Results 41 to 49 of 49
Thread: Blood Level & Blood Points
-
05-27-2002, 01:34 AM #41
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 15:03, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> Gary Wrote:
> > Actually, you can still have free farmers in a feudal society. In fact,
> > "feudal" in the modern sense is often used to refer to a hierarchical
> > system of military obligation rather than a social system as a
> > whole
>
> Peter wrote:
> > That is one of the definitions of feudal certainly. It`s the definition
> > that applies to the beginnings of feudalism in late Roman times.
>
> 1) There is no Romano-feudalism.
I`m responding to Garys comment in which he uses the definition of
feudalism as above: (under which context there was feudalism as so
defined during the breakdown of the Roman empire-- see Carls response
for details)
Feudalism: a system of reciprocal personal relations among members of
the military elite, which lead ultimately to parliament and then Western
democracy.
However, there`s argument against that as well.
Building on work of Elizabeth Brown, the historian Susan Reynolds, in
her Fiefs and Vassals, systematically attacked the basis of the
professional medievalists` version of feudalism [although she did not
tackle the older social and economic, or Marxist, model]. Reynolds
argued that recent historians had been too ready to read back 11th- and
12th-century legal texts (which do use feudal) terminology onto a much
more variated 9th- and 10th century society and had ended up creating a
"feudal world" which simply did note exist, or which, at most, described
small parts of France for short periods.
Most reviewers have found Reynold`s arguments compelling. [See, for
instance, the very informative comments of Steven Lane: Review of Susan
Reynolds, Fief and Vassals, [At TMR]. As a result teachers can no longer
teach "feudalism" without severe qualifications.
> 2) The late Roman economy remained slave driven.
But back to the main point. Carl responds as to the facts well enough.
(I was going to put in some historical stuff about the laws passed etc
but it`s boring crap)
The Romans had several problems. One was tax evasion - yes tax evasion -
people were trying to avoid paying taxes - can you believe that ?
Another was the cost of running all those armies - what`s an Emperor to
do ? And another was the growing lack of slaves (these slaves were quite
different from later American slavery model).
> 3) Feudalism is a formalization of Germanic law
> 4) Charlemagne established the system which was feudalism in its earliest
> forms.
Whereas you are referring to another definition:
Before we begin, we should note that the men and women of the middle
ages never talked about feudalism. Feudalism is a term invented in the
sixteenth century by royal lawyers - primarily in England - to describe
the decentralized and complex social, political, and economic society
out of which the modern state was emerging. The term "feudalism" came
from the German vieh, or "cow," the measure of wealth among the early
Germans, a term that gave rise to the medieval word fief. "Fief" simply
meant "something of value." In the agricultural world of the time,
"something of value" was usually land. But the sixteenth-century lawyers
pictured this land as having been under the control of a powerful king
who distributed much of it to his followers, men of distinction whose
breeding and upbringing particularly fitted them for governing and
giving battle.
It has been argued that historians have interpreted medieval documents
and histories in terms of this view, and that, when we examine the
documents more closely, there is actually very little evidence that
society was really organized in such a fashion. This may very well be
true, but a new and different picture of medieval society in the ninth
through the fourteenth centuries has yet to be developed. Lacking
anything possible better, it is only reasonable that we should turn our
attention to the traditional portrayal of feudal society.
Feudalism: a social system based on a society in which peasant
agriculture is the fundamental productive activity; in which slavery is
non-existent or marginal but peasants are tied to the land in some way;
and in which a small elite defined by military activity dominates.
(Marxist model)
This generally defined as "Manoralism" these days.
>
> Explain what you mean by free.
Free to leave the ground that they work firstly. Free to gain income by
laboring where they choose. Free to sell the land that they work. Not
owned or bound to servitude for life.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
05-27-2002, 01:53 AM #42
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 21:15, John Machin wrote:
> Peter sez:
>
> I`m actually highly sceptical about the sophistication of the Iranian
> system, although I do understand that reform has occurred. I am unware
> of specifics though, as Israel is currently occupying most of my
> attention.
It is sophisticated compared to what went before it. (Trust me: they
were only a few steps from a cavalry warlord grabbing control.) It`s
more sophisticated in that it is a decentralization of power, allowing
more points of view to be present in the process of government.
>
> I`m also not convinced that the process of political evolution that you
> describe is accurate. Elegant perhaps, and appealing, but not
> neccessarily accurate.
Hey, no one is actually certain that modern thinking on politics is
correct.(who`s certain about anything really?) But it`s the most
accepted model that we as a world society have come up with so far.
Still, I`m drawing on the same material available to the BR creators and
using the latest anthropological and historical explanations to draw
parallels between the BR world and societies that it was modeled on in
the RW. (post or late-empire tyrants and the rise of more sophisticated
forms of government)
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
05-27-2002, 03:33 AM #43
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 02:56, Michael Romes wrote:
> >
> Lubke sounds german, but when you place Rome outside Europe - you´re not
> from the US, are you? ;-)
No, I`m Australian. :-)
The Roman empire was big - but it was really Mediterranean in form with
the capital at Constantinople. Also time scale, later European feudalism
was til the ninth century (by some theories) and the 13th century by
others.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
05-27-2002, 08:21 AM #44
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-27 03.34:
> Free to leave the ground that they work firstly. Free to gain income by
> laboring where they choose. Free to sell the land that they work. Not
> owned or bound to servitude for life.
Thank you, this is a good definition of economic freedom. However, I don`t
think it has much to dowith the dreams of most medieval farmers. If this is
your definitin of freedom, no feudal farmer was free, but neither was any
feadal nobleman.
Our society is rampantly individualistic. Each of us wants to persue
individual goals. We view land as a resource that we own and do with as we
please. For us, your definitions of freedom make a lot of sense. This is
very far from the medieval mindset, however.
[specific examples here are all from Sweden] There were laws strictly
regulating the sale of inherited land. You could not sell it outside the
clan, and you could not will it away as you wanted, either. The family or
clan took precedence over the individual. If a nobleman wanted to dodge his
responsibilities as a landowner, he would let someone else in the clan
administer the land, and they gave you a stipend to live on but nowhere nere
the tfull value of the land. Far easier, of course, was to have a steward
(who could be a kinsman) administer the holding for you. There were even
laws prohibiting the willing of land to the church - noble clans though this
too great a risk of reducing their holdings.
A farmer could leave his land, perhaps even sell it, but then he would have
to find a buyer willing to tend to it and fulfill the obligations tied to
it.
In practice, the only people who could move about without drastically
reducing their social status were younger brothers - who did not have much
to lose anyway.
Everyone was either an outcast, or a member of some tight-knit organization
with demands that retricted your freedom. Without kin or lord, you were
nothing. Marriagesfor landholders were not individual decisions; they were
alliances between families. Inheritance was not a personal decision; it was
the clan redistributing it`s wealth. Individuals did not owe military
service; communities did. Artists did not sign their great works. Not even
kings had had portraits made.
No-one in medieval society enjoyed the freedoms you mention. Not peasants,
not nobles, not clergy, not guildsmen. All were bound by a complex social
contract with duties and benefits. Just as roman society restricted the
peasant family`s willingness to invest in their land, this restricted the
individuals willingness and opportunity to invest in various business
ventures, contributing to the revolt of individualism of later centuries.
What I want to show is that the modern concept of an individual representing
only himself is entirely out of place in medieval times.
This pattern of life continues in many parts of the world, and is part f the
reason why immigrants to Europe have such problems integrating in an
individualistic society.
Of course, this was all part of the self-image of the times. It was not an
absolutley correct self-image, just as our self-image is probaly not
correct. In many cases, the scene was much more dynamic. But it was a
self-fulfilling self-image; most people behaved as they were expected to
behave.
The freedoms a medieval farmer would want were probably more in the line
with a freedom from molestation, the right to refuse noble passengers unpaid
room and board, the right to administer his household as he saw fit (thus
limiting the freedoms of his own subjects), the right to grind his grain and
sell his produce anywhere he wanted, not having to put in free labor on
defense works or other projects of the state/nobility, extemption from
military duty and so on. In our parlance, these are not really freedoms, but
economic rights.
/Carl
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
-
05-27-2002, 09:53 AM #45
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 18:02, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:
> Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-27 03.34:
>
> > Free to leave the ground that they work firstly. Free to gain income by
> > laboring where they choose. Free to sell the land that they work. Not
> > owned or bound to servitude for life.
>
> Thank you, this is a good definition of economic freedom. However, I don`t
> think it has much to dowith the dreams of most medieval farmers. If this is
> your definitin of freedom, no feudal farmer was free, but neither was any
> feadal nobleman.
Yeah I was being cheeky there.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
05-28-2002, 02:32 AM #46
Peter sez:
> Yeah I was being cheeky there.
Hey!
Aren`t you legally obliged to put some smilies at the end of those lines
that you deem cheeky?
It`s like those [sarcasm] headings that we used a long while back...
:)
(See! Cheeky!)
--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.John 'Trithemius' Machin
The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
"Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius
-
05-28-2002, 02:32 AM #47
Peter sez:
> It is sophisticated compared to what went before it. (Trust
> me: they were only a few steps from a cavalry warlord
> grabbing control.) It`s more sophisticated in that it is a
> decentralization of power, allowing more points of view to be
> present in the process of government.
Where I was taught we called that "contraction of the state". I don`t
think the decentralization in Iran was at all what Hayek had in mind
when he was talking about how useful decentralization was.
> Still, I`m drawing on the same material available to the BR
> creators and using the latest anthropological and historical
> explanations to draw parallels between the BR world and
> societies that it was modeled on in the RW. (post or
> late-empire tyrants and the rise of more sophisticated forms
> of government)
Yeah, but what if the writers just though "That`d be cool" and put it
in. Are we justufied in so closely analysing their "motivation" in
including one concept and (apparently) not another?
--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.John 'Trithemius' Machin
The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
"Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius
-
06-13-2002, 11:55 AM #48
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
<< Ideally communism benefits everyone equally with all property communal,
but in practice there were flaws.
Ideally democracy would be great too, but no country has been able to
create a democratic state. It`s flawed as implemented anywhere today.
Ideally feudalism wouldn`t have enslaved the farmers (it wasn`t deigned
to do that), but it`s a natural consequence that occurred everywhere.
>>
Slightly off-topic, but I`d like to quote John Lennon here:
"Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you`re so clever and classless and free
But you`re still fucking peasants as far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be"
- from "Working Class Hero", by John Lennon
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
-
07-08-2002, 02:16 PM #49
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
<< This is the one thing that worries me about your model. Two 5s have 4s;
two 35s have 11s; and a marriage of an Avan to a Boeruine (70 and 60)
produces children whose bloodline is only 15!
>>
Well, the thing is, under this system, Avan and Boeruine donot have BL 70
and 60 respectively. Blood levels range from 1 to 20, just like character
levels do. Only very exceptional beings can have a blood level higher than
that. I imagine the Gorgon is BL 30 or 40 maybe, but no more than that.
Remember, it takes a ridiculous amount of blood points to get there.
<< So what you`re saying is that marriage of a high noble to a low noble
produces children who are low nobles, rather than high ones. Some
inheritance systems have worked this way, and some the other. What
bothers me is that in your model, two high nobles still have only low
nobles for children! This might reflect a culture in which deeds are far
more important than birth, but I don`t think it fits Cerilia very well.
What I would be inclined to do instead is say that the child`s starting
blood points are the average of the parents` blood points. This produces
the same result as the "average the levels" approach of the standard rules
when the bloodlines are identical (whereas yours is roughly twice the
square root of the average), and when they are far apart tilts the result
in favor of the higher bloodline (a system of inheritance that treats
mixed marriages as closer to the higher class). For 70+0 (Prince Avan and
the milkmaid?) the standard method gives 35, whereas yours gives 11 and
mine gives 49; I can see all of these as reasonable answers. For 60+70,
my suggestion gives the children 65, same as the standard; your method`s
answer of just 15 strikes me as much too low, especially the way I
perceive Anuire as working. There also seems to be almost no way that, in
your model, there could be noble families with bloodlines of 60 or 70
after over 1,500 years (about 60 generations!) of mating.
>>
Here`s a new way of bloodline inheritance I came up with: Child gets the
same blood level as the parent with the lowest bloodline, plus a number of
blood points equal to the other parent`s blood level. Of course, later on,
both parents can still invest both of their blood lines into the child,
giving it an additional number of blood points equal to the total of both
their blood levels.
How about that?
<< I`ve also envisioned (but
not run) a plot in which a commoner happens to be touching (dressing,
selling fruit to, being healed by, etc.) a blooded scion who is killed by
an assassin using a missile weapon, which inadvertently provides the
commoner with the slain noble`s bloodline through accidental "bloodtheft".
>>
Actually, that`s possible in my campaign too. If someone is killed by a
critical hit, but the killer is not in direct contact with the victim,
anyone else who is might get the bloodline instead.
<< I`d make tighmaevril much more efficient -- give the slayer a fraction
(half, perhaps) of the victim`s BP to add to his/her own. This makes them
much more important when dealing with really powerful bloodlines, as seems
mythically appropriate to me.
>>
Half is a lot. I`m not sure I would do it like this at all, but if I would,
something like one-fifth seems better.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks