Clear explanation of the difference between nobles and commoners.

[Sacha]

What about a peer review system for messages reeking of thoughts of equality? Messages would be reported and reviewed much like the vulgarity reviews, but if the messages is deemed offensive, there would be far steeper penalties. Somewhere between a quarter and half the offender's H/P would drive the point home nicely, I think. Perhaps make the messages 'anonymous' when sent for review, as in leave out the name of the noble writing it, so there is no chance of nobles taking a chance at screwing over someone they don't like when asked to review their messages.

[Tom]

You can say that so long as it's not your character. I think there are some adventurers on BT that may be a bit angry at a certain infiltrator who stabs every one of them he encounters just because he can get away with it.

Excellent! That's how enemies are made. Imagine when one of those manages to become a noble...

If a noble decides to stand up for a commoner, and is prepared to face the consequences,

"Standing up for" is not the question. You can even like those peasants. But even the thought that they are of the same kind as you is alien to people of that age. That's like saying men and women are equal - in 1700. Or that whites and blacks are equal in 1800. People would look at you and try to find out if you are insane or just failed horribly at making a joke. The thought that you're serious would cross their mind last.

It's a bit difficult for us to understand. Try to see peasants as animals. Sure you can be for animal rights, and against harming them, but very few animal rights activists actually say that animals are equal to humans. On the contrary, many of those defending them are more or less secretly believing very strongly in the difference, because the are acting protectively - in the matter you act towards subordinates or children, not in the matter you'd act towards equals.

If another noble kicked my best hunting dog for no good reason my noble would likely be annoyed; not necessarily because the dog is in pain but because it's my bloody dog and if anyone is going to kick it it should be me.

Excellent summary.

[Shizzle]

So in short: nobles and commoners are essentially inequal, however it is the nobles choice wether to act according to that or not?

[BardicNerd]

So in short: nobles and commoners are essentially inequal, however it is the nobles choice wether to act according to that or not?

Unless you're RPing an insane person, no.  If you treat them as equal, then you are obviously insane.

It's your choice if you want to treat them as lesser but worthy of good treatment, however.  Which is something entirely different than equality.

At least, I think that's what Tom is trying to say here.

[Corwyn]

That's NOT what the issue was about.  It might just be that the original poster is using this as a straw-man argument to further his point about the real argument (though I can't say for sure of course).

As far as I read only ONE guy was claiming for equality.  And everyone immediately dissented with him.  But that is not what the big discussion was about.

Here's what actually happened:
1. The judge of Sirion asked us to give him the names of anyone that was tortured and/or killed by Lady Gabriella (an infamous elf-hater who is said to collect elf ears).
2. People started providing him with names, mostly of their relatives.  Some of those relatives were... commoners!
3. People got upset that commoners had been mentioned, and that people were admitting to be related to commoners.

Here's what was explained to the OP:

• Nobles *did* marry wealthy merchants (commoners).  So it's quite possible that even your loved one might be a commoner.  Naturally, you might be upset if someone tortured and killed them.
• Noble families start from somewhere, and BM has lots of new noble families.  Some people play those new noble families as just being minor families now being more prominent, but others RP it as the founding of a new noble line, usually for notable actions.  That nobility did not extend backwards (as far as I know) to your mom/pop, grand-dad/grand-mum, great-grand-dad, etc.  So it's quite conceivable your mum might be a commoner (also see above about wealthy merchants).
• Adventurers become nobles all the time.
• Nobility was recognized by blood and by deeds.  They key thing is that you either have inherent or demonstrated Superiority, which explains why you are fit to lead commoners.
• BM treats commoners as serfs (despite calling them freemen), so they are in fact owned by a Lord.  If someone destroyed your house or killed your beloved dog, you'd be rightfully upset and demand recompense.  In fact, historically if a Lord killed a serf, they had to pay the serf's owner for the damages.

[Indirik]

@Corwyn:  This is an issue that comes up all the time, on every island, on a regular basis. The fact that this was a message in Sirion that started it this time is really irrelevant. This isn't about Sirion, or about any one single incident. It's about addressing the issue in general, game-wide. A significant portion of the players in this game really don't understand the difference that is being modeled by the game. Personally, I think it's a combination of the modern viewpoint on equality, as well as the fact that advies are other players.

Let's face it, players that won't give a second thought to charging into battle against a 500-peasant mob and make jokes about it being training to help raise your unit's cohesion, or routinely order their men to pillage/maraud or KRB, will go into apoplectic fits when you try and assert that adventurers are not equal to to nobles.

[Indirik]

So in short: nobles and commoners are essentially inequal, however it is the nobles choice wether to act according to that or not?

They are not "essentially" inequal. They are inequal. Nobles are superior to commoners. That is a known, fundamental fact of reality. No noble would even contemplate that they are equal.

You don't need to treat them like dirt. You don't need to beat them on a regular basis, or slaughter them on a whim. You can treat them nice, make sure they are protected, etc. After all, they are the source of all of your income. Your extremely lavish and luxurious lifestyle is based on exploiting them at every opportunity.

But no sane noble would *ever* contemplate that they are, in any way, equal. Because if they were equal, you wouldn't be able to keep them subjugated and exploit them for your own personal benefit.

[Anaris]

Noble families start from somewhere, and BM has lots of new noble families.  Some people play those new noble families as just being minor families now being more prominent, but others RP it as the founding of a new noble line, usually for notable actions.  That nobility did not extend backwards (as far as I know) to your mom/pop, grand-dad/grand-mum, great-grand-dad, etc.  So it's quite conceivable your mum might be a commoner (also see above about wealthy merchants).

Whatever people state in their RP, the official game explanation for all "new" noble families is that they just weren't prominent before.

Adventurers become nobles all the time.

Adventurers prove their pre-existing noble heritage all the time.  They do not change from being commoners to being nobles: they change from being unrecognized nobles to being recognized nobles.

Nobility was recognized by blood and by deeds.  They key thing is that you either have inherent or demonstrated Superiority, which explains why you are fit to lead commoners.

The key thing is that you have noble blood.  It doesn't matter how stirring a speech a commoner is able to deliver: he's still a commoner.

[Tom]

So in short: nobles and commoners are essentially inequal, however it is the nobles choice wether to act according to that or not?

No. They are inequal, period. Whether or not to act on that is a nonsensical question. There is gravity. The question whether or not to act according to that doesn't make sense. How you deal with it can be different from person to person, but not that you deal with it.

[Corwyn]

The key thing is that you have noble blood.  It doesn't matter how stirring a speech a commoner is able to deliver: he's still a commoner.

I think we agree more than we don't.  A commoner is indeed nothing but a commoner, one that is not equal to a noble.  But I do wonder if you're side-stepping the actual issue that was raised (namely that nobles are related to commoners), and that noble families came from somewhere.

It doesn't matter if BM says "all new noble families are just those that weren't prominent before" (though this is the first time I've heard this -- are we restricting people's RP of their family founding now???), it still had to come from somewhere.

And people were given noble titles for their deeds.  As I mentioned, nobility was by blood or deed.  Either way, your Superiority was "recognized".

Now granted some societies historically did care about how "pure" a noble's blood was.  Some knight organizations required that you trace your noble lineage for for x-number of generations.  But that just determined how far back you went... it was understood if you go back far it eventually stopped.

[Tom]

Now granted some societies historically did care about how "pure" a noble's blood was.  Some knight organizations required that you trace your noble lineage for for x-number of generations.  But that just determined how far back you went... it was understood if you go back far it eventually stopped.

Was it? Or were they simply practical enough to know that if you go back far enough, it eventually becomes really hard to come up with reliable documentation?

[Corwyn]

Was it? Or were they simply practical enough to know that if you go back far enough, it eventually becomes really hard to come up with reliable documentation?

No doubt some families can't trace their lineage all the way, though others were quite proud of their lineage and could.  I can actually trace my IRL nobility to the point at which it was awarded to my ancestor.  Either way though, the stigma was there precisely because some noble families didn't have a long 'history' of being nobility.

Since you're here and active on this thread, I'm more interested in the claim that we can't RP our founding family, and that it has to be an existing family that has suddenly become more prominent.  Can you confirm this?  Thanks!

[Fury]

If you want to keep commoners calm, stop the slave talk.  Like jaune stated in an earlier post, certain words cause  people to go into a frenzy.  Slave is one of them.

Adventurers understand noble arses exist in any realm; they take due note and avoid them.  No adventurer signs up to become a slave. 

Nobles, who are smart enough to understand that 'nobility' holds one to a higher standard of conduct, treat adventurers with due respect. "Due respect" for some nobles may indeed mean treating adventurers as dogs.  Good realms and good nobles know better.  These nobles reap the rewards of magical items,  easy item repair and beast-free lands.

Ays, you just said it all. Simple cause and effect. Beat and kick the peasants long enough and eventually they'll rise up. They'll also respond positively to better treatment. It's human nature and runs throughout history.

Equality is a non-issue. Game mechanics sets the rules. Nobles can arrest and beat up adventurers - adventurers can't.

However, you can tell people what to do but you can't tell them what to think. To discourage what is not wanted, have a GM start some in-game effects such as monster/undead uprising, warehouses burning down, said noble suddenly struck down with disease along with the appropriate RP saying something to the effect of the gods having cursed the lands due to the nobility spouting heresy.

Works much better for me than an in-game OOC message telling me how to think.

[Foundation]

I have moved the rest of this topic to http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/board,6.0.html, BattleMaster Forum => Background as suggested by egamma since the topic digressed into discussions on medieval views and historic background/basis for the original inquiry.

If any would like to continue this discussion, please refer to http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,260.0.html.

Tom has stated his stance on the original request very clearly, any further discussion should take place in the appropriate forum.

Thank you.

[GoldPanda]

The judge of Sirion asked us to give him the names of anyone that was tortured and/or killed by Lady Gabriella (an infamous elf-hater who is said to collect elf ears).

It's not torture if it's an elf. They actually enjoy it. ;)