Results 11 to 20 of 21
Thread: Investing Titles
-
08-28-2008, 03:19 PM #11
This goes to the history of the Great Bay. The Brecht realms were originally city states (the Khinasi even more so) so like a lot of Danigau's neighbors it was once mostly a single province realm with maybe some outlying empty provinces. In the case of Danigau those empty provinces have gotten developed, but because of his wish to avoid association with the grander titles of the Empire, he has not sought to improve his title.
And i am positive that i read somewhere( Havens of the great Bay ??) that in high brecht Graaf means King.
Who ever (Rich Baker one supposes) came up with the variety of titles in all of the realms knew that historical use of titles was also a mess and required some understanding of things to use correctly. If we suppose that a duke outranks a count, we take a very narrow understanding of rank, based only on who stands closer to the Emperor. But there is no Emperor, so it makes no sense to use that as our main metric.
Take the Duke of Marlborough or the Duke of Wellington. Each of these title was created because someone was a great general who never lost a battle and fought in very long and extended wars for the very survival of Great Britain. In addition to their titles, they received cash gifts from the crown and a pension of Parliament. No land, no vast estates (though with cash you can buy land, but its not part of your title) and no historical connection to a region of England or anywhere else.
-
08-28-2008, 07:47 PM #12
At first, I was opposed to this concept of investing titles, but the more I think about it the more I`m liking the idea. After all, the setting is based on investing to rule, and what better reflection of that process is there than in the titles used to describe the actual rulers? It might also be a nice way of explaining how/why the nobles titles of Cerilia appear, when compared to real world titles, seem to be so haphazardly and chaotically applied. If there was actually some internal, campaign-based logic to the concept then we might go a long way toward explaining what many folks view as an inconsistency in the setting.
There are also hints that such a thing is possible in existing game mechanics. There are dribs and drabs of rules having to do with things like a temple holding domain becoming the "official" religion of a landed domain. The coronation ceremony, the investiture ceremony, grants, decrees and even bloodtheft have little snippets of information in them that might be used as a basis for deciding how BR titles are transferred. However, I`d suggest a few things should be kept in mind:
1. There doesn`t appear to be a very direct relationship between domain size, bloodline strength or score, and the titles of those who rule/have a bloodline. We have a broad range of characters with relatively powerful domains, but lousy titles with those with high titles, but not-so-powerful realms. The aforementioned Baron of Ghoere is a pretty good example of the former, with the Queen of Aerenwe the other. (The elven kingdoms tend to go straight to "king" and "queen" which might also be a factor.)
2. Titles needn`t only reflect the status of rulers. There might be titled characters who have no actual domain--such characters should have an actual reason (game mechanical) to explain the value of their titles.
3. Generally speaking, knighthood is the lowest rank of nobility, and might be viewed as the highest level of the concept at an adventure level. Knights don`t generally rule realms at the level of BR landed domains. The closest we might get to a non-titled landed regent would be a few folks who are called something like "captain" or something along those lines, which might be considered equivalent to the lowest rung of the noble titles. I imagine "general" or "commodore" might relate in a similar way.
4. When it comes to titles the only people who appear to regularly be more interested than landed regents are those who control temple holdings. Title structures seem to be very closely linked to the temple. Conversely, guilders have titles, but are not particularly involved, and though there are a few source regents with titles it seems like they are just as often mixed with other types of holdings if the regent has a title. I wonder if "High Mage" actually counts as a title in this sense?
Those a few of the things that occur to me as very general things to keep in mind when discussing the idea of a title investiture in BR. It seems to me the idea could be expressed with a write up that would be about the length of the "official temple" text, but it could be longer if one wanted to iterate the particulars of titles in separate levels with a lot of effects.
GaryLast edited by Thelandrin; 09-13-2008 at 06:51 PM.
-
09-13-2008, 12:54 PM #13
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Location
- Croatia
- Posts
- 38
- Downloads
- 21
- Uploads
- 0
IMO Rich Baker didn't have a deeper understanding on how medieval nobility looked at titles when he was designing Birthright. The principal flaw is that no aristocrat would ever give up a title, even if he loses all of his lands.
The Habsburgs lost their original possession, the town of Habsburg in modern Switzerland in 1415 and yet they retained the title until this day.
If you look at the following link
http://wapedia.mobi/en/List_of_title..._Spanish_Crown
you'll see that even the present day king of Spain (albeit only as titular) holds the titles of archduke of Austria, Duke of Brabant, Milan etc even though they have no real claim to the tile at all.
Therefore, there isn't a realistic and historical explanation why the Duke of Diemed would be called a baron, by himself or by anyone for a nobleman would hold on to his title even if he was without land, let alone in possession of the core provinces of Diemed.
But as Bjorn said, Birtrhight titles are erroneus and each DM should adopt a system that suits him or her best.
-
09-13-2008, 01:29 PM #14
I think that the answer would be that it happened the other way around - not that they gave up a higher rank, but that the main line died out and the holder of the junior rank gained the land but not the title. Excepting Cariele this should work, although it would take some restraint on simply claiming titles to be credible.
-
09-13-2008, 02:33 PM #15
I think Rich intended to have some things work differently in Cerilia.
This is why I felt it would make sense to require that titles have to be invested, otherwise why not just claim the biggest and the most titles to which you have some tenuous claim.
Also, there is a difference between a title to a place and place itself. The Spanish Crown, created by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella (and some declarations of a permanent union) then descended to their grandson, Charles of Habsburg, who was the Duke of Burgundy and had all the various claims which the Duke of Burgundy had, such as Brabant. Like Milan and the honorific, Archduke of Austria, these are places which were lost to the Austrian side of the family during the War of the Spanish Succession. However, for whatever reason, the Austrians did not insist that the new Spanish monarchy (replacing their Habsburg couins) abandon titles which were essentially Habsburg in origin and whose lands shifted to the Austrians (Milan, Brabrant, and the honorific of Archduke of Austria should no longer have been extended to the Spanish Crown).
In a sense, what the new Bourbon monarchy of Spain was claiming was that they were not just successors of the Spanish territory, but also of the Habsburg dynastic privilege. Austria could have insisted, at the Congress of Rastatt, that the Bourbons cease the use these titles with the loss of both the connection to the House of Austria and the territories which the Austrians acquired through Rastatt.
Today, the heir to the throne of Belgium is the Duke of Brabant, currently Prince Philippe. So Spain is happy to claim titles which are entirely vestigal.
-
09-13-2008, 05:50 PM #16
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Location
- Croatia
- Posts
- 38
- Downloads
- 21
- Uploads
- 0
A cadet or junior branch of Diemed would still inherit or claim the ducal title. Only if they were completely unrelated to Diemed could they possibly accept a lowering of their status. To relinquish a title on account of losing Roesone or Medoere is completely unnoble behavior.
A hierarchical and feudal society would, naturally, require the monarch/emperor to bestow new titles, at least those belonging to the upper tiers, like dukes or barons (actually counts were higher up than barons but this was inverted by mr. Baker, probably under the influence of english feudalism). Thus, in the absence of an emperor Anuire became a confederation of sovereign rules bound only by tradition. And exactly this tradition would have prevent the relinquishing of old titles.
Thus a cadet branch of Diemed would still claim the title of duke and "Baron" Gaving Tael would have titled himself Duke of Dhalaene and Ghieste, and not Baron of Ghoere. With his military might no neighbor would dare deny him this title.
But, after having argued this for several years and in many PBEMS, the only conclusion I can make is that Anuire is an illogical patchwork of european noble principles and rules
-
09-13-2008, 06:07 PM #17
Or, titles are invested just like domains, and when major losses of regency occurred, the successor was unable to invest the titles of their predecessors.
-
09-13-2008, 09:10 PM #18
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Location
- Croatia
- Posts
- 38
- Downloads
- 21
- Uploads
- 0
If that's how you'd explain it in your campaign, why not. But as for official, I doubt there'll ever be a satisfying argument for the mish mash in BR
-
09-13-2008, 09:19 PM #19
Of course not, since there is no more official content being created. So solutions to these issues require embrace of one or another player solutions or explanations.
-
09-14-2008, 11:38 AM #20
No noble wants to lose face or influence, and all wish to maximise their gain - that is a truism. However Aerenwe is specifically noted as having rejected the traditional means of gaining rank when it took the title king/queen, the others are noted as holding to the old ways to stay in the race for emperor.
If only the emperor can issue / permit the assumption by a baron of a ducal title then someone who has only an indirect claim may be barred from claiming it without stepping out of the race for emperor. To encourage this view the noble tradition may have been not that one can only lose a title in rare instances, but that one can only claim/gain title in rare instances - it is worth remembering that under a Haelynite system of inheritance legal nicety and proprietary will be tremendously influential on tradition and power practicalities would be less influential than we might expect on social issues.
This might need an imperial college of titles that demands adherence to the arcane processes invented over a millennia of empire (much as the French have a ministry that tries to maintain the purity of the French language) to enforce the title rules, and a social order that punishes 'upstarts', but neither is a significant reach.
One possible system of rank inheritance would be that only one child inherits the 'full' title, others drop a rank (so prince Avan has one daughter who is a princess, and other children are counted only as barons). This follows bloodline inheritance rules which are 1 parent: 1 child - and the inheritance system should follow bloodline inheritor across the board. This system would certainly knock the cadet branches down, lead to a need to adventure to maintain/earn rank by younger children, and encourage nobles families to put all their eggs in one basket and invest heavily in the single 'true' heir to the family name which makes for more kidnap and assassination possibilities.
With his military might his title is irrelevant, and holding a '2nd tier' title makes him less noticeable as a threat to Avan and Boeruine. Nothing makes feuding parties unite like a new contender - and no-one can face both Avan and Boeruine. Thus Ghoere accepts a minor loss of face (no one will ignore his military might, let the girly-men wag their tongues over trivial titles) to gain an advantage in achieving his eventual goals.
With Diemed the cadet branch would have started with a lower rank under this system, and have been prevented by claiming the greater rank by tradition and protocol - and while Ghoere might bulldoze his right to be called Duke if he really wanted to, Diemed does not have the strength to do so.
Indeed, gloriously so. But it is what we have, the issue is do we 'correct' the situation, or find a way to justify and explain it... Personally I like the idea of Ghoere undertaking a glorious quest to prove his ducal nature and so invest the title, and Diemed similarly proving he has the strength and prowess to be worthy of being named Duke. Further I like that Avan may have to follow 'princely courtesy' to avoid dropping to duke...
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Anuirean Noble Titles
By Raesene Andu in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 EditionReplies: 10Last Post: 08-24-2005, 11:21 PM -
question about anuirean titles and holding levels
By Cap'n Nick in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 7Last Post: 07-31-2005, 06:55 AM -
cultural titles
By Barbarossa Rotbart in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 47Last Post: 05-12-2004, 02:57 PM -
Ranking Of Titles
By UncleHyena in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 EditionReplies: 11Last Post: 07-28-2003, 11:02 PM
Bookmarks