Previous
Blas,
A most excellent post. I think you laid out the rules in a very clear manner.
The mixing of nobility and commoners isn't something that can easily be avoided the way the game works, but I still think there are traditions that should be upheld, esp in a province like Therengia that seems to be modeled more on a feudal society than the others.
I've played my character as a grunt who has worked his way up through the ranks. Even being an LT is more than Kodiac ever wanted to do. It just sort of fell on him through attrition. Swearing an oath to the Baron certainly didn't do anything to elevate his status, it just made it more clear where he stands. It has been fun playing the rough and ready footsoldier in a land run by paladins.
~Kodiac
LT, Dragon Company
Therengian Infantry
WIJBRANDUS
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 08:56 PM CDT
GOSSFORD
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 08:57 PM CDT
I agree with most of what you posted.
Nobility should be aloof and they KNOW that they are above those without (royal)titles.
I have seen and heard lots of talk over the gweth and in person that makes me sorta cringe. If one speaks out against a noble in their lands where they are ruling at very least a sound public lashing should be swiftly executed. Repeat offenders should be subject to banishment/beheading.
They way I have always thought of nobility in the 15th century was that the nobles dont think they are above the more common folk, they know that they are and for the most part look upon them as resources or tools. In quite a few certain times/places in history to even look upon one of the ruling class was instant death sentence to be carried out immediatly.
http://www.drtraders.net/gallery
http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin/topmuds/rankem.cgi?id=drealms
Nobility should be aloof and they KNOW that they are above those without (royal)titles.
I have seen and heard lots of talk over the gweth and in person that makes me sorta cringe. If one speaks out against a noble in their lands where they are ruling at very least a sound public lashing should be swiftly executed. Repeat offenders should be subject to banishment/beheading.
They way I have always thought of nobility in the 15th century was that the nobles dont think they are above the more common folk, they know that they are and for the most part look upon them as resources or tools. In quite a few certain times/places in history to even look upon one of the ruling class was instant death sentence to be carried out immediatly.
http://www.drtraders.net/gallery
http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin/topmuds/rankem.cgi?id=drealms
LORD-SEIHJIN
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 09:07 PM CDT
Those are some very good points. As a modern day American, I read something like that and think "bull crap, I'm not bowing down to anyone like that." I think, even after several attempts by people to explain, a lot of folks still take that attitude in DR where such an established system would be widely accepted. Everyone wants their character to be that rebellious exception to the rule, making them no longer the exception but rather the common and typical.
It is pretty shocking the way PCs interact with nobles and even royalty as if they are best commoners and "they got it like that," when not even -nobles- would interact with -each other- that way (ie calling each other by their first name instead of title, touchyfeelyhuggysmooch...). My character was even insulted and treated rudely in public by someone he -looked at- funny after she -licked- a Royal Steward in public! I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that.
The scene with Gyfford and a Zoluren officer in the keep a few days ago... that would have been the end of him, and him doesn't mean Gyfford.
I think the issue some GMs might struggle with on a constant basis is the line between playability and 'realism'. Not wanting to shove everyone in the dungeon and destroying the fun of playing, but not wanting to jeapordize the validity of their character's elite positions. Otherwise there is nothing much different from Vorclaf and 40th circle Ranger X, and the game comes down to circles as the ultimate RP influencer ::cringe::
PS. Please save the arguments that Elanthia isn't RL because without the RL medieval foundations upon which such fantasy games are drawn from, there would be no fantasy RP like we have.
Toulom says to Ibec, "You've unmarried since we last talked."
Ibec says, "wasn't married to begin with"
Toulom snickers to himself.
Toulom cheerfully exclaims, "Exactly!"
It is pretty shocking the way PCs interact with nobles and even royalty as if they are best commoners and "they got it like that," when not even -nobles- would interact with -each other- that way (ie calling each other by their first name instead of title, touchyfeelyhuggysmooch...). My character was even insulted and treated rudely in public by someone he -looked at- funny after she -licked- a Royal Steward in public! I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that.
The scene with Gyfford and a Zoluren officer in the keep a few days ago... that would have been the end of him, and him doesn't mean Gyfford.
I think the issue some GMs might struggle with on a constant basis is the line between playability and 'realism'. Not wanting to shove everyone in the dungeon and destroying the fun of playing, but not wanting to jeapordize the validity of their character's elite positions. Otherwise there is nothing much different from Vorclaf and 40th circle Ranger X, and the game comes down to circles as the ultimate RP influencer ::cringe::
PS. Please save the arguments that Elanthia isn't RL because without the RL medieval foundations upon which such fantasy games are drawn from, there would be no fantasy RP like we have.
Toulom says to Ibec, "You've unmarried since we last talked."
Ibec says, "wasn't married to begin with"
Toulom snickers to himself.
Toulom cheerfully exclaims, "Exactly!"
ARANGER
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 09:09 PM CDT
<<<Those are some very good points. As a modern day American, I read something like that and think "bull crap, I'm not bowing down to anyone like that." I think, even after several attempts by people to explain, a lot of folks still take that attitude in DR where such an established system would be widely accepted. Everyone wants their character to be that rebellious exception to the rule, making them no longer the exception but rather the common and typical.>>>
So true, so well worded, this is exactly what I see everyday. 50% of the players all think Zoluren is a democracy due to their OOC influences, its ludicrous. There is zero consistency. Im assuming this attitude is in other provinces as well, though.
Thanks for reading
~Sammee
So true, so well worded, this is exactly what I see everyday. 50% of the players all think Zoluren is a democracy due to their OOC influences, its ludicrous. There is zero consistency. Im assuming this attitude is in other provinces as well, though.
Thanks for reading
~Sammee
GOSSFORD
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 09:25 PM CDT
Even in a democracy as the U.S. do you think just anyone can walk up off the street and hug the President Of The United States without being arrested, questioned, and possible charges filed maybe resulting in jail time? You would get treated a lot better in the United Kingdom for pulling such a stunt than in the U.S.
I was in the U.K. when somone pulled such a stunt at the Princes birthday(?). Most brits thought it was funny and commented that they guy would just be slapped on the wrist and let go. The United States Secret Service does not have such a sense of humor.
http://www.drtraders.net/gallery
http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin/topmuds/rankem.cgi?id=drealms
I was in the U.K. when somone pulled such a stunt at the Princes birthday(?). Most brits thought it was funny and commented that they guy would just be slapped on the wrist and let go. The United States Secret Service does not have such a sense of humor.
http://www.drtraders.net/gallery
http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin/topmuds/rankem.cgi?id=drealms
MIKEM1
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 09:37 PM CDT
Let's not forget that the 'commoners' talked about here are often people like powerful wizards (which didn't exist in feudal europe, but would clearly not have been thought of as anything remotely close to a 'commoner' if they had) and clerics (even kings often feared the Church, and in Elanthia the gods do meddle quite a bit in the affairs of mortal men) and other equally impressive figures.
~The player of Nevynral
~The player of Nevynral
DIAME
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 09:38 PM CDT
I agree with a good portion of this post, but I also know full well that the moment GMs behind the royalty were to try to actually impose most of what you said that players all over the realms would instantly cry 'foul' and demand that they are not paying to play the game that way.
Speaking only for myself, I remember when you could not approach the dais with weapons out in the open. It was a pain to put them up, but it set a precendent for behavior. Honestly, I was disappointed the day the former Baron told Drex to put her armor back on instead of the gowns, although she was obviously thrilled. Drex's behavior is different in a gown, and she is more acutely aware of her surroundings and the formalities that should be present in court.
However, even as I say this.. it's an RP choice that I as the player have made. I like what it's done to my 'diamond in the rough' barbarian and the harsher the Baron gets on her, the more refined it makes her. Not many other people would willingly choose to RP being subject to a liege lord, and therein lies the rub.
Can the vast majority of the people that play this game actually dive into a role of NOT living in a democracy, with the freedom of speech and all of the rights that go with it? I listen to the people ingame, and I read what they post. While I appreciate the GMs being willing to RP with us 'commoners' and I'm willing to play it by their rules, I know that a majority of people simply aren't. They want to be the rebel, or the hero, the special exception or impose modern day philosophy, or worst yet be all chummy with the royalty. Heck, Drex doesn't even want to be chummy with them. She just wants to do her job well and not get yelled at for forgetting to bow or for saying something crude on the dais.
I did notice one thing in your list, Blas...
7. When a ruler is in the room and is standing, thats what you do. Wait for them to sit, then you too can sit. If they lie down, well then feel free to lie down. If they don't, don't lie down.
Uhm.. which court? In the Ferdahl's, everyone was expected to sit but the guards. In the Baron's you remain standing. Each province has it's own rules for court behavior, and while I belive each province should be consistant in it's rules.. I think the court should reflect it's individual ruler.
One more thing to consider. In Elanthia, we're not exactly -commoners- unless we roleplay as such. We're the adventurers, the heroes. As such, it's also acceptable roleplay to be just a bit above the common when it comes to royalty, as long as there is the respect shown that a liege lord deserves. If you notice, all of the nobility treats the other nobles with utmost respect. They don't clap each other on the back and do the high five. Occasionally there is lighthearted banter such as the Baron and the Prince both insisting that the other one snores, but the fact that they respect each other is very evident. Even if they didn't like each other, you'd never hear them badmouth each other in public.
Drex
Speaking only for myself, I remember when you could not approach the dais with weapons out in the open. It was a pain to put them up, but it set a precendent for behavior. Honestly, I was disappointed the day the former Baron told Drex to put her armor back on instead of the gowns, although she was obviously thrilled. Drex's behavior is different in a gown, and she is more acutely aware of her surroundings and the formalities that should be present in court.
However, even as I say this.. it's an RP choice that I as the player have made. I like what it's done to my 'diamond in the rough' barbarian and the harsher the Baron gets on her, the more refined it makes her. Not many other people would willingly choose to RP being subject to a liege lord, and therein lies the rub.
Can the vast majority of the people that play this game actually dive into a role of NOT living in a democracy, with the freedom of speech and all of the rights that go with it? I listen to the people ingame, and I read what they post. While I appreciate the GMs being willing to RP with us 'commoners' and I'm willing to play it by their rules, I know that a majority of people simply aren't. They want to be the rebel, or the hero, the special exception or impose modern day philosophy, or worst yet be all chummy with the royalty. Heck, Drex doesn't even want to be chummy with them. She just wants to do her job well and not get yelled at for forgetting to bow or for saying something crude on the dais.
I did notice one thing in your list, Blas...
7. When a ruler is in the room and is standing, thats what you do. Wait for them to sit, then you too can sit. If they lie down, well then feel free to lie down. If they don't, don't lie down.
Uhm.. which court? In the Ferdahl's, everyone was expected to sit but the guards. In the Baron's you remain standing. Each province has it's own rules for court behavior, and while I belive each province should be consistant in it's rules.. I think the court should reflect it's individual ruler.
One more thing to consider. In Elanthia, we're not exactly -commoners- unless we roleplay as such. We're the adventurers, the heroes. As such, it's also acceptable roleplay to be just a bit above the common when it comes to royalty, as long as there is the respect shown that a liege lord deserves. If you notice, all of the nobility treats the other nobles with utmost respect. They don't clap each other on the back and do the high five. Occasionally there is lighthearted banter such as the Baron and the Prince both insisting that the other one snores, but the fact that they respect each other is very evident. Even if they didn't like each other, you'd never hear them badmouth each other in public.
Drex
LORD-SEIHJIN
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 09:57 PM CDT
<<Let's not forget that the 'commoners' talked about here are often people like powerful wizards (which didn't exist in feudal europe, but would clearly not have been thought of as anything remotely close to a 'commoner' if they had) and clerics (even kings often feared the Church, and in Elanthia the gods do meddle quite a bit in the affairs of mortal men) and other equally impressive figures.
>>
This is true. On the other hand, that level of respect for the 'elite' would still be there. In addition, the royals and nobles are -also- powerful wizards and warriors as well.
I would agree the adventurers would not necessarily be considered 'commoners' though they would still, in my opinion, adhere to the same rules of respect and ettiquete.
Toulom says to Ibec, "You've unmarried since we last talked."
Ibec says, "wasn't married to begin with"
Toulom snickers to himself.
Toulom cheerfully exclaims, "Exactly!"
>>
This is true. On the other hand, that level of respect for the 'elite' would still be there. In addition, the royals and nobles are -also- powerful wizards and warriors as well.
I would agree the adventurers would not necessarily be considered 'commoners' though they would still, in my opinion, adhere to the same rules of respect and ettiquete.
Toulom says to Ibec, "You've unmarried since we last talked."
Ibec says, "wasn't married to begin with"
Toulom snickers to himself.
Toulom cheerfully exclaims, "Exactly!"
BRETTH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 09:59 PM CDT
>>>and clerics (even kings often feared the Church, and in Elanthia the gods do meddle quite a bit in the affairs of mortal men) and other equally impressive figures.<<<
The clergy was divided with a glass ceiling. Unless someone reached the popular status of sainthood, a commoner priest would not expect to rise very high in the church hierarchy. The custom was that the nobility gave off non-inheriting sons to the church, and these made up the bishops and archbishops.
As to adventurers being better than most commoners, that's probably true. However, we can draw correlations. There were powerful mercenary captains that were feared for their great ability to kill; and there were some conflicts between them and the nobility. But in the end, the nobles are in charge of the country and they can make any non-noble's life difficult if they were causing too much upheaval.
As well, as it was previously stated, even nobles do not treat other nobles too familiarly - particularly in public. It's a matter of maintaining the quality of nobility, the 'rules' that made the caste separate from others. Even family members called each other by title most of the time. Even today, the Prince of Wales' noble friends refer to him as 'Wales' not Charles. (This casual way of referring to title is, to this day, NOT to be upon the lips of commoners in England. It's peer-to-peer only.)
A royal marrying a commoner meant that you abdicated the throne, though it is being currently debated - but that tells you how important this separation is. It's an interesting thing to hear modern British commoners fight the very idea of their Crown mixing with the lower classes. They want to feel their nobility isn't just like them; they can be hashed in the tabloids, but they can't BE commoners. This separation is willingly enforced from all sides.
Thus, even very powerful commoners (anyone without noble title is a commoner. Even if they're hyper wealthy or very scary) would not treat the nobility casually unless they were trying to make the assumption that they were higher in standing and want to make the noble in question lose face. In essence, treating a noble familiarly in public is a statement that the noble in question is not a noble. This is a pretty bald statement to ever make.
It can be said that Elanthian nobles just don't care about these rules, but I would argue that such a stance is non-functional. Nobility can only exist as a government if their status is believed and maintained as fundamentally separate from commoners. If the two classes are muddied and indistinguishable, there is no realistic reason for the feudal system to still be the dominant government. The standard of legitimacy would be erased.
---Brett
The clergy was divided with a glass ceiling. Unless someone reached the popular status of sainthood, a commoner priest would not expect to rise very high in the church hierarchy. The custom was that the nobility gave off non-inheriting sons to the church, and these made up the bishops and archbishops.
As to adventurers being better than most commoners, that's probably true. However, we can draw correlations. There were powerful mercenary captains that were feared for their great ability to kill; and there were some conflicts between them and the nobility. But in the end, the nobles are in charge of the country and they can make any non-noble's life difficult if they were causing too much upheaval.
As well, as it was previously stated, even nobles do not treat other nobles too familiarly - particularly in public. It's a matter of maintaining the quality of nobility, the 'rules' that made the caste separate from others. Even family members called each other by title most of the time. Even today, the Prince of Wales' noble friends refer to him as 'Wales' not Charles. (This casual way of referring to title is, to this day, NOT to be upon the lips of commoners in England. It's peer-to-peer only.)
A royal marrying a commoner meant that you abdicated the throne, though it is being currently debated - but that tells you how important this separation is. It's an interesting thing to hear modern British commoners fight the very idea of their Crown mixing with the lower classes. They want to feel their nobility isn't just like them; they can be hashed in the tabloids, but they can't BE commoners. This separation is willingly enforced from all sides.
Thus, even very powerful commoners (anyone without noble title is a commoner. Even if they're hyper wealthy or very scary) would not treat the nobility casually unless they were trying to make the assumption that they were higher in standing and want to make the noble in question lose face. In essence, treating a noble familiarly in public is a statement that the noble in question is not a noble. This is a pretty bald statement to ever make.
It can be said that Elanthian nobles just don't care about these rules, but I would argue that such a stance is non-functional. Nobility can only exist as a government if their status is believed and maintained as fundamentally separate from commoners. If the two classes are muddied and indistinguishable, there is no realistic reason for the feudal system to still be the dominant government. The standard of legitimacy would be erased.
---Brett
IMPALIRE
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 10:00 PM CDT
PCs are the exception, and they are the hero. The rulers are King Arthurs, the PCs are Lancelots, and the hundred of thousands of people in each province are the 'subjects' I agree with the general mood of this thread that there should be more respect shown to these gmnpcs and I shake my head sometimes about how people act around these people (not just the people who get off on mouthing off, but also the sycophants) i think it would be better served it each had their own mannerisms (like Drex said about standing, sitting etc, maybe vorclaf walking around with a guard that would arrest anyone who touched him, etc.) rather than bringing formal behavior into it. I do not agree that pcs are 'common' or similar to serfs of feudal society, i consider pcs far above those people.
Thanks,
Imp
WIJBRANDUS
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 10:08 PM CDT
Even Lancelot knew his place. Well, except for that one thing...
~Kodiac
LT, Dragon Company
Therengian Infantry
~Kodiac
LT, Dragon Company
Therengian Infantry
GOSSFORD
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 10:13 PM CDT
One could view PCs as a the skilled class between peasant and noble. This is really a broad class containing the merchants, blacksmiths, business owners, ect. Even knights while favored just below the royal blood lines if they failed to show the proper respect or spoke out against the royals the punishment would still be swift. Regardless of where we would like to be no PC in DR can clain royal lineage and be able to prove it.
http://www.drtraders.net/gallery
http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin/topmuds/rankem.cgi?id=drealms
http://www.drtraders.net/gallery
http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin/topmuds/rankem.cgi?id=drealms
LORD-SEIHJIN
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 10:13 PM CDT
<<the PCs are Lancelots>>
I get what your saying, but the problem is there was only one Lancelot. There are too many 'Lancelots' now and that makes Lancelot a lot less Lancelot and more like ... Lancelot? Which is the heart of the thread we seem to agree on though.
_____________________________________________________
Toulom says to Ibec, "You've unmarried since we last talked."
Ibec says, "wasn't married to begin with"
Toulom snickers to himself.
Toulom cheerfully exclaims, "Exactly!"
I get what your saying, but the problem is there was only one Lancelot. There are too many 'Lancelots' now and that makes Lancelot a lot less Lancelot and more like ... Lancelot? Which is the heart of the thread we seem to agree on though.
_____________________________________________________
Toulom says to Ibec, "You've unmarried since we last talked."
Ibec says, "wasn't married to begin with"
Toulom snickers to himself.
Toulom cheerfully exclaims, "Exactly!"
BRETTH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 10:25 PM CDT
>>>I do not agree that pcs are 'common' or similar to serfs of feudal society, i consider pcs far above those people.<<<
Serfs were the lowest of all commoners (aside from criminals, but that's a separate status.) Freemen (emphatically NOT serfs) ranged greatly in importance, from the local shoemaker to a very wealthy Guildmaster with important people owing massive debts to him. However, all of these people are still 'common' because they are not 'noble.' It's either or, like a lightswitch, not a graduating scale of nobleness.
One thing to keep in mind is that being noble does not mean that the person is wealthy, or powerful. By the same token, being wealthy or powerful does not make the person a noble. It's a totally separate condition.
---Brett
Serfs were the lowest of all commoners (aside from criminals, but that's a separate status.) Freemen (emphatically NOT serfs) ranged greatly in importance, from the local shoemaker to a very wealthy Guildmaster with important people owing massive debts to him. However, all of these people are still 'common' because they are not 'noble.' It's either or, like a lightswitch, not a graduating scale of nobleness.
One thing to keep in mind is that being noble does not mean that the person is wealthy, or powerful. By the same token, being wealthy or powerful does not make the person a noble. It's a totally separate condition.
---Brett
FONTAINED2
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 10:26 PM CDT
Part of me says it'd be really cool if the GMs gave official nobility titles to characters for rare great deeds ... it would be realistic and give IC sanction to claims of nobility. Declaring oneself to be special and different is never terribly convincing (or even interesting) but if it was supported by the game and bestowed upon you (not just claimed by anyone who wanted to feel special) it could be good. Unfortunately, should something like this be done the cries of favoritism would be overwhelming.
However, what if it was done from the CM level? What if when a character is rolled up there's a minute (much less than the chance of an Elothean savant) chance of rolling up a titled character? From an IC perspective it makes sense, nobility was usually granted by birth, the suitability or interest of the recipient wasn't an issue. It'd be a risk of course, there's no guarantee that whomever rolls up a noble would have the RP skills to pull it off ... on the other hand, it might take someone who's otherwise not into that sort of thing and lure them into a life of solid role play.
Gizella
However, what if it was done from the CM level? What if when a character is rolled up there's a minute (much less than the chance of an Elothean savant) chance of rolling up a titled character? From an IC perspective it makes sense, nobility was usually granted by birth, the suitability or interest of the recipient wasn't an issue. It'd be a risk of course, there's no guarantee that whomever rolls up a noble would have the RP skills to pull it off ... on the other hand, it might take someone who's otherwise not into that sort of thing and lure them into a life of solid role play.
Gizella
BRETTH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
06/02/2004 10:32 PM CDT
I always thought it would be neat if in the CM, you could choose some nifty advantages for your character. Things ranging from physical features (empaths don't fret - hear me out) to extra languages and special physical and mental gifts.
However, you only had so many points to spend on these choices. Choosing a noble background would be EXPENSIVE in point cost and make it highly undesirable to people who weren't serious about roleplaying a character like that.
(So yeah, physical features could be chosen in the CM, but only by people giving up the chance to buy other kewel abilities. Thus, not everyone would have them, and empaths would still have a viable use of Shift.)
---Brett
However, you only had so many points to spend on these choices. Choosing a noble background would be EXPENSIVE in point cost and make it highly undesirable to people who weren't serious about roleplaying a character like that.
(So yeah, physical features could be chosen in the CM, but only by people giving up the chance to buy other kewel abilities. Thus, not everyone would have them, and empaths would still have a viable use of Shift.)
---Brett
RAZIAAR
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/11/2005 11:58 PM CST
I eschew the notions of nobility and rank by bloodline. Respect is not to be given by lineage, but rather on the individual's merits and character. The common farmer has much more respect to be gained in my eyes than that of a blue-blooded Aristocrat.
Troubadour Raziaar
Troubadour Raziaar
BRETTH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/13/2005 09:33 AM CST
>>>The common farmer has much more respect to be gained in my eyes than that of a blue-blooded Aristocrat.<<<
With the number of PCs taking this opinion, it sure makes it hard to see how any remotely feudal system has survived for so long in Elanthia. I've given up trying to deal with the contradiction.
---Brett
With the number of PCs taking this opinion, it sure makes it hard to see how any remotely feudal system has survived for so long in Elanthia. I've given up trying to deal with the contradiction.
---Brett
ROTHJ
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/13/2005 10:35 AM CST
<<With the number of PCs taking this opinion, it sure makes it hard to see how any remotely feudal system has survived for so long in Elanthia.>>
It's quite simple, really: have you ever tried dealing with any of the "nobility" in DR? They're all insanely powerful "godmoding" NPCs who can and will kill you at will.
When you're that damned good, you can take over a city pretty much at will.
<<I've given up trying to deal with the contradiction.>>
Look at it in this way: PCs are "adventurers." They're going to have some odd ideas about things, because they go out and do odd, perhaps insane, things. That they're stinking rich compared to the rest of the population, however, merely makes them "eccentric."
Drongol doesn't have a lot of respect for nobility outside of his race due to the inanity of "courtly" behavior. He went before Vorclaf once and basically told the prince to cut the crap, since they're both busy men and would, no doubt, rather solve the issues than discuss the weather. Get him going about Therengia and he'll start off on a tirade about good-for-nothing nobility who wouldn't know an honest day of work if it crawled into bed with them.
Put him before a Dwarven prince/king/jarl/whatever they're going to be called, however, and his tune will quickly change.
Drongol's Player
PC also stands for "Paying Customer."
It's quite simple, really: have you ever tried dealing with any of the "nobility" in DR? They're all insanely powerful "godmoding" NPCs who can and will kill you at will.
When you're that damned good, you can take over a city pretty much at will.
<<I've given up trying to deal with the contradiction.>>
Look at it in this way: PCs are "adventurers." They're going to have some odd ideas about things, because they go out and do odd, perhaps insane, things. That they're stinking rich compared to the rest of the population, however, merely makes them "eccentric."
Drongol doesn't have a lot of respect for nobility outside of his race due to the inanity of "courtly" behavior. He went before Vorclaf once and basically told the prince to cut the crap, since they're both busy men and would, no doubt, rather solve the issues than discuss the weather. Get him going about Therengia and he'll start off on a tirade about good-for-nothing nobility who wouldn't know an honest day of work if it crawled into bed with them.
Put him before a Dwarven prince/king/jarl/whatever they're going to be called, however, and his tune will quickly change.
Drongol's Player
PC also stands for "Paying Customer."
BRETTH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/13/2005 07:58 PM CST
It would be easier to play along with an idea of PC 'leveller' movements if there was a stronger sense of the rule that gives rise to the exception. Instead, attempting to RP the 'rule' gets you strange looks and a sense of being the very, very small minority.
Therefore, the feeling that you get when you see yet another PC that thinks that feudalism is laughable is "THAT is the majority" and then the inevitable, "This doesn't feel like the society we are led to believe exists in most of the Elanthian provinces."
I don't get why most people can't see the inherent contradiction of maintaining a world filled with Kings, Queens, Princes, etc. while espousing "all men are created equal." People seem to flock to the romantic notion of a feudal fantasy world, purely for the joy of stomping all over it once they start playing there.
I'm sure there are characters that have reasons not to respect the nobility. I played a Ranger character in DR like that. Unfortunately, they just appear to be one of the masses when it's all said and done.
If I want to RP feudalism, I have pretty much learned to look elsewhere.
---Brett
---Brett
Therefore, the feeling that you get when you see yet another PC that thinks that feudalism is laughable is "THAT is the majority" and then the inevitable, "This doesn't feel like the society we are led to believe exists in most of the Elanthian provinces."
I don't get why most people can't see the inherent contradiction of maintaining a world filled with Kings, Queens, Princes, etc. while espousing "all men are created equal." People seem to flock to the romantic notion of a feudal fantasy world, purely for the joy of stomping all over it once they start playing there.
I'm sure there are characters that have reasons not to respect the nobility. I played a Ranger character in DR like that. Unfortunately, they just appear to be one of the masses when it's all said and done.
If I want to RP feudalism, I have pretty much learned to look elsewhere.
---Brett
---Brett
RAZIAAR
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 02:10 AM CST
Don't think that there were any lack of dissenters in medieval fuedalism times. There were many a underground movements, rebellions, conspiracies against the throne, you name it.
Troubadour Raziaar
Troubadour Raziaar
BRATHACH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 03:00 AM CST
>If I want to RP feudalism, I have pretty much learned to look elsewhere.
More barbed a sting I couldn't bring.
RP Uber Alles,
~I.B.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php
More barbed a sting I couldn't bring.
RP Uber Alles,
~I.B.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php
AMAGAIM
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 04:00 AM CST
Exactly. Think that the entirety of the feudal world would be satisfied with their lot in life? I personally would doubt it, and I'd doubt it even more once the drink of choice started flowing in the local tavern.
Feudalism has nothing to do with the belief of majority rule. Indeed, it's the exact opposite, with the small minority holding power over the vast majority. And it all came down to who had control of the hilt. Those with their hands on the hilts decided who would sit on the velvet seats and who would stand in the dirty fields. And those that could tell whoever had their hands on the hilt what to do, they were the absolute rulers of their domain.
And even if you have your hand on one hilt (or maybe two at the same time), the guy you're arguing with has men that control a hundred hilts, regardless of the specific blades that may be attached to them. And when you have hundred-to-one odds against you, the die would pretty much tend to be cast.
Of course, in Earthly fuedal societies, they didn't have those handy favors or empaths sitting around, so the threats of beheading (see: Shard's current resistance movement), drawing-and-quartering, imprisonment-for-death, mayhem, burning, drowning, and random evisceration, not to mention doing the same to every member of your immediate family plus friends, acquaintances, the cute server down at the tavern, and the nice couple you were apprenticed to when you were 8 years old... Those all had much more weight to a dissatisfied populace than can ever apply to DR's adventurer classes.
We have an in-game society similar to fuedalism. Yet the differences inherent in the game itself would prevent any direct correlations.
Amagaim; the player of,
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
Feudalism has nothing to do with the belief of majority rule. Indeed, it's the exact opposite, with the small minority holding power over the vast majority. And it all came down to who had control of the hilt. Those with their hands on the hilts decided who would sit on the velvet seats and who would stand in the dirty fields. And those that could tell whoever had their hands on the hilt what to do, they were the absolute rulers of their domain.
And even if you have your hand on one hilt (or maybe two at the same time), the guy you're arguing with has men that control a hundred hilts, regardless of the specific blades that may be attached to them. And when you have hundred-to-one odds against you, the die would pretty much tend to be cast.
Of course, in Earthly fuedal societies, they didn't have those handy favors or empaths sitting around, so the threats of beheading (see: Shard's current resistance movement), drawing-and-quartering, imprisonment-for-death, mayhem, burning, drowning, and random evisceration, not to mention doing the same to every member of your immediate family plus friends, acquaintances, the cute server down at the tavern, and the nice couple you were apprenticed to when you were 8 years old... Those all had much more weight to a dissatisfied populace than can ever apply to DR's adventurer classes.
We have an in-game society similar to fuedalism. Yet the differences inherent in the game itself would prevent any direct correlations.
Amagaim; the player of,
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
BRETTH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 11:02 AM CST
>>>Exactly. Think that the entirety of the feudal world would be satisfied with their lot in life? I personally would doubt it, and I'd doubt it even more once the drink of choice started flowing in the local tavern.<<<
You would be incorrect.
I do not want to make a post of immense size that would make everyone flee in terror, so I have to summarize with what seems the most pertinent information while not being able to present all the information that supports the conclusion.
Firstly, I am a professional medieval historian. I am not someone who watched a few movies, read a few books, then played a few games before making up my mind about the pros and cons of feudalism and how it was perceived at the time.
My thesis was specifically based upon the perception of the reigns of the three Edwards in the late 13th through 14th centuries, perceptions of the common folk and of the nobility, in England and in Wales.
Please understand that the idea so many people here have of many underground movements against the 'oppressors' and a desire for equality was simply not happening the European middle ages. There was a belief in general that people had their lot in life and a duty to serve (even the nobles served someone). People are relying heavily on the philosophies of (much later)French and English revolutions, the 'Enlightenment', the American Revolution, and Marxism, which always painted the Middle Ages as in the grip of the horrid Ancien Regime, and therefore everyone back then must have been 'brothers in arms struggling to be free, and kept down by The Man.'
There were some uprisings, but all of them with pretty much one exception at the end of the Middle Ages (and generally agreed upon beginning of the renaissance) were not to make people equal, but to get a better lord to serve and put things back into their 'natural order.'
Peasants would complain of course; all people complain, the nobles complained too about their duties. However, commoners supported the society as strongly as did the nobles. A sure way to anger a commoner would be for another commoner to start acting 'above his station' and therefore insinuating that something was wrong with their way of life.
The exceptional peasant revolution was led by Wat Tyler, and he (and his men) were no poor peasantry. They had a lot of land, and while they espoused the first real 'leveller' rhetoric, they ultimately wanted the King to proclaim that they had more of the noble rights. It was the commoner mayor Walworth that stabbed Tyler to death, and all the commoners of London and England rejoiced; they made Walworth a hero and wrote songs about him dispatching that group of rabble upstarts.
So. The next thing that I would expect to see is the ubiquitous "DR is not the Middle Ages." Well, sure, it's not. Apparently it couldn't even really be feudal if the GMs weren't constantly trying to tell us that it was, because only a tiny minority try to play the game as if feudalism has any normalcy in the mindset of the people. Frankly, if the game were allowed to follow natural results instead of being forced into a mold that people apparently sought when they came to DR (medieval atmosphere, which requires feudalism), then the pressure of all the characters acting as if Feudalism was the devil and had no right to exist would have taken over long ago.
The culture doesn't currently work or make sense, and the players sure don't help to change that. Maybe it should just finally be realized that the players of DR don't want a medieval environment, they want Marxism with swords, and maybe that's what the GMs should give them.
---Brett
You would be incorrect.
I do not want to make a post of immense size that would make everyone flee in terror, so I have to summarize with what seems the most pertinent information while not being able to present all the information that supports the conclusion.
Firstly, I am a professional medieval historian. I am not someone who watched a few movies, read a few books, then played a few games before making up my mind about the pros and cons of feudalism and how it was perceived at the time.
My thesis was specifically based upon the perception of the reigns of the three Edwards in the late 13th through 14th centuries, perceptions of the common folk and of the nobility, in England and in Wales.
Please understand that the idea so many people here have of many underground movements against the 'oppressors' and a desire for equality was simply not happening the European middle ages. There was a belief in general that people had their lot in life and a duty to serve (even the nobles served someone). People are relying heavily on the philosophies of (much later)French and English revolutions, the 'Enlightenment', the American Revolution, and Marxism, which always painted the Middle Ages as in the grip of the horrid Ancien Regime, and therefore everyone back then must have been 'brothers in arms struggling to be free, and kept down by The Man.'
There were some uprisings, but all of them with pretty much one exception at the end of the Middle Ages (and generally agreed upon beginning of the renaissance) were not to make people equal, but to get a better lord to serve and put things back into their 'natural order.'
Peasants would complain of course; all people complain, the nobles complained too about their duties. However, commoners supported the society as strongly as did the nobles. A sure way to anger a commoner would be for another commoner to start acting 'above his station' and therefore insinuating that something was wrong with their way of life.
The exceptional peasant revolution was led by Wat Tyler, and he (and his men) were no poor peasantry. They had a lot of land, and while they espoused the first real 'leveller' rhetoric, they ultimately wanted the King to proclaim that they had more of the noble rights. It was the commoner mayor Walworth that stabbed Tyler to death, and all the commoners of London and England rejoiced; they made Walworth a hero and wrote songs about him dispatching that group of rabble upstarts.
So. The next thing that I would expect to see is the ubiquitous "DR is not the Middle Ages." Well, sure, it's not. Apparently it couldn't even really be feudal if the GMs weren't constantly trying to tell us that it was, because only a tiny minority try to play the game as if feudalism has any normalcy in the mindset of the people. Frankly, if the game were allowed to follow natural results instead of being forced into a mold that people apparently sought when they came to DR (medieval atmosphere, which requires feudalism), then the pressure of all the characters acting as if Feudalism was the devil and had no right to exist would have taken over long ago.
The culture doesn't currently work or make sense, and the players sure don't help to change that. Maybe it should just finally be realized that the players of DR don't want a medieval environment, they want Marxism with swords, and maybe that's what the GMs should give them.
---Brett
MIKEM1
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 02:46 PM CST
<<they want Marxism with swords
Bite your tongue.
Besides, everyone knows that a magocracy would be the true natural order of things.
Bite your tongue.
Besides, everyone knows that a magocracy would be the true natural order of things.
BRETTH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 03:13 PM CST
A magocracy would be a lot of fun to play :) I imagine it would be like a theocracy only... not. Heh heh.
---Brett
---Brett
RAZIAAR
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 04:09 PM CST
<<The culture doesn't currently work or make sense, and the players sure don't help to change that. Maybe it should just finally be realized that the players of DR don't want a medieval environment, they want Marxism with swords, and maybe that's what the GMs should give them.>>
Oh please. Give me a break. If you want people to bow down in servitude against these nobles, then try to force them. No matter what you do, you're not going to convince all the militant folks in the realms to owe loyalty to any one man.
Just because people won't be your slaves, and will rise up to rebel against the authority, doesn't mean that it is a Marxism. Comparing the realms to medieval historical periods is pointless, and you know that.
If you want to bow down and kiss the dirty toes of some royalty member, then please... do so. But do not expect all others to do the same, nor try to change the game based upon the fact that many will simply not. The powers of the rulers is not absolute in any of the provinces, and the outcast war helped to prove that.
Troubadour Raziaar
Oh please. Give me a break. If you want people to bow down in servitude against these nobles, then try to force them. No matter what you do, you're not going to convince all the militant folks in the realms to owe loyalty to any one man.
Just because people won't be your slaves, and will rise up to rebel against the authority, doesn't mean that it is a Marxism. Comparing the realms to medieval historical periods is pointless, and you know that.
If you want to bow down and kiss the dirty toes of some royalty member, then please... do so. But do not expect all others to do the same, nor try to change the game based upon the fact that many will simply not. The powers of the rulers is not absolute in any of the provinces, and the outcast war helped to prove that.
Troubadour Raziaar
BRETTH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 05:34 PM CST
>>> Raziar's post<<<
Makes my point rather well. You might notice, I'm not trying to get people to do much of anything in DR; I gave that up a long time ago.
---Brett
Makes my point rather well. You might notice, I'm not trying to get people to do much of anything in DR; I gave that up a long time ago.
---Brett
BRATHACH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 05:46 PM CST
Soooooooo, was that intended to prove Brett's point, or is that just coincidental?
RP Uber Alles,
~I.B.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php
RP Uber Alles,
~I.B.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php
RAZIAAR
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 06:31 PM CST
Coincidental.
Troubadour Raziaar
Troubadour Raziaar
WILTONQU
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 06:54 PM CST
the problem with the comparison with the english and french middle ages is that people were not capable of performing some of the feats that guilds can perform in DR. It is like comparing apples to a steak<oranges would be to close to apples>. Your not even really in the same ball park. If a cleric can raise someone from the dead, and wield magic as a weapon or defense, commune whenever they wish and know how close they are to thier gods. ect ect. not to mention later one Even raise themselves from the grave engulfed in a huge bird of fire, they get to a point where they kind of hard to compare to street peasants. That is not even touching the different racial and culteral differances dwarves, gnomes, togs, elves ect ect would have...
with advancement in the guilds comes personal power, there is no scale for this power except at the extreme upper levels, at times even they are talked down to harshly by lesser nobles. I have see the highest cleric in the realms disrespected badly by some lesser nobles. This type of stuff would/should cause problems with the masses.
Just A Cleric
with advancement in the guilds comes personal power, there is no scale for this power except at the extreme upper levels, at times even they are talked down to harshly by lesser nobles. I have see the highest cleric in the realms disrespected badly by some lesser nobles. This type of stuff would/should cause problems with the masses.
Just A Cleric
BRETTH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 07:16 PM CST
>>>with advancement in the guilds comes personal power, there is no scale for this power except at the extreme upper levels, at times even they are talked down to harshly by lesser nobles. I have see the highest cleric in the realms disrespected badly by some lesser nobles. This type of stuff would/should cause problems with the masses.<<<
Then should there be a feudal system in DR? I don't really see how it's supported other than game and NPC design telling us it's supposed to be there. Certainly, very few players feel any reason to roleplay as if it makes sense in Elanthia, and maybe they shouldn't.
If, in reality, a culture had a hereditary nobility, no matter how well 'trained' in combat and magic, constantly ticking off a very powerful and large group of killers, I would think that the government would swiftly be overthrown.
My explanation for many years as to why that had not happened was that there was a strong cultural belief in the validity of feudalism, because I sure couldn't figure out any other reason it would still exist.
If there is no strong cultural belief in supporting it, and so many powerful, dangerous folks feel no reason to have feudalism, then the only realistic result is a 'regime change.'
Constantly playing that the government just continues on when it has no way to keep itself in place, and every reason to be ousted, is an untenable gameworld background and leads to frustrated players who can't make sense of any of it - because there's no sense to be made.
What would people prefer to play in its place? Anarchy based on might? Democracy (and then which... pure Athenian Democracy, or watered-down modern Oligopoly-as-representation)? Theocracy (power of the gods and priests)?
It's one thing to say the current government is terrible and deserves no support, and another to plan a replacement government which will serve the populace (and the gameplay) better.
Just curious.
---Brett
Then should there be a feudal system in DR? I don't really see how it's supported other than game and NPC design telling us it's supposed to be there. Certainly, very few players feel any reason to roleplay as if it makes sense in Elanthia, and maybe they shouldn't.
If, in reality, a culture had a hereditary nobility, no matter how well 'trained' in combat and magic, constantly ticking off a very powerful and large group of killers, I would think that the government would swiftly be overthrown.
My explanation for many years as to why that had not happened was that there was a strong cultural belief in the validity of feudalism, because I sure couldn't figure out any other reason it would still exist.
If there is no strong cultural belief in supporting it, and so many powerful, dangerous folks feel no reason to have feudalism, then the only realistic result is a 'regime change.'
Constantly playing that the government just continues on when it has no way to keep itself in place, and every reason to be ousted, is an untenable gameworld background and leads to frustrated players who can't make sense of any of it - because there's no sense to be made.
What would people prefer to play in its place? Anarchy based on might? Democracy (and then which... pure Athenian Democracy, or watered-down modern Oligopoly-as-representation)? Theocracy (power of the gods and priests)?
It's one thing to say the current government is terrible and deserves no support, and another to plan a replacement government which will serve the populace (and the gameplay) better.
Just curious.
---Brett
RAZIAAR
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 07:36 PM CST
<<Then should there be a feudal system in DR? I don't really see how it's supported other than game and NPC design telling us it's supposed to be there. Certainly, very few players feel any reason to roleplay as if it makes sense in Elanthia, and maybe they shouldn't.>>
Of course there should still be a feudal system in DR. Just because there are plenty of powerful dissenters to the thrones, doesn't mean that a King or other nobles will just dissolve their leadership. The players of this game are 'not' the world. They're just powerful people within it, and a vast minority. There are many many many thousands of other subjects to the kings and other ruling parties of the provinces, and just because the more independant minded player characters don't like the rulers, doesn't mean that it doesn't still remain.
As far as i'm concerned, my character disdains those who feel themselves superior to him or others based upon their lineage... but doesn't actively seek to destroy that which he dislikes. As far as I know... the prince etc doesn't force their oppressions upon the vast majorities of the independants, and so they don't feel much of a connected, urging desire to overthrow the government. As long as they can go about their buisness for the most part, I don't think you'll see any massive movements to overthrow the government.
So why do you keep insisting that the game's inherant governments be changed based on an out of character reasoning, because people dislike the rulers that oppress? Until the day the masses form to remove the government, it should stay as is, without your out of character reasonings to change it from one way to another just because the player characters don't like it.
I LIKE the fuedalism system. I like the type of atmosphere it creates similiar to the middle ages. That doesn't mean I hate playing in a world with those types of governments. My character hates the kings and queens and aristocrats and noblemen, but me as a player, enjoys the conflict and atmosphere it brings to the gaming field. That will never change.
Troubadour Raziaar
Of course there should still be a feudal system in DR. Just because there are plenty of powerful dissenters to the thrones, doesn't mean that a King or other nobles will just dissolve their leadership. The players of this game are 'not' the world. They're just powerful people within it, and a vast minority. There are many many many thousands of other subjects to the kings and other ruling parties of the provinces, and just because the more independant minded player characters don't like the rulers, doesn't mean that it doesn't still remain.
As far as i'm concerned, my character disdains those who feel themselves superior to him or others based upon their lineage... but doesn't actively seek to destroy that which he dislikes. As far as I know... the prince etc doesn't force their oppressions upon the vast majorities of the independants, and so they don't feel much of a connected, urging desire to overthrow the government. As long as they can go about their buisness for the most part, I don't think you'll see any massive movements to overthrow the government.
So why do you keep insisting that the game's inherant governments be changed based on an out of character reasoning, because people dislike the rulers that oppress? Until the day the masses form to remove the government, it should stay as is, without your out of character reasonings to change it from one way to another just because the player characters don't like it.
I LIKE the fuedalism system. I like the type of atmosphere it creates similiar to the middle ages. That doesn't mean I hate playing in a world with those types of governments. My character hates the kings and queens and aristocrats and noblemen, but me as a player, enjoys the conflict and atmosphere it brings to the gaming field. That will never change.
Troubadour Raziaar
BRETTH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 09:26 PM CST
>>>Of course there should still be a feudal system in DR. Just because there are plenty of powerful dissenters to the thrones, doesn't mean that a King or other nobles will just dissolve their leadership.<<<
So you're saying the PCs aren't actually powerful enough to remove them. One of the big arguments I've seen against the nobility in the game is that the PCs ARE powerful enough to get rid of them. Of course, if you're saying the GMs would never allow it, that's a different subject altogether and ties back into the "Should the system realistically function in Elanthia without artificial insistence that it do so?"
>>> The players of this game are 'not' the world. They're just powerful people within it, and a vast minority. There are many many many thousands of other subjects to the kings and other ruling parties of the provinces, and just because the more independant minded player characters don't like the rulers, doesn't mean that it doesn't still remain.<<<
So you're saying that the vast majority in Elanthia like their feudal system and will support it. Interestingly, most players who say they don't like the nobility in the game say that feudalism is about enslaving the weaker masses and forcing them to do the will of the mighty, and the masses are really constantly forming resistance movements or at least wishing they had the cajones to rebel and be free of tyranny. Seems like they'd appreciate the help from the adventuring population if this is the case.
>>>As far as i'm concerned, my character disdains those who feel themselves superior to him or others based upon their lineage... but doesn't actively seek to destroy that which he dislikes. As far as I know... the prince etc doesn't force their oppressions upon the vast majorities of the independants, and so they don't feel much of a connected, urging desire to overthrow the government. As long as they can go about their buisness for the most part, I don't think you'll see any massive movements to overthrow the government.<<<
So life has been pretty good under the feudal system, people aren't oppressed, and people are content. So what was the reason for disdaining the methods and folks that promote this sort of government again?
>>>So why do you keep insisting that the game's inherant governments be changed based on an out of character reasoning, because people dislike the rulers that oppress? Until the day the masses form to remove the government, it should stay as is, without your out of character reasonings to change it from one way to another just because the player characters don't like it.<<<
I'm having trouble figuring out why it's OOC when the player characters don't like something. Isn't that an IC issue, even if I (as an OOC entity) notice that it's going on? And your previous paragraphs just stated that there isn't much oppression going on as far as the characters are concerned, so whose OOC ideas about opression are being forced onto the game exactly? And dang... I haven't heard so many Marxist catchphrases being tossed around since I saw the movie Reds. Are you sure you don't want Marxism with swords?
>>>I LIKE the fuedalism system. I like the type of atmosphere it creates similiar to the middle ages. That doesn't mean I hate playing in a world with those types of governments. My character hates the kings and queens and aristocrats and noblemen, but me as a player, enjoys the conflict and atmosphere it brings to the gaming field. That will never change.<<<
That's all fine, but the reality is, the vast majority of players in DR roleplay as if their characters have never grown up in a society that believes that feudalism is the norm and that it is a good way to live. They roleplay as if they grew up being taught notions of revolution and equality of all people, and if the players came here looking for the 'atmosphere' that feudalism creates, then they're working awfully hard to undermine it.
So you're saying the PCs aren't actually powerful enough to remove them. One of the big arguments I've seen against the nobility in the game is that the PCs ARE powerful enough to get rid of them. Of course, if you're saying the GMs would never allow it, that's a different subject altogether and ties back into the "Should the system realistically function in Elanthia without artificial insistence that it do so?"
>>> The players of this game are 'not' the world. They're just powerful people within it, and a vast minority. There are many many many thousands of other subjects to the kings and other ruling parties of the provinces, and just because the more independant minded player characters don't like the rulers, doesn't mean that it doesn't still remain.<<<
So you're saying that the vast majority in Elanthia like their feudal system and will support it. Interestingly, most players who say they don't like the nobility in the game say that feudalism is about enslaving the weaker masses and forcing them to do the will of the mighty, and the masses are really constantly forming resistance movements or at least wishing they had the cajones to rebel and be free of tyranny. Seems like they'd appreciate the help from the adventuring population if this is the case.
>>>As far as i'm concerned, my character disdains those who feel themselves superior to him or others based upon their lineage... but doesn't actively seek to destroy that which he dislikes. As far as I know... the prince etc doesn't force their oppressions upon the vast majorities of the independants, and so they don't feel much of a connected, urging desire to overthrow the government. As long as they can go about their buisness for the most part, I don't think you'll see any massive movements to overthrow the government.<<<
So life has been pretty good under the feudal system, people aren't oppressed, and people are content. So what was the reason for disdaining the methods and folks that promote this sort of government again?
>>>So why do you keep insisting that the game's inherant governments be changed based on an out of character reasoning, because people dislike the rulers that oppress? Until the day the masses form to remove the government, it should stay as is, without your out of character reasonings to change it from one way to another just because the player characters don't like it.<<<
I'm having trouble figuring out why it's OOC when the player characters don't like something. Isn't that an IC issue, even if I (as an OOC entity) notice that it's going on? And your previous paragraphs just stated that there isn't much oppression going on as far as the characters are concerned, so whose OOC ideas about opression are being forced onto the game exactly? And dang... I haven't heard so many Marxist catchphrases being tossed around since I saw the movie Reds. Are you sure you don't want Marxism with swords?
>>>I LIKE the fuedalism system. I like the type of atmosphere it creates similiar to the middle ages. That doesn't mean I hate playing in a world with those types of governments. My character hates the kings and queens and aristocrats and noblemen, but me as a player, enjoys the conflict and atmosphere it brings to the gaming field. That will never change.<<<
That's all fine, but the reality is, the vast majority of players in DR roleplay as if their characters have never grown up in a society that believes that feudalism is the norm and that it is a good way to live. They roleplay as if they grew up being taught notions of revolution and equality of all people, and if the players came here looking for the 'atmosphere' that feudalism creates, then they're working awfully hard to undermine it.
RAZIAAR
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 09:57 PM CST
<<So you're saying the PCs aren't actually powerful enough to remove them. One of the big arguments I've seen against the nobility in the game is that the PCs ARE powerful enough to get rid of them. Of course, if you're saying the GMs would never allow it, that's a different subject altogether and ties back into the "Should the system realistically function in Elanthia without artificial insistence that it do so?">>
No. I'm not. I'm saying that the PC's haven't done much in the way of working to remove them. There hasn't been a big overthrowing movement. GM's probably wouldn't allow it anyways, unless enough people wanted to... but I never took any of that into consideration.
<<So you're saying that the vast majority in Elanthia like their feudal system and will support it. Interestingly, most players who say they don't like the nobility in the game say that feudalism is about enslaving the weaker masses and forcing them to do the will of the mighty, and the masses are really constantly forming resistance movements or at least wishing they had the cajones to rebel and be free of tyranny. Seems like they'd appreciate the help from the adventuring population if this is the case.>>
No, i'm not saying that a vast majority of Elanthia like it... I'm saying that a vast majority are not really in the position to do much about it, unless they revolt, which I haven't seen yet. I don't view fuedalism as slavery, I view it as a bunch of uptight rich people with family trees full of rich uptight people. My characters major problem with these people is their egos, not their enslavement of the masses... which quite frankly, doesn't really exist. Those farmers from all appearances, live their lives as freely as they can without having the opportunity to rise in political status. If the adventuring population will seek to overthrow the government, i'd be more than happy to help them, especially on Zoluren because I think Vorclaf is a giant idiot... but there hasn't been such an interest for that sort of movement yet.
<<So life has been pretty good under the feudal system, people aren't oppressed, and people are content. So what was the reason for disdaining the methods and folks that promote this sort of government again?>>
<rolls his eyes> Give me a break. Just because these peasants go about living their life in ways they only know how to, doesn't mean that I, as an adventurer need to respect or like the royalty. I despise these aristocrats because of their assinine behavior of thinking they are better and more powerful than everyone else because of either their wealth, position, or family lineage. Until they do something that merits respect, I will not respect them, but rather spit in their face if they try to walk all over my ego.
As I said... lick their royal toes if you like, but I won't.
<<I'm having trouble figuring out why it's OOC when the player characters don't like something. Isn't that an IC issue, even if I (as an OOC entity) notice that it's going on? And your previous paragraphs just stated that there isn't much oppression going on as far as the characters are concerned, so whose OOC ideas about opression are being forced onto the game exactly? And dang... I haven't heard so many Marxist catchphrases being tossed around since I saw the movie Reds. Are you sure you don't want Marxism with swords?>>
No... i'm saying its OOC, because you want the government of elanthia to be changed simply because the players are discussing their characters dislike of the individuals that make up the governing parties. The only scenarios where governments should be changed, is in political decay, rebellious overthrowing of the government, etc... and not because someone like you wants it to be changed just to suit the out of character discussions of these situations. If the player characters want to change the government, they will... until then, it won't be changed. Got it? My character may not like the government, but he's not yet at the stage of his life to declare war upon the prince and overthrow them, costing untold amounts of money and lives. Not everybody has the favor of the gods, you know.
<<That's all fine, but the reality is, the vast majority of players in DR roleplay as if their characters have never grown up in a society that believes that feudalism is the norm and that it is a good way to live. They roleplay as if they grew up being taught notions of revolution and equality of all people, and if the players came here looking for the 'atmosphere' that feudalism creates, then they're working awfully hard to undermine it. >>
You're kidding, right? Just because there may have not been official governments other than fuedalism in the realms, doesn't mean that our characters won't know what life is like without it to not have thoughts of change. Take the thieves guild for instance. It is a vast organization of individuals, who don't follow the whole king/queen/noble crap. On the surface, the world follows fuedalism, but these people follow a whole different code of ethics, rules, etc that are entirely seperate from fuedalism.
There are many subgroups and underground groups of the realm society that could be defined as being similiar to many different political definitions of today's world... even if they aren't necessarily called anarchism, or democracy, etc. Its just the way these people act amongst themselves within their organizations, and don't choose to define it with a title.
Just because you grow up in a world with nothing but feudalism as the prevailing government type, doesn't mean you can't have notions of freedom of oppression, or desire for fair treatment of individuals under different rules.
With your logic, we would NEVER EVER have advanced beyond the government types of the past, simply because we would never have had the mindset to do so. And that simply is just not true.
Sorry for my rambling post. May not be the best written.
Troubadour Raziaar
No. I'm not. I'm saying that the PC's haven't done much in the way of working to remove them. There hasn't been a big overthrowing movement. GM's probably wouldn't allow it anyways, unless enough people wanted to... but I never took any of that into consideration.
<<So you're saying that the vast majority in Elanthia like their feudal system and will support it. Interestingly, most players who say they don't like the nobility in the game say that feudalism is about enslaving the weaker masses and forcing them to do the will of the mighty, and the masses are really constantly forming resistance movements or at least wishing they had the cajones to rebel and be free of tyranny. Seems like they'd appreciate the help from the adventuring population if this is the case.>>
No, i'm not saying that a vast majority of Elanthia like it... I'm saying that a vast majority are not really in the position to do much about it, unless they revolt, which I haven't seen yet. I don't view fuedalism as slavery, I view it as a bunch of uptight rich people with family trees full of rich uptight people. My characters major problem with these people is their egos, not their enslavement of the masses... which quite frankly, doesn't really exist. Those farmers from all appearances, live their lives as freely as they can without having the opportunity to rise in political status. If the adventuring population will seek to overthrow the government, i'd be more than happy to help them, especially on Zoluren because I think Vorclaf is a giant idiot... but there hasn't been such an interest for that sort of movement yet.
<<So life has been pretty good under the feudal system, people aren't oppressed, and people are content. So what was the reason for disdaining the methods and folks that promote this sort of government again?>>
<rolls his eyes> Give me a break. Just because these peasants go about living their life in ways they only know how to, doesn't mean that I, as an adventurer need to respect or like the royalty. I despise these aristocrats because of their assinine behavior of thinking they are better and more powerful than everyone else because of either their wealth, position, or family lineage. Until they do something that merits respect, I will not respect them, but rather spit in their face if they try to walk all over my ego.
As I said... lick their royal toes if you like, but I won't.
<<I'm having trouble figuring out why it's OOC when the player characters don't like something. Isn't that an IC issue, even if I (as an OOC entity) notice that it's going on? And your previous paragraphs just stated that there isn't much oppression going on as far as the characters are concerned, so whose OOC ideas about opression are being forced onto the game exactly? And dang... I haven't heard so many Marxist catchphrases being tossed around since I saw the movie Reds. Are you sure you don't want Marxism with swords?>>
No... i'm saying its OOC, because you want the government of elanthia to be changed simply because the players are discussing their characters dislike of the individuals that make up the governing parties. The only scenarios where governments should be changed, is in political decay, rebellious overthrowing of the government, etc... and not because someone like you wants it to be changed just to suit the out of character discussions of these situations. If the player characters want to change the government, they will... until then, it won't be changed. Got it? My character may not like the government, but he's not yet at the stage of his life to declare war upon the prince and overthrow them, costing untold amounts of money and lives. Not everybody has the favor of the gods, you know.
<<That's all fine, but the reality is, the vast majority of players in DR roleplay as if their characters have never grown up in a society that believes that feudalism is the norm and that it is a good way to live. They roleplay as if they grew up being taught notions of revolution and equality of all people, and if the players came here looking for the 'atmosphere' that feudalism creates, then they're working awfully hard to undermine it. >>
You're kidding, right? Just because there may have not been official governments other than fuedalism in the realms, doesn't mean that our characters won't know what life is like without it to not have thoughts of change. Take the thieves guild for instance. It is a vast organization of individuals, who don't follow the whole king/queen/noble crap. On the surface, the world follows fuedalism, but these people follow a whole different code of ethics, rules, etc that are entirely seperate from fuedalism.
There are many subgroups and underground groups of the realm society that could be defined as being similiar to many different political definitions of today's world... even if they aren't necessarily called anarchism, or democracy, etc. Its just the way these people act amongst themselves within their organizations, and don't choose to define it with a title.
Just because you grow up in a world with nothing but feudalism as the prevailing government type, doesn't mean you can't have notions of freedom of oppression, or desire for fair treatment of individuals under different rules.
With your logic, we would NEVER EVER have advanced beyond the government types of the past, simply because we would never have had the mindset to do so. And that simply is just not true.
Sorry for my rambling post. May not be the best written.
Troubadour Raziaar
BRETTH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 10:00 PM CST
I'll just agree to be confused by your point of view.
---Brett
---Brett
RAZIAAR
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 10:10 PM CST
To simplify my point of view... i'm saying, Don't get rid of a government type because of a discussion on a forum... get rid of it when there's a legitimate in game reason to remove it, such as a rebellion or massive political dissent among the parties.
Troubadour Raziaar
Troubadour Raziaar
BRETTH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 10:13 PM CST
Ahh, I see. Well, I wasn't expecting things to change from this discussion. It's just a discussion.
---Brett
---Brett
RAZIAAR
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/14/2005 10:20 PM CST
Yeah, but you were throwing around talk about changing the game to a Marxism of swords, or Anarchism, etc and doing away with the fuedalism... which is where I stemmed those thoughts from.
Troubadour Raziaar
Troubadour Raziaar
BRATHACH
Re: Post addressing how nobility RP is treated by the majority at this moment(LO
03/15/2005 03:26 AM CST
>Yeah, but you were throwing around talk about changing the game to a Marxism of swords, or Anarchism, etc and doing away with the fuedalism... which is where I stemmed those thoughts from.
I thought the idea was that Marxism with swords for all intents and purposes is what we see IG already, given the lack of relevance of certain basic tenets of a true Feudal society on IG life.
RP Uber Alles,
~I.B.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php
I thought the idea was that Marxism with swords for all intents and purposes is what we see IG already, given the lack of relevance of certain basic tenets of a true Feudal society on IG life.
RP Uber Alles,
~I.B.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php
