Guild and Temple Holdings

[AndrewTall]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

As I see it, there are four categories of folks.

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]

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]

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.