Gentry and Nobility

[Rabek]

I don't really know where to start in reply to this. "Nobility is nothing but a title because that's what it is codewise" ignores so much social power, precendnt and theme as to be a statement that I simply cannot agree with.

Precisely. "Social power" is what I see support as representing. If they have social power, why does the support code not recognize this at this time?

"Precedent" is that nobles introduce themselves on a first-name basis to commoners, are disrespected publicly, and are further mocked when they try and assert their thematic authority.

"Theme" is exactly what I'm arguing when I say nobility should have some code support. This is especially the case with the proposed 'spheres of influence' being suggested to give taxes or military power to people who influence certain areas.

Right now, the code does not support the theme, and the PCs are not supporting the theme, in regard to nobles. I think people flock to nobles because a large portion of the well-known players are nobles, and people want to join the elite group of RPers. I can't speak for others, but I see no benefit in TI's current RP state for being a noble, other than people I know OOCly who are nobles. Once nobility is closed, with the presented means to reach nobility in the other thread, I see no purpose whatsoever to move from gentry (increased wealth and increased social power without any work whatsoever once you have it) to nobility (hard work to lose both that increased wealth and increased base social power).

Money is also not mutually exclusive to nobility, they get quite a lot.

I'm... not sure where this statement came from. I have never argued for removing what you've given gentry. My argument isn't that gentry should be downgraded, or that gentry is not powerful or is not wealthy. My argument is that nobility should not be penalized compared to gentry just for being nobility. Nobility is more expensive, more difficult to achieve, and elite in standing, theme, and the simple fact that there can only be a certain amount of nobles.

I understand that your concern might be that people "flock to nobility". You've implemented a means that if there are too many nobles, it is no longer open to play. That should really be OOC protection enough, I think. You don't need to pile on penalties for moving from gentry to nobility on top of that. As it stands, anyone that accepts a title from the monarch loses anywhere from one fourth (if I understand, that is the maximum?) to one -half- their entire ability to support/subvert. This is moving up in standing, from a position where they already had social sway and wealth, and code-wise, they are being penalized for it for no discernible reason other than 'balance' in exchange for a title that very few PCs I've met actually respect. The only difference I see in the interactions a commoner has with another commoner and a noble is sometimes they put "Lord" or "Duchess" in front, and half the time they don't even do that much.

I think, perhaps, you are only considering people that buy nobility out of creation. Ignoring the fact that doing so is significantly more expensive that gentry, and we've long since moved out of the huge free XP boost to new players (so any brand newbies have a long, long way to go for nobility out of creation, even if old players shouldn't have a problem), you have to consider what people who -ICly- earn nobility will deal with for accepting it. Perhaps buying nobility in creation could be explained as being one of those nobles with squandered wealth and such, sure. But an owner of a merchant empire (to use the previous example) is granted rule over, say, Sartez for his good work to the kingdom's economy. What now? He has less income and less social standing than before, simply for taking the title. That does not make IC or thematic sense to me, unless you explain it as every single province in the kingdom is horribly managed and costs its lord money, and then hates their lord for it. Which I suppose is a valid IC excuse, but then titles become a punishment instead of a reward.

Can we get anyone else's opinion on this? Does nobody else really give a crap? I mean, admittedly, it's one slot for the support/subvert command, but if the monarch quest has taught me anything, subversion is an incredibly powerful tool against your enemies, and you only need that one slot for an enemy. Anything more doesn't add to it, so each slot is one more person to subvert/support with your full ability. In that sense, each slot is a multiplier to your influential potential.

In short, I agree that this is a balance issue. In fact, I find it a huge balance issue. You are charging people a large amount of extra time and effort for something that hurts any goals they may have short of the title itself. I'm not saying gentry are too powerful as they are. I'm saying nobles are too weak. Gentry should be powerful. They should be desirable. You should not penalize people from moving from gentry to nobility, however, especially with a population limit in place for nobles.

I really hope this more fully explains my position on the matter.

Once again, if any other players or staff have comments, I would really like to hear if I'm the only one that sees this as an issue. So far, it's only been Kinaed and I discussing it. I was going to set a poll, but I can't find the button. FAQ says that means I don't have permission. Oh well.

[Kinaed]

Thank you for your view. I'm thinking on the points therein, but one thing that stands out to me is that there is a feeling that "nobility are being penalized in comparison to gentry" by these differences. I would encourage you to consider that they are not being penalized. Rather, gentry and nobility are two different things and they have different aspects. Gentry are wealthy and socially powerful. Nobility is titled. There is no rule, unwritten or otherwise, that nobility is intended to be the ultimate role in the game.

TI needs a variety of roles and opportunities. Most bards do not bemoan that they cannot also be knights. Further, there is nothing to stop nobles from being powerful or wealthy. The code benefits gentry get simply put them in the playing field with their noble RP peers, otherwise, the divide would be too great for play.

Both nobles and gentry are not propped up because 1) noble chars simply don't need that sort of benefit to express their game role, and 2) players do need to make choices that differences in roles provide.

Simply put, gentry cannot exist and excercise their role as gentry without code benefits. At least, not directly out of chargen. I saw and am thinking about the "let people earn and maintain those perks", and we may see a paradigm shift to accomodate that.

[Empheba]

My views on Nobles and Gentry is that both offer the crown different things in exchange for their titles. There is a reason there are nobles and gentry, it's not just an elite club for patting one's back.

Nobles: From a practical standpoint, these bloodlines originally "payed" for their title and privilege by military support and/or financial backing and service to the country. The problem is that many titles are hereditary, which washes out this mutual connection over the centuries. The heads of noble families are probably well trained in ruling and administration - if they were not, the crown would have little use for them. Some nobles who have titles not linked to military might or has lands of little value (or who are children far distanced from power) might indeed be quite worthless personally though, the true greatness and wealth being that of their ancestors. It's supposedly relatively difficult to loose a noble title, the whole affair being potentially embarrassing both to the noble and to the crown (not to mention traditional values if it's an old name).

Gentry: These pay for their title and privileges primarily with financial support to the crown (although I imagine other forms of payment or service could also be worthy of a gentry title). These are however (in my view) not a one-time deal (and not hereditary), which means that the gentried person need to keep paying upkeep in order to hold on to their title. This makes the Gentry people who worked hard to earn their status - and which have to work hard to keep it. The only real way to get out of this churn is really to be "nobled" with a hereditary title, which means another level of status and safety also for one's children. These are the upcomers of society, trying to claw their way into the upper echelons represented by nobility.


I think one should make careful distinction between what can be bought from chargen and what levels characters can obtain in-game. If this whole support/perk system works out, a chargen-created gentry (which supposedly worked their way up from obscurity) could well have less support than a noble (who inherited their status when starting out). Once in-game, there could well be some support advantages for the gentry however - they are more flexible, probably very driven and in-touch with their market or field of expertize.

Just my views on this. Not sure if that made anything clearer or just muddled the water further. :)
.
Empheba

[Geras]

I wouldn't have a problem with nobles' incomes being bumped up personally, but I feel the bulk of their advantages are supposed to come from IC privileges (ie carrying a sword, sumptuary, courtesy, harder to prosecute). If those IC advantages are getting ignored or aren't seen as anything special I'd suggest that that is at least in part because there are too many nobles. I don't think that's a big deal at the moment though - this monarch quest by its nature created a bunch of nobles whom will gradually get removed with time. The game will re-balance itself.

Hopefully with creative stuff with support there will be more ways for these IC advantages to show themselves too.