Results 11 to 20 of 49
Thread: Blood Level & Blood Points
-
05-24-2002, 09:49 PM #11
> > > I think its one of the central concepts of the setting.
> >
> >One of the popular misconceptions you mean.
What I do mean has much to do with what Michael Romes said in his somewhat
longer post. Being blooded IMO makes you noble. Its not the only thing
that makes you noble, but being blooded always makes you noble. That
doesn`t mean a titled nobility like count, duke, or baron. It means social
nobility, like "Hey, you have the blood of the gods in you, and are fitted
by that divine presence as my better, my leader, or one deserving of
respect."
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
05-25-2002, 01:54 PM #12
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 02:37, Gary wrote:
> At 12:14 AM 5/25/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
> ulers of realms are nobles") to
> >"All blooded characters are nobles." ?
>
> None of the characters from the p20 quote need necessarily have a
> bloodline. All nobles are not blooded--depending on what point in the
> social hierarchy you`re defining as the nobility. It`s easy to imagine
> non-blooded minor nobles and functionaries,
The persons referred to aren`t "minor" nobles - they`re defined as
high-born nobles.
> Scions could wind up
> outside the titular nobility just because their families run out of titles....
Absolutely, and while they may still be noble-born, or even defined as
BR noble-blooded, this doesn`t make them a noble. (just a scion of a
noble family) However it`s been pointed out by someone else that the use
of the word "noble" is misleading and confusing to the issue. Gaining a
bloodline at Deismaar didn`t en-title anyone, although it gave them the
power to gain domains not all domains were realms with titles.
>
> If one were to design a society that had BR bloodlines, however, it`d
> probably be more likely that blooded characters would get noble status,
> even minor noble status, if they have bloodlines. Where RL nobility is
> often posited on divine providence, in BR it really is, and that connection
> to the gods is demonstrable. Nobility probably wouldn`t rely on patents,
> genealogies and commission when it can be more accurately and functionally
> described by a BR bloodline. Given that there are only so many realm level
> nobles, wouldn`t it be more logical to place minor nobles in positions of
> minor nobility so that they can not only participate in the realm, but will
> be in some sort of line of succession in the noble hierarchy?
Just dealing with Anuire for the moment as an example which in my
opinion is the most difficult to answer for (All the other human
sub-races will make my argument MUCH easier), this doesn`t seem to be
the case at all. I`m going to answer in two parts. The first part is an
examination of Anuirean society which sets the scene or context for an
examination of actual bloodlines, titles and nobility. So, how was
Anuire designed ?
Q. Is Anuirean society in HC 1524 feudal ?
A. No, not as a system that we understand feudalism as being generally.
Q. What is feudalism ?
A. Originally indeed it began as a military system. It was in imitation
of the later Roman Empire, which met the Germanic inroads by grants of
lands to individuals on condition of military service.
What evidence is there for this statement ?
(i) The rule book states that it is semi-feudal based on a society of
free farmers and craftsmen.
(ii) I think we`ve established that the guiding model of the Anuireans
is that of the Holy Roman Empire/Gondor. The question is when of the
Romans - the connection with Gondor and it`s history puts it at the time
of decay (in HC 1524) - Late Roman. So we are talking an advanced
culture, beyond medieval - the parallels are numerous.
(iii) We have the history of the Empire to consider as it is written.
Through 975 to 1100 we have civil wars throughout Anuire and a general
shrinking of the Empire boundaries. Local (non-Anuirean) rulers are left
in charge of Anuirean conquests outside the homelands. (Roman Empire
100-400 AD an exact parallel) There is no return to the state of Empire.
There are other parallels through history for this too. The rise of the
tyrants during the decline of the greeks, for example. All leading to a
change in form of government - in no single case ever has the change
been reversed.
(iv) The rise in power of faiths other than that of Haelyn, as well as
the schisms of faith in the church of Haelyn. Religious unity embodied
in the head of state is a common expression of totalitarianism -
centralized power. The rise of other faiths parallels that of other
claimants for a share of power - leading to a system of checks and
balances below the leader (regent).
Q. Doesn`t this mean that it is partly feudal ?
A. Yes, absolutely - of course by the same measure we (of the western
world) live in a feudal society today, and this point is frequently made
by eminent scholars.
Q. What is feudalism again ?
A. It`s a graduated system based on land tenure in which every lord
judged, taxed, and commanded the class next below him.
Huh? that wasn`t what I said last time ! No, but I needed it as a
connective for:
(iv) The great tie of feudalism (well late-medieval feudalism which is
what is what most frequently comes to mind for most people just as
slavery brings images of African slaves in the Americas) is to the land
which eventually results in the formation of a class of serfs. (not free
farmers)
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
05-25-2002, 02:40 PM #13
Peter, your focus on titles as some kind of marker of nobility misses the
point. For one thing, there are four kinds folks running around out there
with noble blood. Templars, Guilders, and Wizards may have offices, may
declare some kind of title for themselves, but these don`t seem to be the
guys you`re talking about.
Blooded templars, guilders, and wizards are noble. They have an extra
measure of respect due to their divine spark, they have followers, they may
even govern holdings.
Some of those titled unblooded - and Gary called them minor nobles because
they never rise to the level of regent - may have rights as nobles, people
may curry favor with them because of their wealth and influence, but they
cannot command the respect of the blooded, nor excercise the influence of
the blooded.
So they have titles. They may have legal rights depending on where they
live. Some of these derive from their titles, others may come (esp in
Anuire) just for being members of the social class.
I fall back on Tristan, just because its fresh in my mind. Tristan does not
know his true identity, is thought to be a merchant`s son, but is recognized
by Mark, king of Cornwall and England as noble because of his abilities, his
conduct, and his bearing. His true nature was seen, without knowing
anything about titles or landed wealth. Being blooded always makes you a
member of the nobility.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
05-25-2002, 02:51 PM #14
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 02:37, Gary wrote:
> At 12:14 AM 5/25/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
>
> If one were to design a society that had BR bloodlines, however, it`d
> probably be more likely that blooded characters would get noble status,
> even minor noble status, if they have bloodlines. Where RL nobility is
> often posited on divine providence, in BR it really is, and that connection
> to the gods is demonstrable. Nobility probably wouldn`t rely on patents,
> genealogies and commission when it can be more accurately and functionally
> described by a BR bloodline. Given that there are only so many realm level
> nobles, wouldn`t it be more logical to place minor nobles in positions of
> minor nobility so that they can not only participate in the realm, but will
> be in some sort of line of succession in the noble hierarchy?
Hell no ! (place an enemy in a position of trust or power simply because
he has a good bloodline?)
Okay, having established that Anuire is not a feudal society - if
nothing else the presence of free farmers precludes it absolutely -
let`s find out why the above mentioned system isn`t in place either.
(if such a system alone were sufficient then the successor to Roele
would have been easy)
This system has to be examined over time. A snapshot at a particular
point in time is insufficient to gain an accurate picture of what has
transpired to bring about certain persons in positions of power.
(i) The structure of the Empire just before its` height. An imperial
family. Twelve duchies. All depending on inheritance of some sort. These
duchies may or may not follow the geographical form of the earlier
tribes of the Andu. If they were formed post-Deismaar as would seem
logical they would be power take-overs by the powerful blooded
individuals from within the earlier tribe structure. The names of the
winners could well have changed to reflect their newfound status. From
this point until at least the fall of the empire, the leadership of the
duchies falls to blood.
(ii) Avan is the only claimant to be a Prince of the imperial family,
yet neither his claim or that of his ancestors at the time of Roele`s
death (973 HC) is or was sufficient to allow them to ascend the Iron
Throne. While a single claimant might be denied the claim because he is
unsuitable of unacceptable beyond the claim of blood - could each
individual fail the test over 500+ years ? - unlikely. Therefore, blood
alone is insufficient to claim the Iron Throne. (but we hear more direct
evidence of this later)
(iii) Boeruine has a claim as well. There was even a major civil war
fought between Boeruine and Avan. Seeing as it was a civil war and not a
war between realms, the unity of the empire was still considered intact
at this time (1063 HC). Avan claims both the duchy and the throne by
blood - but he`s not a Roele.
(iv) Gavin Tael is not considered by anyone as a real possibilty for the
Iron Throne. He has no claim because of his blood or family connections.
Since Tael has a bloodline of Re,
(v) The chamberlain has more than a little discretion in allowing a
claim against the Iron Throne. His authority is seen as sufficient to
deny the Avan claim for at least 500 years !
All this is good strong evidence that blood alone is insufficient. But
what is ? The usual answer for real life is custom and approval.
Let`s consider that:
(a) The ruler of the duchy of Avan was a Prince of the Imperial blood at
the time of Roele`s death. It is inconceivable that such a claim could
have been successfully advanced after the event and not resulted in
raising him to the Iron Throne as well.
(B) Boeruine`s claim was evident at that time also but is no stronger
than Avan, in fact it`s weaker as Boeruine has never been acknowledged
as a prince of the imperial blood. Yet there`s a weakness to Avan`s
claim.
© Support for a claim is not validated by divine right or permission
(temple regent as representative) either. (It`s been 500+ years, can`t
someone bully, bribe, threaten, coerce a priest in all that time cf "Why
can`t some one rid me of this accursed priest ?")
(d) There`s strong evidence for patrilineal lines of succession.
Sire-names as family names, mentions of inheriting from the father etc,
along with a system of enforced or customary cousin marriage (again
favoring the male side). That is a daughter can inherit from her father
- but must marry a cousin on her fathers side to keep the family name
and produce heirs that are in the same line of descent.
Now why are the claims good, and why do they fail ?
Conclusions:
(1) Avan`s claim is real - he is, or his ancestor was, a legit Roele.
Since Avan is and probably always was a powerful duchy, I speculate that
his ancestor renounced his claim to the empire when he married into the
Avan dynasty (and took the Avan name), but retained his rank. This would
be a common undertaking in such a situation to avoid the duchy of Avan
falling under direct Avan control. The Avan argument is that this was
not meant to deprive the Roele line of an heir but to ensure the
stability of the Empire.
(2) Boeruine`s claim is real but tenuous. His claim is through an
unrenounced female line. His ancestor married a Roele female, one with a
close tie to the final Roele (a sister or agnatic aunt to the emperor
most likely). His argument is that without a direct male descendant the
title falls to the closest female relative.
(3) The chamberlain must have some secret knowledge. In the interests of
stability and common sense, it would have been far better to allow one
claim many years ago. The way is preserved however (at great cost I
might add) for the return of the imperial family in some form or
another. Therefore the chamberlain probably has direct knowledge of a
possible better claim. The issue of the chamberlains immortality and his
apparent lack of ability to pass his own bloodline on, as well not
having grabbed power himself over 500 years is a strong indication of
continuing stewardship.
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
05-25-2002, 03:08 PM #15
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 07:33, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> > > > I think its one of the central concepts of the setting.
> > >
> > >One of the popular misconceptions you mean.
>
> What I do mean has much to do with what Michael Romes said in his somewhat
> longer post. Being blooded IMO makes you noble. Its not the only thing
> that makes you noble, but being blooded always makes you noble. That
> doesn`t mean a titled nobility like count, duke, or baron. It means social
> nobility, like "Hey, you have the blood of the gods in you, and are fitted
> by that divine presence as my better, my leader, or one deserving of
> respect."
OK, (as Michael also says - it`s a confusing use of the word)
but noble is as noble does - they were called "noble" because of what
they did - not who they were.
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
05-25-2002, 03:22 PM #16
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 00:40, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> Peter, your focus on titles as some kind of marker of nobility misses the
> point. For one thing, there are four kinds folks running around out there
> with noble blood. Templars, Guilders, and Wizards may have offices, may
> declare some kind of title for themselves, but these don`t seem to be the
> guys you`re talking about.
First this wasn`t my focus. My argument was against the use of blood
points as an indication of rank. i.e. A prince will have a higher blood
score than a Count e.g. (citing titular nobles as an example - it`s more
difficult to sort wizards by rank for example)
Second I understand, I agree, perhaps it the use of the word "noble"
that is objectionable, at least where it`s ambiguous as to whether the
noble person is a candidate for a titular position.
Perhaps the argument is "divine right". This term is used in the rule
book. It`s a fictive term, as "divine right" never existed except in the
mind of James of England - and he was quickly reminded of just what the
people thought of that idea - "Off with his head!". But "divine ability"
doesn`t have quite the same ring to it.
>
> Blooded templars, guilders, and wizards are noble. They have an extra
> measure of respect due to their divine spark, they have followers, they may
> even govern holdings.
Regents are "xxxxx/noble". That is they are respected due to their
position which they have created or inherited. The aura of regency that
surrounds them, or aura of power, air of command, is for a blooded
character - there even if they have no domain !
The word noble embodies those aspects that we hope that such a character
would ideally subscribe to. The bloodline of the god it has been argued
(not by me but I accept the possibility) would predispose the blooded
character to aspire to such behavior.
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
05-25-2002, 04:24 PM #17
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 11:37 AM
> Where RL nobility is often posited on divine providence, in BR it really
> is, and that connection to the gods is demonstrable. Nobility probably
> wouldn`t rely on patents, genealogies and commission when it can be
> more accurately and functionally described by a BR bloodline.
I still think there would be an interest in genealogies as a mundane way to
trace bloodlines, estimate the blood power of nobles, and distinguish
between those who got their birthrigtht through acceptable means - birth,
investiture, land`s choice - and those who stole it.
Depending on how powers are apportioned on decendants, geneologies might
allow heralds to make educated guesses about what blood powers a partiular
person might have. " Both his maternal and paternal lines show a strong
affinity for the Iron Will blood trait, young Gareth may well evidence this
trait as well."
But I do agree, one does not need to display one`s pedigree to demonstrate
nobility. Allowing a cleric to cast Know Bloodline would work better.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
05-25-2002, 04:24 PM #18
> On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 00:40, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> > Peter, your focus on titles as some kind of marker of nobility misses
the
> > point.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 10:22 AM
> First this wasn`t my focus. My argument was against the use of blood
> points as an indication of rank. i.e. A prince will have a higher blood
> score than a Count e.g. (citing titular nobles as an example - it`s more
> difficult to sort wizards by rank for example)
You and Ryan were discussing inheritance of bloodlines, I made a eleven word
statement supporting a link between bloodlines and nobility. Where did a
rank order analysis come from?
> Second I understand, I agree, perhaps it the use of the word "noble"
> that is objectionable, at least where it`s ambiguous as to whether the
> noble person is a candidate for a titular position.
Its not confusing or objectionable, it just has many meanings. Just add to
the fun, I`ll point out it can also mean behavior of elevated conduct.
"Those noble firemen."
> Perhaps the argument is "divine right". This term is used in the rule
> book. It`s a fictive term, as "divine right" never existed except in the
> mind of James of England
Actually its a continental import, having had a long and happy run in
France. The doctrine of divine right is a formalization of the sacred
nature of the monarchy which both France and England subscribed to since
way, way back. The fact that both kings were said to able to cure scruffola
by touch is an example of this. This idea of a divine right has roots both
in the fact that the Roman Emperors formed a divine cult around the Emperor
and the Church`s medieval reading of the stories of Saul, David, and the
rest. Ultimatly, everything is part of God`s plan, so the fact that we have
a king, and this guy is he, implies some divine sanction. You under rate
the idea of sacred kingship and divine right.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
05-25-2002, 04:24 PM #19
At 12:56 AM 5/26/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
> > If one were to design a society that had BR bloodlines, however, it`d
> > probably be more likely that blooded characters would get noble status,
> > even minor noble status, if they have bloodlines. Where RL nobility is
> > often posited on divine providence, in BR it really is, and that connection
> > to the gods is demonstrable. Nobility probably wouldn`t rely on patents,
> > genealogies and commission when it can be more accurately and functionally
> > described by a BR bloodline. Given that there are only so many realm level
> > nobles, wouldn`t it be more logical to place minor nobles in positions of
> > minor nobility so that they can not only participate in the realm, but will
> > be in some sort of line of succession in the noble hierarchy?
>
>Hell no ! (place an enemy in a position of trust or power simply because
>he has a good bloodline?)
I didn`t exactly say that.... There are plenty of blooded characters
running around who could be placed in the hierarchy of a domain without
resorting to a regent`s enemies. Of course, a regent might not want to do
that in order to avoid having scions so close to his own seat of power, but
it could work either way. Blooded characters might be better minor nobles
just as they are better "major" (realm level) nobles.
>Okay, having established that Anuire is not a feudal society - if nothing
>else the presence of free farmers precludes it absolutely - let`s find out
>why the above mentioned system isn`t in place either.
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. "Feudal" can also describe social factors, but I generally try to
reserve it for the system of military obligation since other terms seem
more apt to describe social issues.
>[snip analysis of Anurian society and empirial succession]
Well, what I was getting at with my comments regarding how bloodline would
interact with the social system in which it existed was more of a
speculation on how a bloodline would be more significant any individual
merit, ability or even network of relationships of the kind that most real
world social and political systems are predicated. A character with a
higher bloodline is demonstrably more able to rule than one with a lower
one and, in fact, a bloodline forms the basis of the ability to rule in
BR. Of course, many other factors can influence individual regent`s
rulership, but bloodline is an obvious, demonstrable and required
ingredient. That would surely alter the nature of the socio-political
system. How? Well, that`s pretty speculative. I`d guess it would lead to
a caste-like system, with bloodline derivation and bloodline strength
determining various rankings at the top of the social hierarchy. Blooded
characters would use their bloodline as proof of their right to higher
positions in society.
Gary
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
05-25-2002, 04:24 PM #20
At 10:35 AM 5/25/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> > Where RL nobility is often posited on divine providence, in BR it really
> > is, and that connection to the gods is demonstrable. Nobility probably
> > wouldn`t rely on patents, genealogies and commission when it can be
> > more accurately and functionally described by a BR bloodline.
>
>I still think there would be an interest in genealogies as a mundane way
>to trace bloodlines, estimate the blood power of nobles, and distinguish
>between those who got their birthrigtht through acceptable means - birth,
>investiture, land`s choice - and those who stole it.
The pedigree and methods used to describe a "bloodline genealogy" would
probably differ from what most of us think of as a genealogy in a couple of
significant ways. There would still, of course, be an interest in family
trees and all that good stuff, but a "bloodline genealogy" system would be
likely in which a family history might be ancillary. That is, who and when
was a bloodline passed down? Bloodtheft might take the place of marriage
links, investitures would take the place of new births, the various factors
that increase bloodline strength could be noted with great care. Things
like that.
Gary
************************************************** **************************
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.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks