideration to others. Consider briefly the impact on the generation conflict between Avanil and Boeruine if one family had only a tainted bloodline - the RP gap would give the other a substantial advantage and likely victory. Thus strong bloodlines should be synonymous with high social rank and power.

A brief skim through the Ruins of Empire shows large realms as having generally one main law holder who is the ruler - I'd expect much more of a patchwork if Anuirean - or for that matter Khinasi or Brecht - law split the inheritance as you describe. The Rjurik split otoh is almost exactly what I'd expect from a German system.

To me a term should only be used if it is useful, if the term 'noble' has no implications regarding on social status, wealth, ability, etc then it should be discarded. I would question the benefit of a term defining social status which applied not just to the elite, but also those of far lower social classes who happened to have an ancestor in the elite - it seems useless except in identifying a handful of ancient prerogatives.

It may well be that Anuire only allows a 'noble' under the German definition to be a knight - they have no land or wealth but they do have the ancestral right to bear arms and wear armour and enter the joust - but to call them noble devalues the term for most uses in my view.

Instead, just as there are four core class (using 2nd edition notions, where there are sub classes) and all are socially equal to one another, why not imagine that there are four noble paths, each championed by a divine patron. Just because you are a scion of Brenna, and drawn by your blood to trade, commerce, and the pursuit of wealth why should your birth, rank, or status be challenged as if you are a poor thing for not having the derivation of Anduiras?

In Brechtur the question would be 'why is Brenna favoured', in Khinasi 'why is Vorynn'. To the extent that the bloodlines follow each nations core views of what is the 'best' type of holding (guilds and sources respectively) then each will be favoured in a different land amongst the upper class. I expect that if you checked class distribution you would find a similar disparity amongst the classes, fighter would be relatively favoured in Anuire, Wizard in Khinasi, Rogue in Brechtur - for exactly the same social reasons.

To argue that guilder are the red-headed step children of the noble milieu is not going to court lady luck, but any stretch.

Again this derives from our different definitions. If socially guilds are seen as lesser than land ownership, control of mebhaighl, piety, etc then you are going to find the guilds dominated by those red-headed step children as any successful guild/source holder will diversify and eventually relocate leaving only the lesser holdings behind - to be claimed by those of lesser blood who ar eunable to compete for better holdings.

kgauck

11-04-2007, 09:14 AM

Where is the source that says only one person inherits the family bloodline? We have the description of inheritance which says you average the parents, and we have examples of several children that list their bloodlines as the same.

I expect that two 'noble' classes would swiftly emerge - those who inherited the family bloodline and controlled large domains and those who didn't and had nothing beyond their names.

So I don't see this as the case. Rather, I think all children get the same bloodline (more or less, radical changes in fortune between children can occur), so there is no one who gets nothing but their name.

If in Anuire law holdings are seen as inherently better than guild holdings as they denote control of land and law...

The text on Anuire (and Rjurik) identify this as old thinking, and the rise of the guilder is now so well established that worship of Sarimie is now the leading form of worship in the heart of the old Empire.

To me a term should only be used if it is useful, if the term 'noble' has no implications regarding on social status, wealth, ability, etc then it should be discarded.

I didn't say all that. I wanted to put aside the issue of social status and the notion of nobility because it varies so much. I want that to be a different discussion, because its a big issue and only tangentially related to the question at hand. We were asked what do guilders and templars do with their actions. I suggested first to look to the DM's social context, and this is the reason why. Its easy to make absolute sounding statements that conflict with some other DM's view of the situation, either because the campaign is set in a cultural area other than one assumed by comments, or because the DM just sees the world differently.

One of the problems I see, and why ultimately, I refuse to accept the assumed dominance of the landed regent, is that too many good situations, storylines, and game obstacles come out of having someone other than the landed regent be the power in the realm.

The text of the game (rather than the assignment of holdings) offers really interesting and intriguing situations for anyone to become the great power in a region. What I am reading from the other posts is that really only a "kingly" figure can be great and that other kinds of domains are sideshows.

Would this diminished role for guilders attract all players equally, or is it only attractive to players who really like the scoundrels (as defined by the book of) and will accept a few social obstacles to play their favorite character type. Its one thing to have guilders in the back seat in a few cultures, its another to push them into the back seat everywhere save Brectür.

AndrewTall

11-04-2007, 12:53 PM

Where is the source that says only one person inherits the family bloodline? We have the description of inheritance which says you average the parents, and we have examples of several children that list their bloodlines as the same.

I'm looking at the inheritance of the parent's bloodline on their death - I presume that all children will initially have similar bloodlines, one or two then inherit the parent(s) bloodline and get a bump. In 3e this is far more marked for strong bloodlines as bloodline is rolled not averaged for the parents and Avan (70) would have offspring with a bloodline of around 30-40 barring whichever inherited his score of 70 when he died. In 2e this is only really an issue where the parents have different bloodline scores although that would probably be fairly normal for the families with stronger bloodlines.

So I don't see this as the case. Rather, I think all children get the same bloodline (more or less, radical changes in fortune between children can occur), so there is no one who gets nothing but their name.

Divergent fortunes would, I hope, encourage diverisification - the old 1st inherits, 2nd army, 3rd church affair. That way instead of all the Avan, Boeruine, etc heirs going into land like mom/dad the family continually branches out. That should mean that you continually have movement of scions who need to make their fortune, split off a holding etc which should increase the fun - the regent's next 'great captain' could be their child/cousin....

One of the problems I see, and why ultimately, I refuse to accept the assumed dominance of the landed regent, is that too many good situations, storylines, and game obstacles come out of having someone other than the landed regent be the power in the realm.

The text of the game (rather than the assignment of holdings) offers really interesting and intriguing situations for anyone to become the great power in a region. What I am reading from the other posts is that really only a "kingly" figure can be great and that other kinds of domains are sideshows.

I completely agree - but disagree that the social pyramid seeing land as the be all and end all means that the actual power must follow the perception. I merely noted that I'd expect that for all their wealth the guilders in Anuire would meet snobbishness from landed regents and that they would tend to face less competition than landed regents as the common cultural perception is that land is more valuable than mere control of trade concessions. If anything this should increase conflict as regents were 'kncoked out' of the land race and written off only to re-emerge having built upa fortune trading.

From what I've read the Jews in England often had far lower social status than their commercial power warranted - I can easily see Guilder Kalien as banker to the entire heartlands ignored by some foolish nobles as inconsequential as he rules but a single city - until either the noble finds that they need to borrow money or angers him enough with their arrogance to provoke him into demonstrating his true strength.

I expect that each regent type ultimately considers their holding type best if they are in it for the long term and has good reasons for doing so. All should be playable and have equal - if different - power.

I'm all for non-landed regents having power and would encourage mechanics to protect them from landed regents. The more I play the more occupation+pillage needs to me to be a 'nuclear deterrent' - devastatingly effective but with such terrible consequences that using it would be almost unthinkable within a rulers own realm.

Would this diminished role for guilders attract all players equally, or is it only attractive to players who really like the scoundrels (as defined by the book of) and will accept a few social obstacles to play their favorite character type. Its one thing to have guilders in the back seat in a few cultures, its another to push them into the back seat everywhere save Brectür.

I don't see the social perception as diminishing the role at all - merely adding a little snobbery the guilder can punish later when the realm ruler needs them. Similarly I don't see it pushing the guilders to a back seat even if the realm rulers assume that everything is really abut them - while the guilders undercut them from left and right. Certainly other players should realise the importance of the guilds even if their character doesn't so will need to wheedle and flatter favours as much as they would for other holdings.

irdeggman

11-04-2007, 06:58 PM

So I don't see this as the case. Rather, I think all children get the same bloodline (more or less, radical changes in fortune between children can occur), so there is no one who gets nothing but their name.

Except maybe any "bastard" children. They would get a bloodline (derivation and strength but with lesser rank (i.e., score)).

This person whould have essentially no "status" or other "rights" and would most likely follow the path that Raesene took, albeit with less "support" from their father.

Remember that the starting score of a child is dependent on the scores (or status) of his parents when he was born so that there could be a variation in the score between siblings, especially if they had different mothers.

kgauck

11-05-2007, 09:46 AM

I gathered some time to pull up my database of regents and scions. Currently it includes all the Anuirean and Brecht PS's and Ruins of Empire and Havens of the Great Bay. Because of time, I only looked at Anuirean guilders and copmpared them to all other regents in the database.

When I ran the three averages (median, mean, mode) I got 20, 24, and 27 for all regents. Guilders end up with 17, 17, and 22. The standard deviation for regents and scions is 14, giving us a 13-40 range for most scions and regents. The standard deviation for guilders is 9, so their range is 8-26.

However what I found is that there isn't a smooth pattern of guilders, rather there are two kinds of guilders. There are some like Orthien Tane 8, el-Hadid 10, who are both on the South Coast, and may be a player's first encounter with guilders, since the South Coast is a kind of starter region. And there are the mighty guilders, like Moerele Lannaman, Mheallie Bireon, and Kalien. And that isn't including Erienne Mierele, who is both Duchess of Brosengae and Guilder as well.

Personally, I have contempt for Orthien and el-Hadid with their meger bloodlines. Especially el-Hadid whose domain is worth 25 regency and his little bloodline of 10 only allows him to collect 40% of his domain's regency. Such a figure can only exist because it pleases others to keep such a vulnerable creature in place.

But as we depart from these two unusual examples, we don't see their like again. I imagine that if one played their first game on the South Coast, where all the introductory materials were, one might reasonably regard guilders as third class regents.

My first campaign was in Baruk-Azhik, where Diirk Watershold was both master guilder and spymaster, where inside Baruk-Azhik he was a full third of the realm's power and outside the kingdom, he was the kingdom.

After that I wrote the biography of Mheallie Bireon, a guilder who is master of all she surveys. The count of Cariele has "learned his lesson; he allows the guilds plenty of leeway, and signs whatever the guildmasters place in front of him." As one gazes north of Mhoried, Tuornen, and Alamie, it would be an error to continue to think of landed realms, for it is Guilder Mheallie who is the power here, and all others are her creatures (Entier Gladanil), her allies riding her success (Larra Nielems), or quite respectful of her power.

The other guilder of import in my games has been Storm Holtson, another powerful figure.

So I can see how an experience with some of the guilders can lead to the idea that they are third rate. But certainly no one in their right mind underestimates Diirk Watershold, Mheallie Bireon, or Storm Holtson.

I should also mention the "cockpit of Anuire". Both the Prince and Archduke have pet guilders. Parnien 15 bloodline, 35 holding levels is obviously a creature of the Prince and could not exist at this level without his protection. Apparently the Prince is no need of extra regency in his organization, but wants the gold supply to be totally obediant. Arien 14 bloodline, 26 holding levels is basically the same deal.

However there are also Guilder Kalien and Erienne Mierele, who are guilders in action, being unwilling or unable to use their realms as states to play the game of kings. As guilders they are quite powerful and dangerous, the exact opposite of Parnien and Arien. So even here, there are two ways to look at guilders.

My own sense is that powerful regents will tend to expand both verticaly and horizontally. The Prince and Archduke happen to be landed rulers and control guilds and to some extent temples as well, while Kalien and Erienne are guilders who control states. I could add Mheallie Bireon here, who chose not to run the state herself, but like the Prince and Archduke, put a puppet in place.

Of the 19 guilders in the survey, 9 had derivations of Brenna, 7 had Anduiras (which makes sense, since its Anuire), 1 Maesala, 1 Reynir, and 1 Basaïa.

Panics

11-05-2007, 02:01 PM

AndrewTall

11-05-2007, 03:18 PM

ok...

Got mixed up but if you understand yourselves... its good :)

What I understand is that a Guild(er) could manipulate the Law or the province ruler with the money he generate.

A Temple could do the same. The priest would influence the Law or Province ruler to its will. So an Evil Temple could control a Province indirectly.

The other question I would have is... Does Birthright has realms controlled by Guilders ? Because many countries or city-states in FR are controlled by great merchant families... or get influenced by.

If I followed well. In my campaign, the great merchant families of Tethyr could influence or indirectly control a noble ruler (province and law) by offering GBs. ?? (as vassalage?)

Thanks

In Anure you have Brosengae, Cariele and Endier. Otherwise you probably want Brechtur. I don't know Khinasi well so they may have one. Endier has a Players Secrets book and is a city-state at the center of a guild empire so should be a good template for the stuff you want.

In terms of domain regents influencing the realm ruler, the actual province ruler doesn't necessarily control any of the holdings in their realm - although control over law holdings directly or by a vassal is usual. Temple and Guild regents can both influence by money, but often as important is the spying of the guilder and the rabble rousing of the temple. Either of these can be mimicked by a source regent, but at a substantial cost as the source regent has no money. Moreover a regent only has so many actions in a turn - a regent with friends can get them to do actions they need in busy times making them less susceptible to assault. In a good Roleplaying campaign they can also act as go-betweens, a chorus, catspaws, etc.

So the great merchant houses could offer GB's, spy reports, undertake diplomacy, espionage and intrigue for the realm ruler to buy influence - the realm ruler might play one off against another to stop any individual house getting too strong but would probably need at least some of them onside at any given time.

vota dc

11-05-2007, 05:31 PM

But a non territorial guilder in my opinion should be allowed to have a private army,with a strong limit,but an army.For example a maximum of 1 unit every 2 level of holding.And should have a higher manteniance cost because they haven't land to host.

kgauck

11-05-2007, 08:18 PM

I think it comes down to a limited unit selection more than a limited number of troops.

geeman

11-06-2007, 02:11 AM

At 10:58 AM 11/4/2007, you wrote:

>Except maybe any "bastard" children. They would get a bloodline
>(derivation and strength but with lesser rank (i.e., score)).

That depends, of course, on who they are descended from.... After
all, "bastardy" is just a matter of parental marital status, not
bloodline, so a child could easily be the product of two scions with
high bloodlines who simply aren`t married. The half-elf offspring
of, say, an elven prince and a human duchess could have a very high
bloodline indeed....

>This person whould have essentially no "status" or other "rights"
>and would most likely follow the path that Raesene took, albeit with
>less "support" from their father.

Bastards still have status and rights, just not status or rights like
those of their siblings who are recognized. The bastard son of a
duke would not, for instance, be of lower social status than a member
of that duke`s demesne.

Historically, the difference between legitimacy and bastardy were
often pretty slight. That depends on the social standards of the
moment in many cases, of course, but bastards can be considered very
close to more conventionally born children or can be given that
status with very little effort. Bastards can, therefore, go any
direction pretty easily. To illustrate the point, here`s annotated
list of real world, literary or mythical bastards:

Hercules (Zeus cranked out quite a few bastards.)
Magni (bastard son of Thor, himself the bastard son of Odin.)
Oedipus (bad son, bad older brother, pretty good king....)
Moses (ancient abandoned baby who invented the D&D Staff of Serpents.)
Jesus (serves a good supper, but not liked by Romans.)
King Arthur (excellent at drawing swords stuck in stone.)
Mordred (bastard of the King and his half-sister.)
Sir Galahad (pretty, but not too bright....)
William the Conqueror (nee "the Bastard" before 1066.)
Edmund (self-righteous, Shakespearean bastard.)
Tarzan (raised by apes... hence a bastard, at least in the ape society.)
Superman (raised by hairless apes... hence a barbaric, alien bastard.)
Darth Vader (even his mother doesn`t know who is father
is.... What`s up with that?!?)

Gary

irdeggman

11-06-2007, 05:02 AM

That depends, of course, on who they are descended from.... After
all, "bastardy" is just a matter of parental marital status, not
bloodline, so a child could easily be the product of two scions with
high bloodlines who simply aren`t married. The half-elf offspring
of, say, an elven prince and a human duchess could have a very high
bloodline indeed....

My point being that not all children have the same "rights" and bloodline (as in score). When compared to a child of a noble elven female (assuming any bloodline at all) the child would severly be behind in score, and even possible be of a different bloodline derivation entirely.

Bastards still have status and rights, just not status or rights like
those of their siblings who are recognized. The bastard son of a
duke would not, for instance, be of lower social status than a member
of that duke`s demesne.

I, again, use the specific example of Raesene (the ultimate "bastard" in BR). Which I use as the example of how Anuirean society would most likely function, with a semi-kind and generous "father". While granted many of the rights of a "legitimate" son, he was specifically "denied" the right to succession - which is very, very significant. And unless I'm incorrect - he was the eldest son, which would have normally entitled him to that.

Historically, the difference between legitimacy and bastardy were
often pretty slight. That depends on the social standards of the
moment in many cases, of course, but bastards can be considered very
close to more conventionally born children or can be given that
status with very little effort. Bastards can, therefore, go any
direction pretty easily.

But they are not "automatically" the same as Kenneth was stating. And even when they are made "close to equal" they are still not quite there.

To illustrate the point, here`s annotated
list of real world, literary or mythical bastards:

Moses (ancient abandoned baby who invented the D&D Staff of Serpents.)

Not a "bastard" son. He was "adopted" by the pharohs mother. Big difference.

Tarzan (raised by apes... hence a bastard, at least in the ape society.)

See reference to Moses. Not a "bastard', adopted is a big difference.

Superman (raised by hairless apes... hence a barbaric, alien bastard.)

Again, "adopted" not bastard.

"Adoption" establishes "legitamacy", while being a "bastard" does not, at least not "automatically".

irdeggman

11-06-2007, 05:03 AM

I think it comes down to a limited unit selection more than a limited number of troops.

And how much attention they want to draw from the "landed" regent.

AndrewTall

11-06-2007, 04:30 PM

And how much attention they want to draw from the "landed" regent.

I can see the temple regent paying a pretty penny for the right to maintain a unit of 'Cuiracen's Holy Thunder' (Elite Foot) or Belinik's Fury (Varsk Cavalry). As a realm regent I would want to severely limit the number of troops - particularly if they ever gathered together, but the odd unit or two wouldn't necessarily bother me - permission to raise troops would be a power of patronage to be dispensed (for appropriate remuneration) to carefully chosen persons - with both number of units per person and overall careful limited.

I see almost any noble having a small retinue of legbreakers, paying a small scutage fee for each (theoretically these worthies being subject to call by the crown, practically them being a part of the province seasonal income with no intent ever to call them up) with more substantial sums paid by those wishing to exalt their greatness with a larger number of troops. I'd charge highly for units that are dangerous (knights) or decorative (pike) and ban certain units (artillerists) outright but the theory is good - afterall it helps to dispel the image of tyranny if you allow others to keep the illusion of power.

The point about troops needing permission to be raised and maintained is that it's pretty hard to hide the fact that you are maintained 200 or so troops trained to fight as a unit - 200 brawlers who can turn up with sword and shield is a far cry from a trained unit so only a handful of units (Rjurik tribesmen, irregulars, militia, etc) could be raised in secret.

geeman

11-07-2007, 03:30 AM

At 09:02 PM 11/5/2007, irdeggman wrote:

>My point being that not all children have the same "rights" and bloodline (as in score). When compared to a child of a noble elven female (assuming any bloodline at all) the child would severly be behind in score, and even possible be of a different bloodline derivation entirely.

Unless there been some change in the way bloodline in passed on in a more recent version of the BRCS, those born out of wedlock are
probably going to a bloodline (in the BR divine energy sense) that differs from their half-siblings, but it could be higher or lower depending on the parents involved. Bastardy is incidental to bloodline; only the bloodline of the respective parents matters. If we assume that one parent will not be blooded for such offspring then, of course, a bastard child would inherit half the bloodline of their parent who was a scion, but why make that assumption? Nobles aren`t any less likely to breed with one another out of wedlock than any other group.

>------------ QUOTE ----------
>Bastards still have status and rights, just not status or rights like those of their siblings who are recognized. The bastard son of a duke would not, for instance, be of lower social status than a member of that duke`s demesne.
>-----------------------------
>
>I, again, use the specific example of Raesene (the ultimate "bastard" in BR). Which I use as the example of how Anuirean society would most likely function, with a semi-kind and generous "father". While granted many of the rights of a "legitimate" son, he was
>specifically "denied" the right to succession - which is very, very significant. And unless I`m incorrect - he was the eldest son, which
>would have normally entitled him to that.

That`s quite a bit different from your previous statement that `bastard` children would have essentially no `status` or other `rights` and would most likely follow the path that Raesene took, albeit with less `support` from their father."

Raesene was, of course, denied a place in the Imperial succession. However, it should be noted that historically, that`s not so unusual, nor is it something that is all that difficult to overcome. The process of recognizing a child varies from culture to culture and period to period, of course, but the reality is that such things were done all the time.

That aside, from a story, role-playing and personality POV, isn`t it better that the Raesene`s denial of his "legitimate" throne comes from more from an assessment of his character and cruelty than a hard-line attitude towards social mores? Oh, they`d certainly use social standards as their rationale for denying him succession, but the *real* reason was that the recognize his evil, even if it were a nascent evil at the time. On the Gorgon`s side he would use the same excuse because it allows him to blame the family that he hates and absolve himself of any real, personal blame.

>>Historically, the difference between legitimacy and bastardy were often pretty slight. That depends on the social standards of the
>>moment in many cases, of course, but bastards can be considered very close to more conventionally born children or can be given that
>>status with very little effort. Bastards can, therefore, go any direction pretty easily.
>
>But they are not "automatically" the same as Kenneth was stating. And even when they are made "close to equal" they are still not quite there.

IIRC, he was talking about bloodline inheritance, not social acceptance. When it comes to bloodline bastards inherit just like anyone else.

>>Moses (ancient abandoned baby who invented the D&D Staff of Serpents.)
>
>Not a "bastard" son. He was "adopted" by the pharohs mother. Big difference.
>
>------------ QUOTE ----------
>Tarzan (raised by apes... hence a bastard, at least in the ape society.)
>-----------------------------
>
>See reference to Moses. Not a "bastard`, adopted is a big difference.
>
>------------ QUOTE ----------
>Superman (raised by hairless apes... hence a barbaric, alien bastard.)
>-----------------------------
>
>Again, "adopted" not bastard.
>
>"Adoption" establishes "legitamacy", while being a "bastard" does >not, at least not "automatically".

I think you`d be hard-pressed to find a court that recognizes and automatically grants parental and inheritance rights to a gorilla mother and her adopted Greystoke baby (at least, not outside of California....) Regardless of that, though, automatic legitimacy has not been my personal experience with either my bastardy nor my adoption, but as I remain separated from my royal alien birth parents I`ll have to leave it at that lest I provoke you barbarous hairless apes.... Until then I`ll be trying to find a court that recognizes my adoption by Angelina Jolie.

In reality, adopted children often have gotten the shaft just as easily as bastard children. They are denied inheritance because they aren`t "real" children, and those listed above could easily serve as examples of that process, which as I put more thought into it, closely resembles how bastards are often treated.... Sometimes quite well, sometimes very shoddily.

However, I think the terms and situation are getting mixed up a bit here, so let`s try for some clarification. Two things are getting confused: the inheritance of bloodline and the inheritance of title. Bloodline inheritance *IS* automatic, and has nothing directly to do with legitimacy of birth. There`s no reason to assume, automatically, that scions born out of wedlock are going to have a bloodline lower than their half-siblings. That`s a matter of their unmarried parents` respective bloodlines.

The inheritance of properties, lands and titles is not automatic, of course, but neither is it necessarily automatic to conventional offspring who are often overlooked or set aside in favor of other siblings. Bastard children are generally less likely to gain such things than conventionally born children, but we cannot simply count them out, nor should we assume that they would "go the way of the Gorgon" as a matter of course.

Gary

irdeggman

11-07-2007, 05:08 AM

However, I think the terms and situation are getting mixed up a bit
here, so let`s try for some clarification. Two things are getting
confused: the inheritance of bloodline and the inheritance of
title. Bloodline inheritance *IS* automatic, and has nothing
directly to do with legitimacy of birth. There`s no reason to
assume, automatically, that scions born out of wedlock are going to
have a bloodline lower than their half-siblings. That`s a matter of
their unmarried parents` respective bloodlines.

The inheritance of properties, lands and titles is not automatic, of
course, but neither is it necessarily automatic to conventional
offspring who are often overlooked or set aside in favor of other
siblings. Bastard children are generally less likely to gain such
things than conventionally born children, but we cannot simply count
them out, nor should we assume that they would "go the way of the
Gorgon" as a matter of course.

Gary

That is exactly what I was trying to get to - if you go back to the quote I originally responded to and other posts by Kenneth that talk about "noble" meaning only "scion" and social status not having anything to do with it.

Originally Posted by kgauck http://www.birthright.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?p=42191#post42191)

So I don't see this as the case. Rather, I think all children get the same bloodline (more or less, radical changes in fortune between children can occur), so there is no one who gets nothing but their name.

Which is true, but misleading (other than the double negative that is;)). All children of a scion will have a bloodline and score of some kind. Not all children will have the same score (some may though). Not all children will have abilities and those that do may have quite differing ones at that. Not all children of scions will even have the same bloodline at all. For example a scion with a minor bloodline of Anduiras fathers a child with a commoner. That child will have a minor bloodline of Anduiras. The same scion fathers a child with a scion of a major bloodline of Brenna - that child will most likely have a minor bloodline of Brenna but a higher score than the half-sibling.

And not all children of a scion will have the same "status" - in fact the adventure Blood Hungry is based on the vengence of a "bastard" scion who had no social status from birth what so ever.

In reality the entire setting is based on "claiming your birthright" - that is carving out an empire (or equivalent) based on your bloodline itself.

All scions are born with the ability to rule, not all are capable of doing it and not all have the same advantages of others. Many advantages come from the social status that a scion has in growing up.

geeman

11-07-2007, 06:19 AM

At 09:08 PM 11/6/2007, you wrote:

>That is exactly what I was trying to get to - if you go back to the
>quote I originally responded to and other posts by Kenneth that talk
>about "noble" meaning only "scion" and social status not having
>anything to do with it.

Ah, OK. Well, then we`ll just have to agree to agree then.

Gary

irdeggman

11-07-2007, 07:58 AM

Ah, OK. Well, then we`ll just have to agree to agree then.

Gary

Hey there is always a first time for everything. :D

kgauck

11-07-2007, 10:30 AM

That is exactly what I was trying to get to - if you go back to the quote I originally responded to and other posts by Kenneth that talk about "noble" meaning only "scion" and social status not having anything to do with it.

My point is that any person with a bloodline, any scion, can rule a domain. There is an abundance of examples of the petty noble, poorer than dirt, but proud. The "orphan" who is suspected to be of noble blood. Armies generally sought out the noble who had nothing but their cape and their sword, because they understood the values of nobility, even though they had no money, no income, and no title. Again, this is the French notion of nobility, where every descendant of a noble is a noble, which is akin to BR scions, where every descendant of a scion is also a scion.

Properly understood, nobility is not a social status, its a legal status. A noble has different rights and obligations under law than a commoner. They have the right to a different kind of trial, in the court of a lord, judged by other nobles, with different punishments. Traditionally nobles were beheaded and commoners where hung. Nobles have the right to bear arms, commoners are not legally entitled to carry weapons. Nobles have the right to a coat of arms. They could own land, rather than merely possess it. They had the right to hunt any beast, where commoners had a much shorter list of animals they could hunt. Commoners were often limited in the weapons they could hunt with.

No matter how one dressed, what wealth you had, you could exercise your rights as a noble. Even if nobles wish to shun you socially, they will nearly always insist on your full rights. So that the dirty noble who has no lands and lives as a hermit might still come to court and make a declaration about some matter of business while wealthy peasants or tradesmen would be turned away. He might not be addressed warmly, but he will be addressed civilly.

Literature especially is full of people of suspected noble birth or concealed noble birth. Arthurian legend is full of them. Arthur himself has his nobility and identity concealed, until he is ready to assume the mantle of king. Lancelot has his nobility concealed because his mother doesn't want him to fight and die as a knight. Lancelot is the son of deposed King Ban of Benoic.

Nobility is not a social status, its a legal status that is bequeathed either by investiture or by inheritance. A guilder who has a guild domain is a guy with a bloodline, he has inherited nobility that goes back to Diesmaar.

irdeggman

11-07-2007, 11:23 AM

My point is that any person with a bloodline, any scion, can rule a domain. There is an abundance of examples of the petty noble, poorer than dirt, but proud. The "orphan" who is suspected to be of noble blood. Armies generally sought out the noble who had nothing but their cape and their sword, because they understood the values of nobility, even though they had no money, no income, and no title. Again, this is the French notion of nobility, where every descendant of a noble is a noble, which is akin to BR scions, where every descendant of a scion is also a scion.

Properly understood, nobility is not a social status, its a legal status. A noble has different rights and obligations under law than a commoner. They have the right to a different kind of trial, in the court of a lord, judged by other nobles, with different punishments. Traditionally nobles were beheaded and commoners where hung. Nobles have the right to bear arms, commoners are not legally entitled to carry weapons. Nobles have the right to a coat of arms. They could own land, rather than merely possess it. They had the right to hunt any beast, where commoners had a much shorter list of animals they could hunt. Commoners were often limited in the weapons they could hunt with.

No matter how one dressed, what wealth you had, you could exercise your rights as a noble. Even if nobles wish to shun you socially, they will nearly always insist on your full rights. So that the dirty noble who has no lands and lives as a hermit might still come to court and make a declaration about some matter of business while wealthy peasants or tradesmen would be turned away. He might not be addressed warmly, but he will be addressed civilly.

Literature especially is full of people of suspected noble birth or concealed noble birth. Arthurian legend is full of them. Arthur himself has his nobility and identity concealed, until he is ready to assume the mantle of king. Lancelot has his nobility concealed because his mother doesn't want him to fight and die as a knight. Lancelot is the son of deposed King Ban of Benoic.

Nobility is not a social status, its a legal status that is bequeathed either by investiture or by inheritance. A guilder who has a guild domain is a guy with a bloodline, he has inherited nobility that goes back to Diesmaar.

Read Blood Hungry and tell me this applies.

Or how about Seeking Bloodsilver and the "blooded" half-ogres that the Gorgon "bred" - are they likewise considered "nobility" in this context?

Simply being a scion does not entitle you to "special" status such as you are describing.

Do the elves not have distinction based on things other than bloodline?

How about the Vos, where they often divest the bloodline of the loser in a battle. Being a scion in Vosgaard doesn't mean as much as being "strong", although he who is stonger will most likely end up with the bloodline.

By equating nobility and scion you reduce the effect of "influence" and "power" which is associated with the term "noble", that is what IMO is causing the most problems. Not all scions have "influence" and "power", although they can attempt to "claim" it - they are not automatically given it, it must be "earned".

Nobles existed before bloodlines did. Raesene was not born to nobility. He was trusted and taken in by his father but he never had the full entitlements his siblings did and none seemed to think he was entitled to them, except maybe he himself.

AndrewTall

11-07-2007, 03:54 PM

kgauck

11-07-2007, 05:23 PM

Read Blood Hungry and tell me this applies.
I'm not sure what you are refering to. Are you arguing that the dagger is a noble?

Or how about Seeking Bloodsilver and the "blooded" half-ogres that the Gorgon "bred" - are they likewise considered "nobility" in this context?

Do the elves not have distinction based on things other than bloodline?
I wrote quite a bit on this subject, and didn't mention elves, dwarves, or half-ogres. This attempt to extend my argument into new territory and then criticize it is classical reductio ad absurdum. I have not argued that the only meaningful distinction in all of Birthright is the noble-commoner. Others are meaningful as well, such as good and evil. Abominations and their doings are obviously not the same thing as normal, human-based nobility based on the heroism at Diesmaar. It may be a mirror reflection cast in evil, it may just be an alternate path of evil. This argument is not only a fallacious one, but a distraction, since the important distinctions here are not noble-common, but heroic-villianous.

Simply being a scion does not entitle you to "special" status such as you are describing.
I've offered substantial argument, you counter with a simple declaration? Persuasive?

How about the Vos, where they often divest the bloodline of the loser in a battle. Being a scion in Vosgaard doesn't mean as much as being "strong", although he who is stonger will most likely end up with the bloodline.
Very poor interpretation. Instead, assumptions about what a noble should be includes strength and victory. Failure to be strong and victorious means you cannot be noble, and must forfit the very essense of your nobility, your bloodline. He who demonstrated the very essence of nobility for the Vos, must be accorded not only the name of victor, but the bloodline that a true noble bears. Far from deminishing the importance of being a scion, this kind of cerimony only demonstrates its centrality.

By equating nobility and scion you reduce the effect of "influence" and "power" which is associated with the term "noble", that is what IMO is causing the most problems. Not all scions have "influence" and "power", although they can attempt to "claim" it - they are not automatically given it, it must be "earned".

Influence and power are not essential to the term "noble". Perhaps you missed the discussion of the poor noble with nothing but his cape and his sword. The impoverished noble is as old as nobility itself. He's a central figure in the very idea of nobility. He lacks social power, influence, wealth, perhaps even looks like something other than what he is. But how is it that a person who can flawlessly (or even just noticably) penetrate lies and deception, who can heal by touch, or are not hindered by storm or fog can be ignored as just another guy? If people went about displaying blood powers, or could otherwise prove that they had the divine spark, do you seriously think they would be regarded as no more than butcher, baker, or candlestick-maker?

Nobles existed before bloodlines did. Raesene was not born to nobility. He was trusted and taken in by his father but he never had the full entitlements his siblings did and none seemed to think he was entitled to them, except maybe he himself.

I'm not so sure that nobles existed before Diesmaar. Chiefs, certainly. The nature of the social order at that time is unclear. All this talk of tribes certainly leads me to something other than an assumption of hereditary and distinct class of nobles.

The statement I objected to, what started this digression was when Andrew originally wrote:
A guilder in short often spends their gold to gain the influence that birth denied them... There is a clear implication that a guilder's birth is inferior (something is denied) and so their rights are inferior (for which copious expenditure might correct). I posed the question:
Why are guilders any lower born than anyone else? Are their ancestors not champions of Diesmaar too? His reply contained the following:
so public figures - i.e. nobility - would be expected to have higher bloodlines than commoners regardless of their actions at Deismaar.
This makes no sense to me. A commoner can't have a bloodline any more than fish can have hair. Once you have a bloodline you just aren't common any more. Social status, influence, wealth, a fine suit, these don't make you a noble. Nobility is something intrinsic to the person, essential to who they are.

I wouldn't be surprised if anyone recognised as a scion was deemed to have some sort of special status - depending on the ability of a bloodline to bootstrap its bearer to prominence it could well be that scions are generally nobles, or the children (recognised or otherwise) of nobles (again both times noble in the social sense with the understanding that the term 'noble' encompasses far more people than the term scion). That's really all I'm arguing. Simply being a scion does entitle you to "special" status. People will be amazed by such instrinsic powers, and leadership will flow naturally. Scions without distinct blood abilities will still have subtle and distinct leadership abilities (the ability to wield Regency). As far as as the term "noble" extending beyond just scions, I would prefer to call these people "gentry". Unblooded land-owners who may have petty titles are gentry, rather than nobles. Gentry can't rule domains, nobles can. The overlap of the concept of noble and scion bothers me no more than the overlap of aristocrat and noble do.

irdeggman

11-07-2007, 06:14 PM

I'm not sure what you are refering to. Are you arguing that the dagger is a noble?

Spoiler alert

Have you read the adventure?

It is about how a scion (possessed by the the dagger) discovers that he is the bastard son of the true ruler of the land and seeks to betray his "friend" to gain what he considers "his" birthright. Key word "bastard".

I wrote quite a bit on this subject, and didn't mention elves, dwarves, or half-ogres. This attempt to extend my argument into new territory and then criticize it is classical reductio ad absurdum. I have not argued that the only meaningful distinction in all of Birthright is the noble-commoner. Others are meaningful as well, such as good and evil. Abominations and their doings are obviously not the same thing as normal, human-based nobility based on the heroism at Diesmaar. It may be a mirror reflection cast in evil, it may just be an alternate path of evil. This argument is not only a fallacious one, but a distraction, since the important distinctions here are not noble-common, but heroic-villianous.

No I am saying that the blanket statements made about scion = noble are false.

Examples:

PS of Roesone.

Tael Brosuine, royal captain (unblooded) - descendent of the pirate-lord Brosuine Galehand.

Sven Bjording (nonblooded) - ruler of Edin (in the name of the Black Baron)

"Noble families who control only manors, offices, or estates within another noble's province are known simply as lords or ladies."

There are references to several non-blooded "lords and ladies".

Making the heroic-villianous comparison is trying to make it a false argument.

I've offered substantial argument, you counter with a simple declaration? Persuasive?

Or when combined with the other references, quite substantial.

Very poor interpretation. Instead, assumptions about what a noble should be includes strength and victory. Failure to be strong and victorious means you cannot be noble, and must forfit the very essense of your nobility, your bloodline. He who demonstrated the very essence of nobility for the Vos, must be accorded not only the name of victor, but the bloodline that a true noble bears. Far from deminishing the importance of being a scion, this kind of cerimony only demonstrates its centrality.

Or confusing being noble with being nobility. These are two distinct things. One is behavior and the other is "position". There are many "nobles" who are are not "noble" in their behavior.

Influence and power are not essential to the term "noble". Perhaps you missed the discussion of the poor noble with nothing but his cape and his sword. The impoverished noble is as old as nobility itself. He's a central figure in the very idea of nobility. He lacks social power, influence, wealth, perhaps even looks like something other than what he is. But how is it that a person who can flawlessly (or even just noticably) penetrate lies and deception, who can heal by touch, or are not hindered by storm or fog can be ignored as just another guy? If people went about displaying blood powers, or could otherwise prove that they had the divine spark, do you seriously think they would be regarded as no more than butcher, baker, or candlestick-maker?

Or more precisely I reject it as diffusing and confusing the terms.

I have never stated that scions are not above the rest or that they are not born to rule. I have stated that being nobility is not dependent on being a scion and that a scion is not necessarily of nobility.

I'm not so sure that nobles existed before Diesmaar. Chiefs, certainly. The nature of the social order at that time is unclear. All this talk of tribes certainly leads me to something other than an assumption of hereditary and distinct class of nobles.

Roele's/Raesene's/Haelyn's father was a major ruler was he not?

The elves had courts and princes - did they not?

The dwarves had thanes did they not?

The statement I objected to, what started this digression was when Andrew originally wrote: There is a clear implication that a guilder's birth is inferior (something is denied) and so their rights are inferior (for which copious expenditure might correct). I posed the question: His reply contained the following:

This makes no sense to me. A commoner can't have a bloodline any more than fish can have hair. Once you have a bloodline you just aren't common any more. Social status, influence, wealth, a fine suit, these don't make you a noble. Nobility is something intrinsic to the person, essential to who they are.

I agree that being a guilder does not automatically make one inferior.

I disagree with the stance that social status, influence, wealth, don't make a one a noble. Well, from the point that defines one's nobility - merely having them doesn't make one a noble. That when one assumes power that does not grant him nobility, but his children and children's children are much more likely to fall into that category.

That's really all I'm arguing. Simply being a scion does entitle you to "special" status. People will be amazed by such instrinsic powers, and leadership will flow naturally. Scions without distinct blood abilities will still have subtle and distinct leadership abilities (the ability to wield Regency). As far as as the term "noble" extending beyond just scions, I would prefer to call these people "gentry". Unblooded land-owners who may have petty titles are gentry, rather than nobles. Gentry can't rule domains, nobles can. The overlap of the concept of noble and scion bothers me no more than the overlap of aristocrat and noble do.

Using "gentry" is quite proper, but adds a greater level of complexity. Again until a scion has established himself as a ruler and set out the generational issues, IMO, he is not a "noble". In fact in many cultures the term "noble" has no real meaning (e.g., Vos, Rjuirck). Nobility equates to "titles" and in those cultures "titles" have little value and the Vos tend to use them more as insults than anything else.

kgauck

11-07-2007, 10:50 PM

Spoiler alert [re Blood Hungry]

I think Orlis' story is a dark re-telling of Lancelot.

No I am saying that the blanket statements made about scion = noble are false.
That's too easy. Reasoning needs generalization. If we're just disagreeing about whether exceptions are 5% or 25% we're making much ado about very little.

"Noble families who control only manors, offices, or estates within another noble's province are known simply as lords or ladies. [...] There are references to several non-blooded "lords and ladies".

Its certainly no secret that I create as many lords for each province as the province has levels. Of the many lords I have written up, some are scions, some are not. Mostly they are tainted (using 2nd ed bloodline system). Some can have significant bloodlines and be close relatives to regents. Others have no bloodline and their blooded ancestors diluted their bloodline or suffered losses of regency long ago. It should be a greatly varried group.

As such I'm not sure what you think you are showing me.

Making the heroic-villianous comparison is trying to make it a false argument.
You need to be clear about what you're trying to get across here. My only reading is that you are acting in bad faith. If you are not, make an actual argument about what you meant about the half-ogres and how I possibly could have mistaken them for nobles.

Or confusing being noble with being nobility. These are two distinct things. One is behavior and the other is "position". There are many "nobles" who are are not "noble" in their behavior.
I'll try and brush up on my history reading and try and get an idea of what you're refering to here.

Or more precisely I reject it as diffusing and confusing the terms.
If this is nothing more than a semantic argument with no substance to it, kill me now.

I have never stated that scions are not above the rest or that they are not born to rule. I have stated that being nobility is not dependent on being a scion and that a scion is not necessarily of nobility.
I read the first sentence to mean that are not commoners, and the second sentence to mean that they are not neccessarily nobility. Do you have a third category? What is it? How does it work? Why is it worth the candle?

Roele's/Raesene's/Haelyn's father was a major ruler was he not?
He may have been the chief of chiefs, like Attila or Vercengeterix.

The elves had courts and princes - did they not?
I think the elves are so alien to humans we might as well be discussing martian political structures. We need names and categories for these things so we can discuss them, but a sidhe prince is not much like a human prince. Its the best analog for something that is very different.

The dwarves had thanes did they not?
I don't think humans borrowed social strucure from dwarves, or vise versa. Tools maybe, not their hierarchy, unless Haelyn is just a human version of Moradin.

I disagree with the stance that social status, influence, wealth, don't make a one a noble.
I know too many specific examples of nobles who had none of these things and were clearly noble. I think these things flow to nobles because of their leadership role. At best they are indirect consequences of being noble.

In fact in many cultures the term "noble" has no real meaning (e.g., Vos, Rjuirck). Nobility equates to "titles" and in those cultures "titles" have little value and the Vos tend to use them more as insults than anything else.
This seems rather silly to me. Take the Vos. They value strength and victory in trials and combats, award their positions of leadership for sucess at these things, but then call those positions by insulting names? So the thing they most respect they insult? BR has always had cartoonish social science.

irdeggman

11-08-2007, 05:00 AM

I think Orlis' story is a dark re-telling of Lancelot.

Was I at all incorrect in my summary of Orlis? Specifically in the aspects of "bastard" and "social status"? Simply stating it is a dark re-telling of a different story doesn't change the comparison and its use in my argument.

I'll try and brush up on my history reading and try and get an idea of what you're refering to here.

Yup - like Henry VIII or any number of other such examples. All of which I know you have readily accessable.

He may have been the chief of chiefs, like Attila or Vercengeterix.

Except there was a heridatary line of succession set up, which tends to work against that point of view.

This is the statement that I have been arguing against.

I seem to read two meanings of "nobility". I'm not concerned with social status, that will very so much by culture, religious affiliation, even realm, that its really not even possible to generalize. The other meaning, which is my only meaning, is that any scion is a noble. Blood makes you noble, not status.

Use this as the basis for the "half-ogre" issue. Since blood makes you noble and not status, then any scion is noble - so the half-ogres bred by the Gorgon would be "nobles" based on the defintion presented in your statement.

If this is nothing more than a semantic argument with no substance to it, kill me now.

It is important to come to agreement on what certain key terms mean when we are engaging in discussion. If not then there will always continue to be confusion, especially when the terms are used in middle of a point being made with no reference to their contextual meaning. This will also lead to people grabbing quotes out of the context and misunderstanding them.

While I hate to resort to using dictionary quotations to define meanings. . . .

Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition

Noble: adj.

having eminence, renown, fame, etc.
having or showing high moral qualities or ideals, or greatness of character: lofty
having excellent qualities; superior
of high hereditary rank or title; aristocratic
Noble: n, a person having hereditary rank or title; nobleman

Nobility: n

the quality or state of being noble
high station or rank in society, esp. when accompanied by a title
the class of people of noble rank or having hereditary titles; usually limited in Great Britain to the peerageIn general when people (talking D&D) speak of "being noble" they are talking about "behavior" - that is meanings 2 & 3 of the adjective.

When assuming "nobles have noble behavior" people are referring to "noblesse oblige", which of course is an "ideal" and not an automatic - or else there would be a whole lot fewer stories (fictional and non-fictional) on the subject then there are.

To summarize "nobles" have a proper context in BR and it is a society based one. Not all cultures have such a structure. "Scions" cross all cultures and all social ranks.

kgauck

11-08-2007, 10:18 AM

Was I at all incorrect in my summary of Orlis? Specifically in the aspects of "bastard" and "social status"? Simply stating it is a dark re-telling of a different story doesn't change the comparison and its use in my argument.
I don't see what the issue is. It all seems noble to me. Like Lancelot, but tragic from the start, rather than at the end (unless the Orlis character has been used in place of a loyal friend). What about this story strikes you otherwise?

Yup - like Henry VIII or any number of other such examples. All of which I know you have readily accessable.
Huh? Henry VIII is an excellent example of a noble, and his actions are very much the kind of things that a king needs to do and be about. What ever dichotomy you are trying to set up in terms of noble position vs noble behavior, I am getting the idea that your noble behavior is about being an idiot and destroying your state.

While I hate to resort to using dictionary quotations to define meanings. . . .
The problem with dictionaries is that they employ contemporary meanings as used by the general public. I would look to a source that understood historical meanings as used by the nobility themselves. I would also add that these definitions posit no causes, they just associate things that correlate. Often these qualities are indirect consequences of being noble, rather like the cart's tracks being associated with the horse that pulls the cart. But not only do we have the cart before the horse, we seem to have the tracks left by the cart, before the horse.

Let's look at each of these in detail.

having eminence, renown, fame, etc. If one is a leader, has followers, takes an active part in things, is the ultimate insider (unlike traditional D&D adventurers who are the ultimate outsiders), rather like Paris Hilton, who is a scion of the Hilton family and is famous for being famous. Others built a hotel empire. She is just related to them, but has this quality of fame, &c.
having or showing high moral qualities or ideals, or greatness of character: lofty The trick here is what moral qualities and greatness of character are in play? Determination, ruthlessness, cunning, planning, patience, energy, all yes. Compassion, humility, moderation, all no. Again, Henry the VIII is an excellent example of a good noble. Machiavelli's Prince is probably Caesar Borgia. Our models of greatness are Caesar and Alexander, not Francis of Asisi or Mother Theresa.
having excellent qualities; superiorIf I can enter a fire in one place and exit one a thousand miles away, I think I qualify. Blood abilities automatically qualify any scion, even those who are not noble. This is more about being an uebermensch.
of high hereditary rank or title; aristocraticAristocracy means rule by the best. But this best is a question of public virtues, not private ones. Hereditary rank- a special status passed by birth, not earned, but a privilege of being descended, however remotely, of great men.
Noble: n, a person having hereditary rank or title; noblemanAgain, a scion inherits their special status in law, rights to arms, right to appear in court, by virtue of being descended from heroes.

When assuming "nobles have noble behavior" people are referring to "noblesse oblige", which of course is an "ideal" and not an automatic - or else there would be a whole lot fewer stories (fictional and non-fictional) on the subject then there are.Maybe they are, but my tastes are quite far from Hollywood and tend very much toward getting inside the mentalities of past eras. That seems much more like role playing to me. Playing Hollywood nobles seems more like just adventure gaming with RPG's AFAIC. Noblesse oblige is a post-aristocratic ideology which is meant to give purpose to nobles once they no longer have power and a role in governance. It has some origins in the that the good noble is magnificent and magnanimous, as well as that they once ruled in an organic society (rather than a modern atomistic one) in which everyone owes obligations to everyone else. The old aristocrats had the obligation to provide protection and justice. Noblesse oblige enjoins an elite to service and charity.

To summarize "nobles" have a proper context in BR and it is a society based one. Not all cultures have such a structure. "Scions" cross all cultures and all social ranks.
I agree with the statement on nobles, and think its rather obvious, but would not use scions the way you are using it. I can't separate scion from its historico-dynastic meaning any more than I can separate noble. The same goes for the word regent, which means one who rules in the place of the legitimate ruler. I never use "regent" in my own gaming either. Badly chosen game terms. However, understanding that you use scion as some kind of technical game term, rather than its normal word meaning, is useful. Scion for me just means someone who descends from someone with a bloodline. But of course that will have a cultural context. If we were only discussing whether or not you roll on this table, or can select this or that power on your character sheet, it might make sense to refer to scion merely as a technical game term, but clearly that is not the case here. The original case, and we should not loose sight of that, is whether the scions who run guilds are somehow less noble or have weaker birth, metaphysically inferior bloodlines, or are actually common. Extending arguments made about these issues indefinably will be bound to outrun the context in which arguments were made. Characters like the Gorgon's half-ogres are not guilders, or rivals for guilders, nor do they have anything to do with the issue of whether guilders are a red-headed step-child to landed rulers. I think that things connected to Azrai often run by a different set of understandings, and can't just be compared to other bloodlines just because someone mentions bloodline in a general statement.

It is important to come to agreement on what certain key terms mean when we are engaging in discussion. If not then there will always continue to be confusion, especially when the terms are used in middle of a point being made with no reference to their contextual meaning. This will also lead to people grabbing quotes out of the context and misunderstanding them.
This is impossible. Really that is requires is that we understand what the other person means by their own use of terms. We may never agree on what terms mean, but we can always understand what the other guy is trying to say, if we are willing to understand his meaning on its own terms. Without a common metaphysics their cannot be a common ontology.

In fact my earlier quote that "any scion is a noble. Blood makes you noble, not status," was never intended to apply to things that are abominable, monstrous, or tainted by Azrai. I thought that would have been obvious. So much so that I wondered if the misreading was intentional. I was rejecting the crown makes the king argument, not making a blanket statement that any thing you can imagine with a blood quality, like the dagger in Blood Hungry, is somehow a noble. Again, the discussion was about guilders visa vis landed rulers. Keep in mind that any definition has this problem. Medieval philosophers struggled without resolution for a definition of man. Various attempts could always be attacked for being too much like animals or too much like angels.

AndrewTall

11-08-2007, 02:53 PM

The problem with dictionaries is that they employ contemporary meanings as used by the general public. I would look to a source that understood historical meanings as used by the nobility themselves.

And the problem with modern education is that only a very few will ever achieve a sufficient understanding of those mindsets before they start to play BR - the historical meaning is likely more accurate, however being unknown its use will encourage rather than inhibit confusion.

The original case, and we should not loose sight of that, is whether the scions who run guilds are somehow less noble or have weaker birth, metaphysically inferior bloodlines, or are actually common. Extending arguments made about these issues indefinably will be bound to outrun the context in which arguments were made.

I made this simply on a probabilities model. If one type of holding is perceived as 'better' than others - by whatever means that judgment is made, then it will be subject to more competition than other holding types. Therefore anything that gives someone an advantage in ruling that holding - a powerful bloodline obviously being one such edge - will be more common in those who control the favoured holding than amongst those who control less favoured holdings. Favoured I note is in a role not roll context - in the roll context I believe strongly that all holdings should be equally balanced.

Province rulership - and the attendant control of law is likely the most favoured type of holding in all areas. This is because the realm ruler has, in general, the ultimate social status - whatever title they use and also both good income and a host of powers from military power down that advantage them over other holding rulers.

Accordingly I expect that province rulers - and those who aspire to such status by control of law holdings - should in my view average the strongest bloodlines as weaker persons are eliminated from the ranks over time. Due to a higher degree of competition this will occur more swiftly and consistently over a prolonged period than in holdings deemed less valuable - such as guild holdings everywhere except for Brechtur.

The next step I took in my argument is more controversial, in that I assume that the advantage of a powerful bloodline in ruling a domain has a similar effect on smaller scale gatherings - that in short El-Arrasi with a true bloodline of 70 is simply more glorious and influential than Tuarim ibn Souz with a tainted bloodline of 6. This in turn leads to the conclusion that stronger bloodlines will advance socially more rapidly and certainly over time than weaker bloodlines, over a period of centuries therefore the very high bloodlines will congregate at the top of the social pyramid and contend for the most prestigious and valued holdings.

Those who compete for the less valued holdings - like guilds in Anuire - will thus not only likely have lower bloodlines, but also lower social status than those who seek to rule realms. That means bastards, children who do not inherit the familial bloodline on their parents demise, etc having neither the social status or bloodline to advantage them in competition for realm rulership and law holdings are statistically more likely to contend for guild holdings.

This does of course assume a relatively small number of scions as otherwise all holdings become dominated by those with strong bloodlines of high social rank, however given the relatively weak bloodlines of several rulers of moderate-sized realms that doesn't seem unreasonable an assumption.

I would note that the argument works en grande only, el-Hadid may have a much weaker bloodline than many competitors but this could be overcome by a razor-keen intelligence and driving passion, his children however would swiftly be crushed if they failed to inherit his wit along with his bloodline. In general I'd match a hungry genius with a low bloodline against a decadent dullard with a strong bloodline any day, but over the generations bet with the strong bloodline - it can be passed with relative certainty whereas more personal abilities are less certain to run true.

The problem with this view is that it is undermined in canon by certain awnies and others - in particular the Sayer of Coullabhie. These persons (in the widest sense) are long term domain rulers and as such have suffer prolonged competition and have the chance to improve their bloodline over the centuries - they should not have survived to control large domains without a powerful bloodline. The Sayer maximises RP collection each turn, spending 1/4 of her income she can rule her bloodline annually - a position she has been in for probably the better part of 1500 years - and her bloodline is still just 28. A vassal RP pump (non RP but excellent mechanically) would allow her to raise her bloodline each season without losing any income at all given her holding network of 107.

Characters like the Gorgon's half-ogres are not guilders, or rivals for guilders, nor do they have anything to do with the issue of whether guilders are a red-headed step-child to landed rulers. I think that things connected to Azrai often run by a different set of understandings, and can't just be compared to other bloodlines just because someone mentions bloodline in a general statement.

The point I believe was that the given the brevity of your definition of nobility in terms of bloodline, the definition reduced to absurdity when viewed beyond its immediate context thus undermining its validity. Similarly other arguments based on the social meaning were undermined by your focus on an alternate definition of 'noble' to that intended.

RaspK_FOG

11-08-2007, 04:17 PM

I agree on all grounds with AndrewTall; first of all, what most of us meant, as far as I can tell, is that most guilds are less desirable than holdings, temples, or otherwise. That's because guild leaders are, in the eyes of most Cerilians (apart from the Brecht), nothing but glorified merchants and tradesmen, not real nobles in the medieval sense. Sure, they are useful, needed, etc. but not as important or powerful as a baron, duke, general, high priest, and so on: their role is, in most areas, much less significant.

Hence comes another issue: should every unblooded regent or noble have to be the offspring of a diluted bloodline? Isn't it just possible, especially for guilders, whose greatest gift generally tends to be their guile, for a local ruler to be nothing other than a simple member of the gentry, nothing but another man who earned his place with only his wit and skills?

First of all, it is a matter of import to realise that, say, amongst the Vos, a wizard or sorcerer, no matter how powerful his bloodline may be, simply won't be respected; feared, obeyed (gruffly, I presume), yes, but respected, of course not! Don't expect a Vos wizard to rule, ever...

kgauck

11-08-2007, 08:30 PM

But the medieval analog doesn't take into acount that guilders have always been around and that their patrons, Brenna and Sera, have always promoted their values. The medieval world, because of its hostility to trade and finance combined with the fact that the economy was nearly entirely agricultural until the high middle ages means that trade was despised in a way that won't the be case in Cerilia. Both because trade is a more normal part of the economy, and because the ideology of trade and mercantilism is advocated by the divine, not condemned.

RaspK_FOG

11-08-2007, 10:32 PM

Actually, what you just said is not entirely granted: as far as we can tell, and especially if we are to take your arguments regarding the hereditary nature or not of Anuirean nobility (i.e. the problem in two of your arguments conflicting with each other), the Cerilian culture evolved throughout the ages; it's current state of near-epiphany between the medieval values and the state of feudalism that pervaded the land for the last centuries and the rising elements of renaissance-equivalency, including the full-fledged use of heavier armour by the Anuireans, the creation of the rapier and the relevant style from the Brecht, with the evident, still quite primitive, in terms of technological advancement, societies of the Rjurik and Vos.

This points out that it's only quite recently that Anuirean nobility has finally relaxed on its outlook on mercantile practices (NOTE: not lesser professions, but trade; this is an important point); furthermore, trade took place even when states and kingdoms were quite huddled up amongst their own petty selves, so the argument that trade equals readily accepting mercantilism is mistaken as far as what I know points out. That the Brecht have made the guild system (as long as a few technological advances) a major aspect of their culture only proves that they are nearing a more economically enlightened age.

As for the matter of worship, it's repeatedly pointed out that, no matter how much or what is uttered by the people's of Cerilia, rare would be the moment when a human would mumble a pious prayer under his breath or utter an aphorism in terror or disgust and still not pronounce the name of the patron of his kin.

kgauck

11-09-2007, 08:04 AM

Actually, what you just said is not entirely granted: as far as we can tell, and especially if we are to take your arguments regarding the hereditary nature or not of Anuirean nobility (i.e. the problem in two of your arguments conflicting with each other)
How are they in conflict?

This points out that it's only quite recently that Anuirean nobility has finally relaxed on its outlook on mercantile practices.
Using heavier armor has nothing to do with relaxing attitudes on trade.

So the argument that trade equals readily accepting mercantilism is mistaken as far as what I know points out.
I'll point out I am not talking about Mercantilism, just mercantilism. So in this use, I'm just talking about a more organized pursuit of trade.

That the Brecht have made the guild system (as long as a few technological advances) a major aspect of their culture only proves that they are nearing a more economically enlightened age.
I've never accepted this argument and won't start now. My own view of things, originally posted May 27, 2002, is here.
(http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0205d&L=birthright-l&D=1&F=&S=&P=11567)

As for the matter of worship, it's repeatedly pointed out that, no matter how much or what is uttered by the people's of Cerilia, rare would be the moment when a human would mumble a pious prayer under his breath or utter an aphorism in terror or disgust and still not pronounce the name of the patron of his kin. I think Cerilia is more polytheistic than that.

kgauck

11-09-2007, 08:53 AM

And the problem with modern education is that only a very few will ever achieve a sufficient understanding of those mindsets before they start to play BR - the historical meaning is likely more accurate, however being unknown its use will encourage rather than inhibit confusion.
I generally find most players know something about the past, but almost nothing about the game world. As DM I am already involved in explaining the game world, why not explain how nobility works?

I made this simply on a probabilities model.
Given the number of blooded houses in Anuire, nearly everyone must be between 2nd and 4th cousins to everyone else. In such a small breeding pool, I think the guilders are too married into the landed houses for a distinction to be made.

The point I believe was that the given the brevity of your definition of nobility in terms of bloodline, the definition reduced to absurdity when viewed beyond its immediate context thus undermining its validity. This is an example of a fallacy, reductio ad absurdum. What is undermined is any argument using fallacies to make a point.

Similarly other arguments based on the social meaning were undermined by your focus on an alternate definition of 'noble' to that intended. As I see it, there are four categories of folks.
http://home.mchsi.com/~gauck/blooded.bmp
The disagreement, it seems, concerns whether we should call groups red and blue "nobles" and group yellow "gentry" (my argument) or whether we should call groups red and yellow "nobles" and group blue "scions".

irdeggman

11-09-2007, 09:13 AM

I think Cerilia is more polytheistic than that.

This depends entirely on the "culture" in question.

Anuire - definitely very polytheistic.

Brecht and Khinasi just slightly less so.

Rjuirik only slightly polytheistic.

Vos - almost solely dual deity worship. There are some "pockets" of worship of the other deities, but they are much rarer there.

irdeggman

11-09-2007, 09:22 AM

As I see it, there are four categories of folks.
http://home.mchsi.com/~gauck/blooded.bmp
The disagreement, it seems, concerns whether we should call groups red and blue "nobles" and group yellow "gentry" (my argument) or whether we should call groups red and yellow "nobles" and group blue "scions".

That seems to be how it is falling out.

Your "preference" removes the the term "scion" from play, since it has no "meaning" anymore and yet it is prevelant through out the published material and likewise makes no distinction between "titled" and "untitled" blooded.

RaspK_FOG

11-09-2007, 10:58 AM

The conflict I mean in your positions are that, at one point, you seem to believe that pre-Deismaar Cerilians (particularly Anuireans, as those were the focal point) were not using a feudal system (your comments on a Attila-like chief of chiefs is quite apparent right there), whereas you seem to drop the whole evolutionary societal model (which is apparent in the books; I'll elaborate in the following paragraph) and suggest that mercantilism is widespread in Cerilia.

The problem in this argument is that, arguably, history is a time-event function: the evolution of society is a given fact; hence, if there once were chiefs (a given, even if they were not so exactly during the period when Deismaar occured), it is expected that mercantilism (INCLUDING the generic meaning, which I'll explain later) cropped up at least somewhat later.

Furthermore, the construction of heavy armour such as the full plate harness and of weapons such as the rapier (a sword with a meter-long straight blade of next to no flexibility, quite unlike what most people think of it), as well as stonemasonry and a couple other things, are very much ahead in various fields compared to the technological advances of societies that apparently are somewhere along our medieval equivalent, whether early or late; studies on metallurgy and weapon- and armoursmithing show that, while various techniques were used to produce better forms (such as adding the fuller to swords, better smelting and other iron- and steel-working processes being invented when people discovered new natural and physical properties, or initially using layers of maille and sparse plating for the head, neck, and hands, for example), the forms evident in Anuire and Brecht are late medieval to early Renaissance and full-fledged Renaissance equivalent.

As I'm sure you very well know, trade was not very much developed even during the times of Renaissance; guilds were a system established by the feudal European societies so that crafsmen and traders would be regulated, somewhat controlled, and, of course, overseen in a system that afforted the people unique new benefits. And even though guilds were invented in medieval times, of course, that meant that the guilder was nothing other than a representative of those under his wing, their caretaker, and their leader to some extent, since his own feudal lord was his leader on top of him. In fact, guild leaders could easily be thrown with the rest of the lieutenants the local feudal lord had, not even any real leader on his own; you should have already realised that we do not mean to demean guilders - we simply accept that they of course have a lighter role in leadership and ruling a kingdom, since they control only part of the economy in a given area, and their control of it should generally be much easier to wrest of their hands.

What we can see is that Anuireans will generally accept guilders as an important part of society, but the only people that put them on a pedestal are only a few of their locals, their guild members, and the Brecht at large; in fact, unless a guild leader is very influential or otherwise powerful, you can expect even the least unblooded landed noble to be much more reputable than he will ever be in Cerilia. Most particularly, in Vosgaard and somewhat less in Rjuven, you can expect a guild leader to have an even lesser standing amongst his kin.

Regarding polytheism, Birthright is one of the few settings that actually makes very good sense in its polytheistic approach; however, there is one thing you should note here: an Anuirean, for example, will rarely pray to Sera, unless he is a trader or otherwise feels to compelled to ask her for good fortune, particularly of a financial or superstitious form; that is, first of all, because Anuireans feel that Haelyn, Nesirie, and Cuiraécen are their greatest protectors, with prayers afforded to other deities on occasion; this is the nature of polytheism, anyway. Should an Anuirean peasant lass had set her eyes on a respectable and handsome lad, she would probably pray to Laerme, for example, the goddess of love and romance, not Sera, the goddess of luck, though she may do both. Likewise, a farmer will more likely pray to Erik and Avani to give them a bountiful crop rather than to Sera for luck, again, as they know that their toil is much more dependant on their effort and good conditions instead of a streak of luck.

On the other hand, the Brecht, with their more adventurous and opportunistic ways, will gladly heed their matron's call (why do people call female deities patrons, really? :confused:) and pray to her for good luck most of the time, even though they may cry, say, Cuiraécen's name in battle, or Eloele's name in the dark, or the name of her rival by the former's side, Laerme, to help them overcome their own love rival. All of this depends on outlook, and you can expect that, while Sera is an accepted member of the Anuirean pantheon, that does not give tradesmen equal footing to feudal lords, church leaders, and wizards (who command more fear than respect, but that they do) in all societies (for example, it is very much true that a wizard certainly commands more respect than a guild leader in Basarji lands.

Furthermore, I don't see a reason to separate the two terms, as they actually overlap, in more than one sense: a blooded person is a "scion," a titled person is a "noble." An untitled person cannot be a noble for obvious reasons: for example, if a bastard daughter never learned of his progeny (which is not impossible, if, for example, said child is one of her father's younger offspring, and people did not push her in the limespot because a bastard daughter gives a lot less opportunities for intrigue, for example), then that person may very well never so much as go near a noble's title; she could grow to become a powerful adventurer, and some of her own children could even mix their own blood with that of another of her family, even if they did not mean to, and none would be the wiser!

kgauck

11-09-2007, 02:48 PM

I hardly reject social evolution, I just find too many differences between the Cerilian history and the European history to accept that the European attitudes and experiences with trade can be applied to Cerilia. Trade collapsed in Europe because of the end of common Roman government, and most importantly, an end to town living. Urban populations crashed during the migration period. The growth of trade from 500 AD onward was very slow. I am not aware of any reason to argue that urban life and trade are in the sorry state that post Roman towns and trade were in. The end of the Anuirean Empire was not accompanied by invasions and migrations of barbarians. The old Imperial trade networks are still in place. Roads, towns, and all the mechanisms of trade are undisturbed. Things may not be a prosperous as during the Empire and there may have been a slight contraction of trade, but the real engine of trade is urban living, and it seems undisturbed.

While things have certainly changed in the past two hundred years, five hundred years, and thousand years, there is no reason to expect that the growth curve for trade in Anuire looks anything like the European growth curve. Change yes, but not this particular change.

As I'm sure you very well know, trade was not very much developed even during the times of Renaissance.Very much? compared to what? Compared to 1800 or 1200? Compared to 1000, the amount of trade was huge. Many economies, such as those of Italy, the Low Countries, and any large city, was entirely dependent on trade during the Renaissance. Large trade leagues like the Hanseatic existed. Banking houses like the Medici and Fugger had offices all over Europe. By comparrison to the global trade empires of the eighteenth century, sure the Renaissance seems small, but why should that be the standard of comparison?

And even though guilds were invented in medieval times, of course, that meant that the guilder was nothing other than a representative of those under his wing, their caretaker, and their leader to some extent, since his own feudal lord was his leader on top of him. In fact, guild leaders could easily be thrown with the rest of the lieutenants the local feudal lord had, not even any real leader on his own; you should have already realised that we do not mean to demean guilders - we simply accept that they of course have a lighter role in leadership and ruling a kingdom, since they control only part of the economy in a given area, and their control of it should generally be much easier to wrest of their hands.
Again, Cerilia is not Europe. Using a European model of the relationship between guild lords and land lords makes no sense. Ever since towns have been "large" guilds have been significant partners in the governance of a place. How long is long? How large is large? There is a certain amount of latitude that a DM has here to decide how to proceed. But it certainly seems that the current map of Cerilia, with its many towns, didn't spring up overnight. In Europe, towns did spring up during the 13th century. Before then, since the Carolingian era, what towns existed were small administrative places serving the needs of the Church and the state. Many towns were chartered in the 13th century, and town growth continued in the 14th until the plague. By the Renaissance, towns were pretty new, and trade networks were still new and growing. Cerilia doesn't share this demography.

Regarding polytheism, Birthright is one of the few settings that actually makes very good sense in its polytheistic approach; however, there is one thing you should note here: an Anuirean, for example, will rarely pray to Sera, unless he is a trader or otherwise feels to compelled to ask her for good fortune, particularly of a financial or superstitious form.I agree that only guilders, craftsmen, and those seeking fortune will seek Sera. But contrast this to the medieval merchant. The Church told him that his immortal soul was in jeopardy because his quest for money would separate him from God. It told him that certain practices, such as usury were sins and would damn his immortal soul. A great deal of scripture is hostile to merchants in a way that it is not to land lords (because land owners tended to me Jews in the Bible and merchants were foreigners worshiping idols). How could a medieval merchant take comfort in his business practice? Certainly these teachings restrained him. We know that later, as these teachings either changed (usury) or were reinterpreted (such as the Calvinist notion that prosperity was a sign of God's favor) business boomed. What of a world where there was always divine favor the merchant himself? I can accept that the broader medieval culture's hostility to the rich merchant might be paralleled in the Haelynite societies suspicion of a Sarimite guilder, but the guilder of Anuire isn't holding himself back out of fear of damnation. Even if Haelyn does frown at some of his activities, he takes comfort that Sera smiles. If the guilder is playing for keeps, even in a hostile Haelynite world, he's in a much stronger position than the Medieval merchant. Indeed, he's more like the Huguenot in 17th century France, living in the cities, embracing trade, and Calvinist, surrounded by Catholics who dislike his faith, are suspicious of his business practice, and resent his success. But their success is undeniable, and their departure after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes was a blow to France and a boon to England, Brandenburg, Holland, and places that embraced the Huguenots.

I don't see a reason to separate the two terms, as they actually overlap, in more than one sense: a blooded person is a "scion," a titled person is a "noble." An untitled person cannot be a noble for obvious reasons.
I quote from François Velde's excellent site, heraldica.com

One has to be noble to be titled, but one could be noble without being titled. The untitled nobility was always more numerous than the titled nobility. The difference between titled and untitled may not be so much due to the antiquity of the lineage as to the good fortune of some families on whom the sovereign bestowed titles.
So why do I prefer to model nobility more closely on French lines than English or German lines? Its because I think what is going on in Cerilia, with its bloodlines, and its adventurers, and all the rest is best approximated by starting with the French model and working from there. I should note that only the English limit nobility to people holding titles. Other European countries are more like the French model in that nobility is a quality of persons rather than titles. So if Spanish or Swedish models struck you are especially useful, again we'd be looking at a large number of noble people, probably pretty similar to the set of scions, and a smaller set of titled people.

For example, if a bastard daughter never learned of his progeny (which is not impossible, if, for example, said child is one of her father's younger offspring, and people did not push her in the limespot because a bastard daughter gives a lot less opportunities for intrigue, for example), then that person may very well never so much as go near a noble's title; she could grow to become a powerful adventurer, and some of her own children could even mix their own blood with that of another of her family, even if they did not mean to, and none would be the wiser!That only means the person doesn't know they are noble. There is a lot that person doesn't know about their heritage. But not knowing and thing and that thing not being so are not the same. The same case goes for disguises. Just because I disguise myself as a commoner and people accept my disguise doesn't mean I am no longer a noble. If people were only nobles when displaying their coats of arms, or their siehelien gems, or their bloodmarks, then you can argue that disguises strip a noble of their nobility, but that doesn't strike me as a common interpretation. Nobility is a quality of persons whether they know it or not, or whether others know it or not. Of course you can't act on knowledge you don't have, but that's a mystery to uncover during play.

Why do people call female deities patrons, really? :confused:) In English we've been eliminating gender for centuries. We eliminated gender in articles during the Renaissance and have been eliminating it in nouns during the past century. Words like "aviatrix" are gone and all fliers are aviators. The same is now happening to actress and waitress. One notable exception is in pronouns, where there is a vogue for he/she or alternating pronouns. But I suspect when all noun forms have settled on the masculine form, pronouns will do the same and the masculine form will be general again.

AndrewTall

11-09-2007, 02:57 PM

I generally find most players know something about the past, but almost nothing about the game world. As DM I am already involved in explaining the game world, why not explain how nobility works?

I'm more worried about explaining the difference between divine right to rule and being a god-emperor whose word is divine law; so if possible I'd avoid any explanation that didn't seriously impact my game - and being less adept historically than you, my game would inevitably be less based on actual history than the common perception thereof; so the distinction would likely, in any event, be moot.

Given the number of blooded houses in Anuire, nearly everyone must be between 2nd and 4th cousins to everyone else. In such a small breeding pool, I think the guilders are too married into the landed houses for a distinction to be made.

Quite possibly - as noted in order for there to be differentiation the pool of scions needs to be small enough that extreme competition does not extend beyond the first one (possibly two) desirable holding types. In order for this to be the case I would expect that bloodlines of those not in a position of respect (of some sort) would have to dissipate rapidly (albeit possibly reviving if an unknowing scion displayed some act of greatness awakening their dormant bloodline again) which was mechanically possible in 2e if not in my reading of 3e. The other problem I have is that inherited (rather than inherent familial) bloodline power would tend to be received in the late 20's to 30's which is possibly a little old for the proto-holder which would lead to more randomness in the dispersal of scions amongst holdings - unless the inheritance was more likely to be received by possession of holding type than other considerations.

This is an example of a fallacy, reductio ad absurdum. What is undermined is any argument using fallacies to make a point.

Indeed, but a good argument can be undermined - particularly in a public debate, by being open to a reducto - despite the inherent fallacy in making a strawman to disprove an opponents point. I didn't agree with the counter - but I can see why it was made and how it could have been literally read from the argument without such reading being dishonest.

As I see it, there are four categories of folks.
<snip for bevity>
The disagreement, it seems, concerns whether we should call groups red and blue "nobles" and group yellow "gentry" (my argument) or whether we should call groups red and yellow "nobles" and group blue "scions".

I agree with your categories and am deeply envious of your ability to do tables in the forum. :) But I'd call red and yellow 'noble' and blue and red 'scion', with only grey truly 'common' (and forming 95-99% of the population). I would expect red to contain the strongest bloodlines (most chance for RP gains, benefits of bloodline bootstrapping the scion from blue to red). Ideally we would have a different terms for each box, gentry is a good name for yellow, scion could be restricted to blue with noble then with-held for red - how it would work in practice would probably depend on the players and whether I remembered to explain it.

Re: Sera's portfolio and promotion of Mercantilism.

I may be missing the point, but a point made to me recently - quite possibly by you - was that the gods have fairly broad portfolio's - it is quite possible that these have evolved in tune with the evolution of society.

Thus Sera may have gone from primarily goddess of luck and skill/wealth to goddess of luck and wealth/tradesmen to goddess of luck and wealth/trade - as a result her worship would stay constantly relevant as her people grew. This would mean that modern traders who travel far from their lands to trade with others (gaining access to cheaper resources and markets for Brecht goods but spreading technology as a consequence) would only recently (perhaps when their actions proved profitable) have been blessed by the church.

AndrewTall

11-09-2007, 03:12 PM

While things have certainly changed in the past two hundred years, five hundred years, and thousand years, there is no reason to expect that the growth curve for trade in Anuire looks anything like the European growth curve. Change yes, but not this particular change.

For various reasons I personally believe that Cerilian history is too long - the empire should have lasted 3-400 years tops with only a century or so since its fall - that view is likely affecting how I see the position.

I can see the difference in who is affected by the term 'nobility' you are using, if not so much so the game benefit - if the 'noble' status does not impact life, respect etc aside from a small number of areas I'd rather try and differentiate between the 'english' style nobles and those simply of 'good lineage' in play. The latter perhaps forming much of the middle class, knights, the bulk of a law holding, etc.

But I suspect when all noun forms have settled on the masculine form, pronouns will do the same and the masculine form will be general again.

Or as a female acquaintance put it to me, 'you will all soon be neutered'

RaspK_FOG

11-09-2007, 03:39 PM

Thanks for the issue regarding the word matron; I also found most of your counters very interesting.

However, on the matter of titles: I think we are confusing an entirely different issue, or maybe I just figured out where our points of view differ; a title is, in fact, pretty much the rights to land, right? In this regard, you seem to debate that since a person must be noble to be titled (on which matter you are, of course, correct), a person who does not, also, have a bloodline cannot have titles or something to that effect. Isn't it true, however, that members of the nobility are not blooded, either due to lack of a bloodline or the dilution of an existing one?

This realisation strikes me as even more plausible with the following commentary of my example on the hypothetical bastard daughter: the daughter does not know that her place should be with the nobility, for she is nobleborn, but she is not a noble; your argument, while not necessarily a strawman fallacy (or reductio ad absurdum) lacks ground since a disguise is something a person devises for his own ends, whereas not being given your due status in society is entirely different. In the end, almost all scions have rights to nobility, and all nobleborn people do so too, but that does not make them nobles; rather, it makes them legitimate nobles.

Furthermore, I believe that the migration of the people to Cerilia, as well as Deismaar, and the various conflicts Cerilians have had with each other (and the local populace) or very well reduced the progress of trade in very much the same way you describe; this is why I don't think that Cerilia differs so much from Europe and the Middle East.

Galdred

11-09-2007, 08:49 PM

And even though guilds were invented in medieval times, of course, that meant that the guilder was nothing other than a representative of those under his wing, their caretaker, and their leader to some extent, since his own feudal lord was his leader on top of him. In fact, guild leaders could easily be thrown with the rest of the lieutenants the local feudal lord had, not even any real leader on his own; you should have already realised that we do not mean to demean guilders - we simply accept that they of course have a lighter role in leadership and ruling a kingdom, since they control only part of the economy in a given area, and their control of it should generally be much easier to wrest of their hands.

I don't think the gap between guild leaders and nobles was that high in Europe

Concerning political influence, there is no denying that merchants had a big part, as they had funded wars, and the Hanseatic league was even able to wage wars on its own, and defeat the Kingdom of Denmark in the early Renaissance.
The Medici and the Venetian doges would be exemple of historical guild leaders whose power was more than a match for most dukes. Many cities had acquired near independance by paying a handsome sum of money to their feudal lords, thus in many major cities, the feudal lord was ruling in name only (and sometimes not even in name). Even the city defence was organized by the burghers who directly hired companies of mercenaries.

Guild leaders should have a primary role in small coastal realms, and a smaller one in big agricultural ones, but locally, in city domains, the power of the guilds could be unmatched (unless the city is the seat of power of a strong realm too, as were Paris and London).

ConjurerDragon

11-10-2007, 07:50 AM

kgauck schrieb:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=4032
> kgauck wrote:
> I hardly reject social evolution, I just find too many differences between the Cerilian history and the European history to accept that the European attitudes and experiences with trade can be applied to Cerilia. Trade collapsed in Europe because of the end of common Roman government, and most importantly, an end to town living. Urban populations crashed during the migration period. The growth of trade from 500 AD onward was very slow. I am not aware of any reason to argue that urban life and trade are in the sorry state that post Roman towns and trade were in. The end of the Anuirean Empire was not accompanied by invasions and migrations of barbarians. The old Imperial trade networks are still in place. Roads, towns, and all the mechanisms of trade are undisturbed. Things may not be a prosperous as during the Empire and there may have been a slight contraction of trade, but the real engine of trade is urban living, and it seems undisturbed.
>
>
Undisturbed? The existing novels and books describe decades of civil war
after the fall of the Empire, the loss of the major university of
wizardry in Anuire and a major invasion by the Gorgon that was stopped
already within the borders of the former empire. Furthermore "old
imperial trade networks" assumes that there actually was something like
this. The PS of Talinie mentions only military roads - straight roads
across steep hills for soldiers to march over, but not useful for
trading and that Talinie needs better roads for commerce.

> I agree that only guilders, craftsmen, and those seeking fortune will seek Sera. But contrast this to the medieval merchant. The Church told him that his immortal soul was in jeopardy because his quest for money would separate him from God. It told him that certain practices, such as usury were sins and would damn his immortal soul. A great deal of scripture is hostile to merchants in a way that it is not to land lords (because land owners tended to me Jews in the Bible and merchants were foreigners worshiping idols). How could a medieval merchant take comfort in his business practice? Certainly these teachings restrained him. We know that later, as these teachings either changed (usury) or were reinterpreted (such as the Calvinist notion that prosperity was a sign of God`s favor) business boomed. What of a world where there was always divine favor the merchant himself? I can accept that the broader medieval culture`s hostility to the rich merchant might be paralleled in the
> Haelynite societies suspicion of a Sarimite guilder, but the guilder of Anuire isn`t holding himself back out of fear of damnation. Even if Haelyn does frown at some of his activities, he takes comfort that Sera smiles.
>
Perhaps. But in Talinie for example with the Northern Imperial Temple
denying the right of other churches to hold influence or other gods to
be worshipped the situation seems to me very similar to the damned guilder.

kgauck

11-10-2007, 09:37 AM

Perhaps. But in Talinie for example with the Northern Imperial Temple denying the right of other churches to hold influence or other gods to
be worshipped the situation seems to me very similar to the damned guilder.
Any yet the guilders operate with impunity (other than the small need to have front men, after all there would be a local guildmaster anyway, his pretense to independence is small concession). They continue to abuse the land and no one seems able to stop them. That's a sign of just how powerful the guilders are now, that even when land, law, and temple are theoretically held by one person, two rival guilds are still able to operate.

Of course the guilders are taking advantage of two things. One is a cleavage within the theocracy about the desirability of the guilds. There is a strong minority that wants the guilds, and a large majority that wants them out. The other thing, which seems to stay the hand of the Thane, is a non-game income for the people. This benefit is had by the people, and isn't reflected in extra income for the Thane, but one presumes if the Thane eliminated the guilders, the DM would trouble the Thane with unhappy subjects who want the guilders to return. Even so, for the Thane to risk war with unspecified Rjurik invaders and the Elves, there seems to be something significant stopping her.

If it the players were just playing the realm system (like the Gorgon's AllianBannier Andiene game) there is nothing to stop the Thane from just crushing the guilds and putting happy puppet guilds in their place, to treat the land well and still provide income for the people. The fact that this doesn't happen leads me to believe that it just isn't that simple. The realm system is a simplified, generalized bookkeeping system, rather than a realistic model of how domains interact. A week ago, Andrew wrote:

I'm all for non-landed regents having power and would encourage mechanics to protect them from landed regents. The more I play the more occupation+pillage needs to me to be a 'nuclear deterrent' - devastatingly effective but with such terrible consequences that using it would be almost unthinkable within a rulers own realm.This seems to be the case in Talinie. Some terrible consequence prevents the Thane from just crushing the guilders. One can see why a normal struggled of contest actions would be undesirable against powerful guilders who can use their whole domains to collect resources and then fight a long drawn out battle in which the people might end up siding with the guilders and rejecting the land, law, temple axis. What a nightmare for Thuriene Donalls to find that she's lost and that Storm Holtson and Bannier Andien control a third of the law between them and that Larra Nielems has a quarter of the temple holdings.

AndrewTall

11-10-2007, 04:52 PM

My thoughts on pillaging a realm is to consider what the mechanics of various actions represent. I see the actions as follows:

1. The regent simply issues a command - stop trading as directed by Holtsen / buying from his merchants/etc.

This does not require large numbers of armed men and unless the regent is some god-king whose lightest word is absolute law (The Gorgon for example) should have no significant effect - most people aren't going to give up their income or trust in someone they respect simply because the ruler has a hissy fit. Similarly the opposing regent should be able to speak out against the decree, rally support etc - so making it an action that can be opposed with regency.

I would consider this an example of a decree/diplomacy action.

2. The regent tries to change the law/tradition to ban their opponent or sway to people against the defiant regent, or encourages assaults on their people.

This is not automatically successful, both regents spend RP - influence - trying to sway people to accept their side and either turn from or stand by them, again the presence - or lack - or soldiers has no significance (certainly no more than do law holdings). Again therefore this is not pillaging, I would consider this a contest action.

3. The regent sends troops to force people to their will, those who resist are beaten or killed, examples are made of those defiant, fields are burned, buildings burnt. Unable to oppose armed troops, unable to survive if they do not submit the bulk of the population must yield regardless of the arguments made by the defending regent - put simply no matter how much they like the defending regent most people like living better...

To me this satisfies all the attributes of the pillage action. The key distinctions of the pillage action to the contest is that pillaging requires a large number of troops, is automatically successful, costs no RP, and cannot be resisted without armed troops. So pillaging has to be something much more than simply using the law and influence. I have trouble seeing anything less brutal being automatically successful and unable to be opposed - if the soldiers just threaten/beat a few then they might suppress the holding (a.k.a. I rule everything within reach of my sword) but not destroy it long term.

Pillage a hostile province during war and the social loss is minimal - not doing so would be nearly the sign of a saint in some eyes - treating those who offer fealty to you on the other hand is a gross breach of the social contract and brings the rulership of the regent into question.

I can well see some interpretations of Haelyn's law saying that any regent who does pillage their own vassals has forfeited their right to rule (barring extreme provocation to give a veneer of respectability) or similar social costs.

kgauck

11-11-2007, 07:51 AM

3. The regent sends troops to force people to their will, those who resist are beaten or killed, examples are made of those defiant, fields are burned, buildings burnt. Unable to oppose armed troops, unable to survive if they do not submit the bulk of the population must yield regardless of the arguments made by the defending regent - put simply no matter how much they like the defending regent most people like living better...

I think the way this would work is that guild members would take down their badges of guild association, and pretend to comply, but continue to do business underground. The attacked guilder would become a folk hero and the attacking ruler would look like a tyrant. The more competition the guilder had from rival guilders, the more likely he would suffer a loss of income as frightened people shifted their activity to approved guilders. The more the banned guilder was the only game in town the richer he gets because now he can charge a premium on his good because his running a black market.

Whether we look to the salt tax in France, the English royal monopoly on wool, or any examples of state regulation of the market, generally we find that a heavy handed state only creates a black market, it doesn't actually gain control of the market.

I would tell players you can pillage all you want, but you have just converted legitimate business into organized crime. Now that you've made them criminals, you have less control over them than you did before.

Most of the merchants of the early modern period made their money by smuggling goods around trade restrictions, not by complying with them.

Finally there is the question of how towns people get their basic supplies. To they extent the guilder supplied the town with necessities, you have rioting townsfolk demanding their bread, wool, or salt. Traditional riots were pretty common because subsistence folk can't tolerate price fluctuations (or scarcity). The French generally targeted some official and hung them in the name of the ruler. So imagine your local sheriff cut down in your name (because he was obviously corrupt and you, as the good and benevolent ruler would do the same if you were there). In England the people targeted property, so your sheriff's home or workplace would be burned down, again in your name.

So my own take on trying to use pillage to control the market would be
1) no change to the guilder's holdings
2) guilder's income might decrease or increase depending on their competition.
3) the guilder is a folk hero, the ruler is a tyrant (or more likely is being tricked by bad ministers)
4) public rioting
5) the guild is now a criminal operation operating underground, harder to observe, harder to control, and free from the limits of the law. See Royal Guild of Baruk-Azhik.

AndrewTall

11-11-2007, 03:42 PM

I think the way this would work is that guild members would take down their badges of guild association, and pretend to comply, but continue to do business underground. The attacked guilder would become a folk hero and the attacking ruler would look like a tyrant.

To me that indicates at best suppression of the guild holding - I've been struggling with destruction examples, and am pretty much confined to invasion principles - guilder X loses his ties to the people because his factors are dead and the new lord has appointed new factors who have the only supply/ the old guilder was run out of town and is out of contact/ the old guilder clearly did nothing to stop the attack so is clearly unworthy/etc

From a game perspective is it preferable to be able to cause a permanent loss of a non-landed regent's holding by force without domain actions without also pillaging the province itself? I can certainly see the situation where the former rulers sheriffs take to the woods as outlaws, disrupting the new rulers activity whenever the roads aren't thick with troops - look at Osoerde or Kiergaard.

I like the idea of temporary holding suppression (no GB income, at best 1/2 RP, major morale problems for the occupier) with troops which I think simulates the resistance you suggest, but think that there should also be some mechanism for an invader to take control beyond investiture/contest actions to indicate the heightened persuasion possible with brute force and a total disregard for local life - possibly an enhanced contest; treatment as a free action at +3 DC to the domain attitude check per unit used / court action at +2 or full action at +1? I like the idea of a regency loss but don't know if I'd be as brutal as the BRCS - which if applied on a province by province basis would pulverise most bloodlines in short order.

kgauck

11-11-2007, 04:10 PM

Call me suspicious about the treatment of women historically, but I suspect that given the concentration of scions amongst the richer areas of the nobility (in the social sense) I expect that the vast majority of scion bastards are the offspring of a feckless noble male scion and a lower-status woman - a noble female likely risks losing status (or being stuck in a nunnery) by bearing a child so is very careful to avoid such out of wedlock, whereas social hypocrisy works to the favour of the young studs.
There are two things to keep in mind which explains the greater acceptance of male wandering. One is the fact that you are nearly certain that a child's mother is their mother. Only pretty extream circumstances (doppleganger, changeling, magic, switched at birth) can fool that certainty. Even under the best conditions males can never be certain that their wives' children are theirs. The more likely, and socially acceptable, female sexual liscence is, the more males shift their support to their sister's offspring. While a male may wonder about who his wife's children are, he knows almost for certain (barring changelings, &c) that his nieces and nephews are indeed his nieces and nephews.

Given this concern over paternity, how does one insure in a society where inheritance is passed from father to child, that your children are yours? Because if your wife is fooling around on the side, her illegitimate children are stealing your inheritance. Their fathers are not supporting them, you are.

One solution is to magically determine that your children are yours. Given the existance of bloodline derivation spells, this is quite plausible for BR. Even so, such proof of adultury would be unpleasant. As such women might have these spells cast themselves and make secret arrangements of whatever kind. A wife's pregnency with someone else child also take you out of the breeding pool (for legitimate offspring anyway) for two years or so.

Without magical solutions, the best you can do is keep an eye on your women and punish them for adultury. The problems of certainty and inheritance just don't effect men nearly as much. Men can disavow their bastards in a way women find it difficult to do (because its the women who are pregnent). Men can breed even while they have impregnated another woman. So if Baron Tael impregnates his mistress, nothing is to stop him from being able to impregnate his wife and produce a legitimate heir. Finally, when inheritance is passed from father to child, even when a father chooses to acknowledge a bastard, its his patrimony, so he can give it his bastards if he pleases. Its when the Baron's wife is giving away part of the patrimony to the son of the stable boy by passing him off as the Baron's son that we have theft of inheritance.

The Myceneaen Greeks had matrilieal inheritance (Agamemnon was King of Argos because he was married to Clytemnestra, and his brother Menelaus is only King of Sparta because he's married to Helen, hence the need to get her back). Since a mother always knows her children (again, barring extraordinary trickery) matrilineal inheritance is much easier to determine. For examples of such trickery, see Jocasta and Oedipus. Talk about claiming your birthright.

kgauck

11-11-2007, 04:52 PM

I think that there should also be some mechanism for an invader to take control beyond investiture/contest actions to indicate the heightened persuasion possible with brute force and a total disregard for local life.
I think the right answer is to kill all of the Romanovs. Lenin knew that failure to kill them all would mean constant legistimist uprisings. Mheallie Bireon did it with the house of Cariele (the one survivor seems content with Coeranys), but Jaison failed in Osoerde. Kill the heirs and their domain falls apart.

cccpxepoj

11-12-2007, 09:12 AM

I think the right answer is to kill all of the Romanovs. Lenin knew that failure to kill them all would mean constant legistimist uprisings. Mheallie Bireon did it with the house of Cariele (the one survivor seems content with Coeranys), but Jaison failed in Osoerde. Kill the heirs and their domain falls apart.

he (Lenin) still had a uprising, Russian civil war, whites vs. red's, but killing the royal family was a smart thing to do.

RaspK_FOG

11-12-2007, 01:34 PM

I wouldn't say smart, as it implies a certain finesse and wit that the whole operation lacked utterly; instead, I'd say it was the only choice he really had if he did not care (which he didn't) for showing chivalry and mercy. Hence the Romanov were slaughtered.

AndrewTall

11-12-2007, 05:04 PM

Removing a single figurehead around which all can rally encourages dissent amongst ones enemies - each person from the assaulted regime capable of rallying support then considers themselves the next king and so the realms defense is disunited.

A slightly less bloody variant is to kill all the family barring a young child, to be either raised as the attacker's own heir, or marrying a surviving daughter. Both tactics discourage traditionalists who see that a 'true king' will return in a generation and eliminate the potential rival by absorbing them into the family although the risk is slightly higher.

cccpxepoj

11-12-2007, 06:02 PM

geeman

11-12-2007, 11:30 PM

At 10:02 AM 11/12/2007, cccpxepoj wrote:

>for marrying daughter yes, but adopting a son of rival family is
>pointless, it gives you a few years of peace and nothing else. I was
>always thinking that whole point is leaving lands and power for YOUR
>family not the rivals.

The "smart" (or, at least, cunning and politically savvy) version of
this scenario is when the usurper takes power in the name of the
legitimate heir and holds it "in trust" for him. Then the usurper
works to consolidate his own control before the heir comes of
age. At any point the heir can be killed in some "tragic accident"
which itself can be presented as some sort of divine mandate that the
usurper, who has been doing a good job so far anyway, should just
assume the throne. That kind of scheme exists in every country and
goes back at least as far as King Tut.

Gary

Gman

11-12-2007, 11:43 PM

The Sayer maximises RP collection each turn, spending 1/4 of her income she can rule her bloodline annually - a position she has been in for probably the better part of 1500 years - and her bloodline is still just 28.

This sort of thing has always struck me as silly - any logic suggests that any birthright blooded ruler that has lived for such an extended time would not have such a low blood score.

geeman

11-13-2007, 09:38 AM

At 03:43 PM 11/12/2007, Gman wrote:

>The Sayer maximises RP collection each turn, spending 1/4 of her income she can rule her bloodline annually - a position she has been
in for probably the better part of 1500 years - and her bloodline is still just 28.
>
>This sort of thing has always struck me as silly - any logic suggests that any birthright blooded ruler that has lived for such an extended time would not have such a low blood score.

It`s definitely a problem... and, unfortunately, I don`t really have game mechanical solution for you. Unrestricted time is always a problem in RPGs, and this is just an example of that sort of thing. It also begs questions as to why the Sayer (and her immoral ilk) haven't reached epic levels, created armories full of powerful magic items and/or ruled their realms up to levels that mortals can only dream of. There are DM fiat kinds of rationales for the relatively weak powers of such characters, but they all fall pretty flat as soon as players get the opportunity to do any of the things that immortal regents should have been doing for over 1,000 years.... There are dozens of BR immortals (or very long-lived) regents. Such characters are often demonstrably more powerful than their mortal cousins, but not in a way that reflects anything like the time involved.

The only scion who has a bloodline that is in some way commensurate with his immortality and character is the Gorgon, and that`s only
because his is listed as 100+ so we have no idea how high his score might be at this point.

At the adventure level of play giving players unlimited time to accomplish their goals is definitely a problem. How many DMs have neglected to put a time restraint on players and had them do things that circumvent the adventure itself by digging through a wall rather than trip a potential trap, spend days constructing tools to deal with a particular threat rather than fight head on, or simply prepare every spell, magical item and ability in their repertoire? The domain level is in many ways the adventure level of play with time extended to the equation, so such thinking should be factored into the situation from the beginning.

The closest thing to a solution or rationale that I can think of for the immortal BR characters is to make sure they all have some sort of
conflict that has lasted as long as they have. That is, in the case of someone like Rhoubhe Manslayer, the awnshegh has spent centuries
dedicating time and resources to what is essentially an endless tide of human incursions. The majority of his resources (or, at least, the amount of his resources that might be dedicated to growth and expansion) are dedicated to wiping out the vast waves of humans that
surround his tiny realm. The Gorgon dedicates the majority of his time to some nearly divine level intrigue as he seeks to become a god. The Sayer, unfortunately, has no explicit issue to deal with, but we can extrapolate from her abilities and emphasis something appropriate. I like the idea that she is confronting some immortal from the Shadow World, for instance.

Gary

AndrewTall

11-13-2007, 04:42 PM

for marrying daughter yes, but adopting a son of rival family is pointless, it gives you a few years of peace and nothing else. I was always thinking that whole point is leaving lands and power for YOUR family not the rivals.

I addition to Geeman's points about adoption being merely designed to give breathing room there are some other cases where adoption makes a lot of sense (at least to me):

* Where the usurper is related to the usurped, i.e. warring brothers/cousins - the usurper gets the power and glory, avoids certain issues that might hamper their direct claim (such as a clouded legitimacy, unsuitable spouse, or inability to engender an heir) and still gets the family blood on the throne.

* Where the usurper gains power in a related area by the usurpation, with rulership an unwanted extra - say where a temple overthrows a neighbouring land to crush a heresy or where a guild sponsors a takeover to avoid crushing taxes or gain trading rights.

* Where the usurper attacks to prevent an assault themselves, and deters revenge by having the adopted child both as clearly to inherit the power (deterring fears of long term conquest) and as hostage. So for example an elven realm that conquered Cariele might prefer to have Gladenil's child to inherit and Cariele still seen as a human land rather than put an elf in the throne and risk triggering an attack from the larger realms of Anuire.

* Where the usurper is happy for the throne to go to the child as they will retain the true power behind the throne for their family through some means.

* And a magical context, adoption is useful for those who can possess their foes in one manner or another.

ryancaveney

12-29-2007, 08:34 PM

Actually, I won't argue that "classed" guilders are scions of Brenna by any means; I expect that most of them would be exactly that. However, when it comes to "guilders" (i.e. any person operating a guild or holding), I don't expect every single one of them to be a scion; and that's what I meant earlier; furthermore, of all the kinds of holdings and all, a guilder is the most likely, by all means, to be non-blooded

Any person operating a holding of any kind had better have a bloodline, or they won't be keeping their holding for long, because they can't spend RP on actions. Note that RP are absolutely required to be an even vaguely competent guild regent: without them, you can't Agitate, engage in Diplomacy, Fortify your holdings, or even create a Trade Route, in addition to never being able to Rule a holding up past level one.

While I think there probably is some in-game organization which calls itself the "Ancient and Honorable Guild of Stonemasons" with branches throughout Anuire, they are not a domain. Instead, their Avanil branch is just part of one of the many holding levels administered by Parnien Anuvier Iniere, while their Brosengae branch takes orders from and pays dues to (i.e., is a holding of) Eriene Mierelen, etc. A "guilder" defined as "someone who is a professional businessman" or "someone who has levels in the character class called Guilder" isn't necessarily a scion, but I do not think there is anyone unblooded who is a "guilder" defined as "someone who is the regent of at least one guild holding." All regents of any holding type have a zero likelihood of not being blooded scions of some derivation, even if only tained ones.

AndrewTall

12-30-2007, 09:00 PM

Ryan, this is, at least in part, a 2e:3.5e split.

In 3.5e all actions become GB base cost only (barring domain magic and a couple others) with RP then just modifying the success chance.

So the unblooded ruler can do all the same actions as a blooded ruler - although in effect being unblooded halves a regents the effective income as they have to use GB for base cost and also for boosting chances whereas a blooded rival could use RP for the latter freeing up gold for use elsewhere.

The 3.5e system seems better to me - although I disagree with GB costs for source actions - as the 3.5 e rules still give the blooded regent a major advantage in rulership, but a blooded regent is possible - under the 2e rules I wonder how holdings worked before Deismaar - was there simply no trade, law, etc, or more likely did bloodlines simply give the blooded a major boost in their attempts to control the holdings that already existed?

As for whether non-blooded regents could survive in Cerilia it all depends on how common bloodlines are, if bloodlines are few and far between unblooded regents can rule in the gaps.

Personally I'd make source actions have RP base costs only as they aren't open to non-blooded rulers and sources produce no income (under standard rules) making a mage regent beg and scrape for every action, not simply for realm spells.

ryancaveney

12-30-2007, 09:34 PM

In 3.5e all actions become GB base cost only ... So the unblooded ruler can do all the same actions as a blooded ruler

Huh! I hadn't noticed that -- or if I had, I forgot it years ago.

although in effect being unblooded halves a regents the effective

OK, so while unblooded people might not be impossible regents, they're still highly implausible ones, especially given the degree of cutthroat competition common in BR games. I therefore stand by my statement that, even in BRCS-land, unblooded regents of any holding type are so unlikely in practice as to be legitimately ignorable.

under the 2e rules I wonder how holdings worked before Deismaar - was there simply no trade, law, etc, or more likely did bloodlines simply give the blooded a major boost in their attempts to control the holdings that already existed?

Yeah, this was always the big problem. I suppose GB in place of RP (though not necessarily at 1:1 exchange) was always the most common answer, too.

As for whether non-blooded regents could survive in Cerilia it all depends on how common bloodlines are, if bloodlines are few and far between unblooded regents can rule in the gaps.

There are only a few hundred regents out of the millions of people in Cerilia. The canon blooded fraction is 1 in 100 (or 1 in 1000 if you believe PSoMuden), which is more than enough to fill every regent slot several hundred times over. I'm quite sure that every single regent who lasts more than a year is blooded, either by starting that way or by using their new status to acquire one by Investiture.

kgauck

12-30-2007, 11:03 PM

Under the 2e rules I wonder how holdings worked before Deismaar - was there simply no trade, law, etc, or more likely did bloodlines simply give the blooded a major boost in their attempts to control the holdings that already existed?
My own sense is that things were so tribal that there was no law, temple, or trade as we understand them in an intensive society. Diesmaar not only provides the mechanism for doing it, but encourages the abandonment of tribal, nomadic because intensive, agricultural society is now possible.

AndrewTall

01-02-2008, 08:50 PM

My own sense is that things were so tribal that there was no law, temple, or trade as we understand them in an intensive society. Diesmaar not only provides the mechanism for doing it, but encourages the abandonment of tribal, nomadic because intensive, agricultural society is now possible.

hmm, I struggle with the idea that the tribes (Masetian, Basarji, Brecht, etc) which built huge fleets to transport substantial chunks of their population by ship lacked powerful organisations -similarly that the Anuirean clans which could whelm thousands of warriors apiece did not revere their leaders sufficiently to be considered holdings.

It depends a lot on how you envisage the holding mechanic to function of course - I look at the reverence for central leaders, so to me the clan chief ruling a clan of 2,000 has a L1 province holding even if the clan moves around - similarly they have a L1 law holding if their word is respected by the people, a L1 guild holding if they over-see all trade with other tribes, a L1 priest holding if they are seen as the voice of the gods, etc - in modern times competitive pressures may have meant that only those cultures holding settlement, intensive agriculture etc have survived but the human power structures are likely to be unchanged. Aside from anything else many feudal structures have very tribal ideals in the nobility as opposed to the communal ideals of those they rule and if it the ethos of the rulers which dictates the existence of holdings then the notions of rulership and noble rights would have to be drastically altered in some parts for holdings to exist. If by contrast you see the holding as representative of structures - farms, fields, buildings, etc then clearly a nomadic people would lack holdings.