Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
I find it interesting that you have merchants listed as a separate rank, distinctly and inherently higher than freemen. To my understanding, merchants typically held superior rank only when their wealth allowed de facto importance greater than their fellow commoners—merchants were only a class in an unofficial sense, and typically came from the ranks of the commoners. (In feudal Japan, the merchants were considered the lowest of all, since they didn't actually produce anything.)
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
To be fair, I'm only using the feudal system out of convenience. Based on what little I know, feudalism never really existed in Europe; historical revisionism in the renaissance painted most of our modern picture of 'feudalism', but really it was a lot less uniform. Occasionally you'd get a land owning knight, but it was pretty much like you or me walking into a forest and proclaiming ownership of that forest arbitrarily.
As for the station of merchants, I only put them there to indicate that typically they're slightly wealthier than freemen, but in my setting they usually just rent land from a lord or knight, if they even do that. Same goes for freemen...
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VoxRationis
I find it interesting that you have merchants listed as a separate rank, distinctly and inherently higher than freemen. To my understanding, merchants typically held superior rank only when their wealth allowed de facto importance greater than their fellow commoners—merchants were only a class in an unofficial sense...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeySage
...As for the station of merchants, I only put them there to indicate that typically they're slightly wealthier than freemen...
It might be worth listing official rank and de facto rank, i.e. real power, separately. That would make, for instance, a merchant and a freeman equal officially but different in real power. It also provides a possible answer for the Knight General and Knight Captain. Let the Knight Captain be officially the same as any other knight, but in actual power just a half step below whatever lord he serves. Similarly with the Knight General: he may be officially elevated to the equivalent of, say, a duke or count, but in actual power can intimidate a king.
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
Perhaps trading requires a certain privilege (either inherited or granted), thus making Merchants a distinct class?
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
If there is a merchant's guild, trading within their territory might require membership in the guild, which might itself have a lord in charge. I haven't quite worked that out yet, but I have established the existence of merchant's guilds. I've also established that, with the permission of a baron, they can found a village and run it as mayor, equal in power to a lord, with the exception that they do not get serfs.
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
Are there other guilds (Smiths, tanners, wizards etc.)? If so, merchants could be replaced with a broad guild-members class.
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
I like to have separate chains of feudal obligation. For example, a military one,
Emperor
Prince
General
Knight
Lord
A religious one:
High Priest
Archbishop
Bishop
Priest
Brother
A secular one:
Duke
Baron
Earl
Marquis
Gentleman
And perhaps even various official positions in the commoners ranks, such as merchants, guildmasters, sheriffs, and so on. This structure allows for more infighting between the ranks, as several similarly ranked individuals from competing branches of government strive to assert their dominance, or to step up by stepping over a rival branch a notch higher than their own. Examples of this would be a Bishop attempting to usurp the power of a General by creating a competing military arm or a Merchant attempting to usurp the civil authority of a Marquis by buying off the henchmen and appointed civil administrators of the Mark.
With a few competing lines of fealty you can easily create a complex web of politics the PC's interested in such things must navigate. And for most PC's, such matters will be far above their pay grade anyway, so the more convoluted it appears from the outside, the more daunting entrance into the web of fealty appears. Recognition by a Prince may well earn the adventurer the enmity of the Archbishop who is competing with him, and the friendship of the merchant who seeks to destabilize the local priesthood for his own benefit.
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
On the topic of guilds, there was a village lead by merchant mayor tod, who belongs to the merchant's guild of the barony of heiligenhafen. The barony was also home to several artisan guilds, like the smithy's guild, the weaver's guild and so on, as well as the state run mage's guild(existing to regulate legal use of magic).
Back on the topic of class systems, in my setting the emperor has struck a deal with the headmaster of a foreign assassination academy. He and the headmaster formed an organization calle the "shadow guard", which is basically a secret police force. members of the shadow guard are students of this foreign academy, and are mostly rogue/mages. each shadow guard base has a captain, and his unranked underlings, but they're all students, with the captain a senior. what rank might these guys have? as far as anyone ranked lord or lower is concerned, the shadowguard does not exist.
Shadow guard captains answer directly to the emperor and the headmaster, but usually those ranked Baron or higher at least know of their existence, and give them permission to take care of subversive elements(not their true objective. even the barons don't know their true purpose).
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
If the shadow guard are foreigners they might exist outside the national rank system. That could be useful for a secret police organization.
If they aren't, and they necessarily need a position, I would make the captains Knights and the unranked, well, unranked.
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
So, most in the most recent game, my players found themselves locked in the middle of a rebellion in the city of soholm. they were asked for help by one of rebels for help. they learned that the baron's 16 year old son is leading the rebellion(against the empire). one of my players mentioned off hand that he was hoping to get something nice out of the deal. I'm wondering if my players are ready for that sort of thing, and whether or not it is appropriate to the scenario. the scenario is pretty straight forward: kick the imperials and shadow guard out, overthrow the baron(an imperial sympathizer), put the boy in charge. if they succeed, I was wondering what reward would be appropriate. this is pathfinder, and the average party level is 5.
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VoxRationis
I find it interesting that you have merchants listed as a separate rank, distinctly and inherently higher than freemen. To my understanding, merchants typically held superior rank only when their wealth allowed de facto importance greater than their fellow commoners—merchants were only a class in an unofficial sense, and typically came from the ranks of the commoners. (In feudal Japan, the merchants were considered the lowest of all, since they didn't actually produce anything.)
To pick a nit: all Confucian societies, including China and Japan at various points in history, officially placed merchants below craftsmen and farmers, on the basis that merchants produced nothing, they just moved stuff around. In practice, merchants always held as much power as their wealth allowed, which could vary considerably over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brian 333
I like to have separate chains of feudal obligation. For example, a military one,
Emperor
Prince
General
Knight
Lord
A religious one:
High Priest
Archbishop
Bishop
Priest
Brother
A secular one:
Duke
Baron
Earl
Marquis
Gentleman
And perhaps even various official positions in the commoners ranks, such as merchants, guildmasters, sheriffs, and so on. This structure allows for more infighting between the ranks, as several similarly ranked individuals from competing branches of government strive to assert their dominance, or to step up by stepping over a rival branch a notch higher than their own. Examples of this would be a Bishop attempting to usurp the power of a General by creating a competing military arm or a Merchant attempting to usurp the civil authority of a Marquis by buying off the henchmen and appointed civil administrators of the Mark.
With a few competing lines of fealty you can easily create a complex web of politics the PC's interested in such things must navigate. And for most PC's, such matters will be far above their pay grade anyway, so the more convoluted it appears from the outside, the more daunting entrance into the web of fealty appears. Recognition by a Prince may well earn the adventurer the enmity of the Archbishop who is competing with him, and the friendship of the merchant who seeks to destabilize the local priesthood for his own benefit.
This is a realistic and interesting approach to take. Many historical cultures (and even present-day ones) had/have multiple separate hierarchies of power and influence that give people differing degrees of control over various aspects of society. Secular and religious hierarchies have clashed over political influence many times in history; ultimately, both want to control the commoners, and their goals do not always align. There is a lot of potential for story-building here.
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
I was actually wondering how a religious hierarchy might work in a polytheistic setting. I can at least figure out how the state church would operate, but lets say as a reward for helping the rebels, my cleric player was given a permit by the new baron to build up a temple of Kord. within the empire, kord worship is a capital offense, right next to heironeous worship.
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
In Ancient Rome the Pantheon was the official state religion, though they weren't really obsessed with getting rid of the religions of their slaves until the advent of Nero's blaming Christians for the fire that allowed him to build his private palace.
Small towns or villages would have a single temple dedicated to a single member of the pantheon, while larger towns and cities would have proportionally more temples. Of course, as the high priest of Zeus, the Emperor was in charge of all the various branches of the pantheistic faith.
However, your pantheon may have internal power struggles and competing hierarchies too, with parallel paths to power, so that while the High Priest of Zeus is technically in charge, those Archbishops of Apollo get uppity from time to time, and those meddling Herans are always up to mischief, spying on everyone and snooping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeySage
So, most in the most recent game, my players found themselves locked in the middle of a rebellion in the city of soholm. they were asked for help by one of rebels for help. they learned that the baron's 16 year old son is leading the rebellion(against the empire). one of my players mentioned off hand that he was hoping to get something nice out of the deal. I'm wondering if my players are ready for that sort of thing, and whether or not it is appropriate to the scenario. the scenario is pretty straight forward: kick the imperials and shadow guard out, overthrow the baron(an imperial sympathizer), put the boy in charge. if they succeed, I was wondering what reward would be appropriate. this is pathfinder, and the average party level is 5.
They could betray the rebel an favor the Empire, earning the gratitude of the Imperial officer on the scene. Appropriate rewards would be money, naturally, and a position as that officer's troubleshooter squad. They could be sent in to the next possible hot spot to 'deal' with another uppity rival.
They could support the rebel for similar rewards, but in this scenario the Imperials will send in a massive retaliation squad which the rebel will naturally aim them at. Winning the battle is not equal to winning the war!
They could be focused against the Shadow Guard exclusively, in which case the Imperials may not know of them, (though the Shadow Guard will, and will not forget.) In this case they effectively replace, or are suborned by, the shadow guard. Whether they continue to act as agents of fear to dominate the populace or whether they act as agents of salvation against the forces of fear, their work is cut out for them. A society that has been ruled by fear for generations does not easily throw that beast off their backs. Even if the Shadow Guard is gone, others within the community will attempt to continue the 'normal' practice of domination by fear, either in competition with or outright hostility against the PC's.
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeySage
So, most in the most recent game, my players found themselves locked in the middle of a rebellion in the city of soholm. they were asked for help by one of rebels for help. they learned that the baron's 16 year old son is leading the rebellion(against the empire). one of my players mentioned off hand that he was hoping to get something nice out of the deal. I'm wondering if my players are ready for that sort of thing, and whether or not it is appropriate to the scenario. the scenario is pretty straight forward: kick the imperials and shadow guard out, overthrow the baron(an imperial sympathizer), put the boy in charge. if they succeed, I was wondering what reward would be appropriate. this is pathfinder, and the average party level is 5.
If they succeed then they are Enemies of the Empire, just like the rebel leader they aided. The best reward would be either protection or something that helps them protect themselves. False papers and safe passage the hell out of empire-controlled territory come to mind. Or hats of disguise for everyone.
If they betray the rebel leader and aid the emipre, then a suitable reward would be the overlooking of other crimes. "And they'll stay overlooked as long as you continue to be of use to us, capisci?"
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
With relation to "lord" and "knight" specifically: depending on the area, "lord" historically might or might not have had a specific meaning; usually it was very general. However usually lords were nobles (some petty "lords of the manor" might have been merely freemen) and in colloquial meaning "lord" generally refers to a member of the aristocracy. As I say, it depends where you are: in Scotland a laird (translated into English as "lord") really just means "owner of freehold land" which is where all those bogus internet noble titles come from. It's all a bit more complicated than that, vague and ill-defined, and hard for modern minds to understand, of course.
A knight, on the other hand, is a military qualification but doesn't necessarily denote membership of the noble class. A noble is not necessarily a knight (although most are) and many - probably most - knights were (and certainly are) commoners. Over time, knights tended to develop into a class of their own (which, combined with civilian persons of status, ultimately became the gentry) but they were not, strictly, members of the aristocracy and did not have noble privileges - though they might have had knightly privileges. Many of them would not even have owned land.
There is a further title in English often overlooked which bridges the gap - the baronet - which is a sort of hereditary knighthood. It doesn't indicate noble rank, but it's a marked social step above other commoners.
The important thing to note is the military/civilian distinction: a renowned knight, although often a very junior noble or even a commoner, might well be given command in battle over inexperienced members of the aristocracy (or, more subtly, deployed alongside a senior one in a distinction between titular and de facto commanders). Obvious examples from England would be John and William Marshal, Sir Walter Manny, Sir John Fastolf, and Sir John Talbot. Of course, many of those were later given higher noble titles in recognition of their wartime deeds, but that came after they had already held command.
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
Great replies so far, thanks everyone for your help. This has actually gone a long way towards helping me to figure out what this world looks like, socially speaking. Before, I had a very vague idea of what it was like: I knew there would be an emperor on top, and I've dealt somewhat between Lord and Baron(in terms of power, one controlled a village, the other controlled a city, and outlying areas). I'm hoping that I am on the right track, so far.
I had a vague idea of Knight Generals, because of the backstory of the current emperor- that before he became emperor, he was a knight general, and climbed the ranks starting as just a squire at the bottom. Mostly, he impressed a lot of people thanks to his prowess. It helped that at the time Heironeous worship was the chief religion in the empire, and he was a Paladin of Heironeous(the reasons for why he is no longer a paladin are for another topic).
Actually, I'm playing with the idea that Emperor Adelard was a child of the previous emperor, and if this might help explain how he so easily climbed the ranks to becoming a Knight General by age 30... If he was an imperial prince, would it make sense for him to start out as a squire at age 15, as has already been established in game?
Re: Developing a Hierarchy.
Of course he would begin his training as a page at a much earlier age, and be squired by the time he 'came of age'. His rise to the top would be swift, as mentors at each step wish to stay in good graces with the current emperor. He would have to exhibit true incompetence for the various officers to not promote him at the earliest opportunity, and if he actually showed promise as an officer the promotions would come faster.
