BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Dante Silverfire on January 14, 2013, 02:05:12 AM
-
I was wondering how different people viewed interactions between current and former members in the feudal hierarchy and whether or not people felt that holding a position formerly offered the character any manner of additional respect on top of that with regards to their current posts.
Also, are non-feudal titles and positions worth anything regards to manner of hierarchy respect or deference in comparison to feudal titles?
---------
To be more specific:
Would you consider former rulers of your realm to always hold the level of respect or deference of that of ruler? (or perhaps they'd be viewed on par as current dukes? Lords? regardless of current feudal holdings?)
What about former rulers of other realms?
Do former dukes or lords mean anything to you, or do you only view them by their current ranking? (For instance, My duke character calls all former lords of *his* duchy "Lord ____" instead of "Sir" or "Dame" or "Knight" even if they no longer hold a lord title)
Do foreign dignitaries of non-feudal titles hold any particular manner of respect to you? Would you perhaps place any ambassador of a foreign realm with the same level of respect as perhaps one of your dukes? (Address them as "Your Grace, Ambassador _____" Instead of just " Sir Kepler, Ambassador of Keplerstan") I don't, but perhaps some do.
Would you grant founders of religion a measure of respect equivalent to a ruler or perhaps a duke regardless of their feudal ranking or if you're a member of their religion? For example, does The Prophet of SA deserve to be treated with a measure of respect by non-SA rulers of at least placing him equal in power as a secular ruler when discussing things? Would his regent deserve the same? (I personally think that all religion founders should be granted that measure of respect, unless you're trying to intentionally anger them)
Also, feel free to bring up other cases I missed.
-
My characters tend to call former monarchs Prince(ess). We've codified this in Westmoor on IC somewhat, as officially all former rulers are to be called such over their landed titles. Other realms are much the same, as far as monarchies go.
Republics and Monarchies? Tend to use "Lord" if they don't have any other titles.
Former Dukes and Lords in general are generally continued to be called Lord by my characters. Unless they don't like them, then they're just Sir or Dame.
Foreign dignitaries tend to get referred to by any other title they may have.
Religious leaders? If I knew what to call them. The CoH has specific forms of address for our ranks. At least some. Still need to work on others.
-
Most of my characters call a noble who hasn't got an estate nobleman or noblewoman regardless of whether they're newly created or they've moved over from another realm (reflecting that they're not yet within the formal hierarchy so they're due a lesser level of respect).
If a noble has been a longterm Duke or Duchess, several of my characters would continue to address them by that title even if they were reduced to a knight or dame as a mark of respect. If I know another character is a former Duke or Duchess, then Lord or Lady would be the minimum I'd use. "Your Grace", I'd keep for a current Duke.
Former rulers of the realm, or former rulers of other realms, I'd probably also address as Lord or Lady if they didn't have any other high-status title such as Duke, Earl, Baron, etc. Unless I'm writing as a character who wanted to make a point by addressing them as Sir or Dame.
Foreign dignitaries are addressed by title - Ambassador, etc, and are treated with a high level of respect even if the realms involved are at war as long as they themselves conduct themselves in a polite way. But, again, this depends on the character I'm using. One of my characters would be just as likely to send a foreign ambassador back minus his head if he felt the ambassador wasn't conducting himself properly.
Elders of your own religion should always be treated with the respect due to lords as a minimum. If the religion has a leader, they should be considered to be on a par with a king. Priests should have the status of lords within their own religion (mostly, other characters don't give priests of their own religion anything near the level of respect they should be due). Priests of other religions - it would depend on what my character's religion thought of the other faith.
-
I was wondering how different people viewed interactions between current and former members in the feudal hierarchy and whether or not people felt that holding a position formerly offered the character any manner of additional respect on top of that with regards to their current posts.
Only when my characters want it to. I.e. I would grant them the old title as a courtesy title, unless the character wasn't considered worthy of the courtesy. That's only if they don't have an existing title, or if I'm listing full titles (normally I just do the most important title of a person, or the most relevant title, but in a treaty or other formal context I would list "former King of Keplerstan").
Also, are non-feudal titles and positions worth anything regards to manner of hierarchy respect or deference in comparison to feudal titles?
Do the titles have any real power, or does my character want to flatter the title-holder? If yes to either question, then of course.
Would you consider former rulers of your realm to always hold the level of respect or deference of that of ruler? (or perhaps they'd be viewed on par as current dukes? Lords? regardless of current feudal holdings?)
They are Royals, which I have always considered to be theoretically second only to the sitting Ruler (with the above exception if my character thinks they are unworthy). But again, actual titles always take precedence to courtesy titles.
What about former rulers of other realms?
Too many other variables. Their relationship with the current Ruler, my relationship with them/current Ruler/realm as a whole, in addition to my usual caveat on current titles.
Do former dukes or lords mean anything to you, or do you only view them by their current ranking? (For instance, My duke character calls all former lords of *his* duchy "Lord ____" instead of "Sir" or "Dame" or "Knight" even if they no longer hold a lord title)
A generic Lord or Lady such and such is pretty standard for me, yes.
Do foreign dignitaries of non-feudal titles hold any particular manner of respect to you? Would you perhaps place any ambassador of a foreign realm with the same level of respect as perhaps one of your dukes? (Address them as "Your Grace, Ambassador _____" Instead of just " Sir Kepler, Ambassador of Keplerstan") I don't, but perhaps some do.
Ambassador Kepler is how I have always done it, but Dukes I just do Duke Kepler as well, so I guess that's the same as how I address a Duke.
Would you grant founders of religion a measure of respect equivalent to a ruler or perhaps a duke regardless of their feudal ranking or if you're a member of their religion? For example, does The Prophet of SA deserve to be treated with a measure of respect by non-SA rulers of at least placing him equal in power as a secular ruler when discussing things? Would his regent deserve the same? (I personally think that all religion founders should be granted that measure of respect, unless you're trying to intentionally anger them)
Hell yes, unless trying to be intentionally disrespectful. I would consider the head of SA to be the most powerful character in the game (note: I know nothing about internal SA dynamics, and for the moment don't care) and treat them accordingly. Prophets of religions with anything beyond two people I'd treat like Dukes, and Prophets of religions with anything approaching a realm (call it a minimum of a dozen nobles and 50K peasants) I would treat as equivalent to a Ruler.
Also, feel free to bring up other cases I missed.
Church Elders are one step down from their Prophet (so Dukes to a King, Lords to a Duke, or in the special case of SA I would consider the Elders on par with a Ruler). Priests of my religion depend on the specific case, but generally at least the level of Lord/Ambassador, possibly more if they are considered to be particularly holy.
-
The problem is that with the age of most characters, the reduced number of players, just about everyone has a veritable plethora of former titles to their name. I can only imagine the number of people that have held council titles... therefore, I always use someone's current title, unless they are someone that my character respects, and they have no title. Then they get "lord/lady". I will use titles from the religion my character is in, if it is a message about religion. For other religions, I ignore them, as they are, at best, irrelevant to my character. (Unless my character is contacting them in their religious capacity, on behalf of his own.)
As far as deference/respect for other characters, past titles are usually ignored, especially if they are from foreign realms. (See above re: plethora of titles.)
However, if you really need to flatter someone, you can dig for that past glory. But usually, it's irrelevant.
-
For people with a bunch of titles, I usually address them depending on the context. To the same religious elder/lord/ambassador/guild elder, I'll use the religious rank for religious talks, guild ranks for guild talks, ambassador title for diplomacy talks, lord title for unrelated formal talks, etc. Saves writing down a thousand titles whenever I want to refer to the person. That's just a personnal habit, though.
As for the rest... I think it depends on what the desired impact is. I don't think there is one single proper way to deal with all of these questions. Some realms have set up their own customs for this, some have even legislated on it. Otherwise, there's isn't a single "right" way to deal with the titles, but many legitimate ways with various subtleties and likely impacts.
-
It is a good question. I think a lot could be figured out by how one person addresses another. Not to mention that former title holders have more weight behind them (dealing with and ruling over more people, more familiarity with rulership dynamics, etc). The titles are mostly arbitrary themselves, it's what the title infers the person has done.
Personally, one of my characters is likely to try to use every single title they know about...the other will make the barest effort not to offend.
-
I like the statement made that it depends upon whether you like the character or not. For me personally, that makes no difference. All of my characters use titles to their utmost respect while in public. Granted, one does it because he's honorable, the other does it because he realizes it can be used as a form of mockery.
I also wonder do people make a difference between how they address characters in public and private? My character Merlin will quite often seek to "break down" the use of titles in conversations with those he wants to view him as a friend or that he views as a friend. For instance he'll address them as "Dear friend", or "My friend", or simply leave off any address at all. Sometimes he'll use just their name "Kepler." This has had mixed results. Sometimes players will respond in kind, sometimes they'll absolutely refuse to drop titles.
-
I also wonder do people make a difference between how they address characters in public and private? My character Merlin will quite often seek to "break down" the use of titles in conversations with those he wants to view him as a friend or that he views as a friend. For instance he'll address them as "Dear friend", or "My friend", or simply leave off any address at all. Sometimes he'll use just their name "Kepler." This has had mixed results. Sometimes players will respond in kind, sometimes they'll absolutely refuse to drop titles.
All the time. Private address is often much less formal, often dropping everything else and just using "Lord" or "Lady" as a generic stand-in for all titles, or if particularly intimate just the name or "Dear friend" etc. You knew you were in good with Jenred if he addressed you as just first name, because that was an invitation for the recipient to do the same, and Jenred was very, very attached to his titles.
-
Another thing is the rest of the realm council. Do you consider them all to be on par with ruler? Judge and general but not banker? I ask as I am banker in one realm and was referred to my title and name which is normal, but it was followed by your eminence and that was from a ruler of a foreign realm. I did give him a gift (the beginning of a wiki page for a new realm that I refered to as the book of (realm name)), so that may have been the reason for the added part but nonetheless what are your thoughts on this?
-
Another thing is the rest of the realm council. Do you consider them all to be on par with ruler? Judge and general but not banker? I ask as I am banker in one realm and was referred to my title and name which is normal, but it was followed by your eminence and that was from a ruler of a foreign realm. I did give him a gift (the beginning of a wiki page for a new realm that I refered to as the book of (realm name)), so that may have been the reason for the added part but nonetheless what are your thoughts on this?
I consider only the ruler to be a significant position in terms of social standing in the feudal hierarchy. Ruler stands over Dukes. I consider the rest of the council to be between Dukes and lords.
-
I consider only the ruler to be a significant position in terms of social standing in the feudal hierarchy. Ruler stands over Dukes. I consider the rest of the council to be between Dukes and lords.
Heavily depends on the realm and people. I've been in realms where random Barons and Counts were clearly more powerful than the Banker or General, and in others where Dukes walked in tiptoes around both.
Judge is usually second only to the Ruler in realm, but depends a lot how foreigners will treat them.
-
I consider only the ruler to be a significant position in terms of social standing in the feudal hierarchy. Ruler stands over Dukes. I consider the rest of the council to be between Dukes and lords.
I wonder how often you've told a judge that.
Although It depends on the circumstance and the realm setup, I consider power to be what makes the feudal hierarchy. Ruler>Judge>Duke>Marshal>Banker>Lord>Knight. Although I'm not really sure about the Marshal/General....still haven't seen a speck of war.
-
I wonder how often you've told a judge that.
Heavily depends on the realm and people. I've been in realms where random Barons and Counts were clearly more powerful than the Banker or General, and in others where Dukes walked in tiptoes around both.
Judge is usually second only to the Ruler in realm, but depends a lot how foreigners will treat them.
Okay, you're right it heavily depends upon the realm, but it also depends upon the characters in those positions. If one of my characters is the Judge you can bet they're strength is second only to the ruler. (If not stronger than the ruler).
However, in some realms, I've easily seen the other council positions be weak. I'm talking about sheer respect only from their position. There are other intangible reasons to show respect, but I won't give them that much based purely on holding that post. For instance, I consider Merlin in Coria to be stronger in power than the judge easily. However, he's Duke of the strongest duchy in a two duchy realm. He has personal fealty of two-thirds of the realm.
Now, take a much larger realm and the judge is stronger. In a monarchy, a judge is stronger than they are perhaps in a Republic, because a strong judge is needed to rival a strong ruler.
-
I wonder how often you've told a judge that.
Although It depends on the circumstance and the realm setup, I consider power to be what makes the feudal hierarchy. Ruler>Judge>Duke>Marshal>Banker>Lord>Knight. Although I'm not really sure about the Marshal/General....still haven't seen a speck of war.
My thoughts on realm council are what you said except General resides above marshal which you excluded but he has authority or everyone except ruler as far as military goes especially in times of war. And banker would more of equal to marshal and above dukes in food crises, both real wide or when it only pertains to a single region, though you have a bit more authority when it is one of the duke's regions as he cares more and will thus allow more authority.
-
My thoughts on realm council are what you said except General resides above marshal which you excluded but he has authority or everyone except ruler as far as military goes especially in times of war. And banker would more of equal to marshal and above dukes in food crises, both real wide or when it only pertains to a single region, though you have a bit more authority when it is one of the duke's regions as he cares more and will thus allow more authority.
Well military has its own hierarchy. I was trying to refer to feudal hierarchy. I consider them separate for the most part.
-
For lost titles, it usually depend on if I plan on (wish for) the person to get his title back. For example, if we lost a bunch of regions due to starvation or takeovers, and I intend to help the ex-lord get back his region, I'm likely to still refer to him as "lord bob". For royal status, the title used varies from realm to realm. Some have used "prince", others use "royal". In Enweil, where the ruler is "Supreme Chancellor", I have usually called ex-rulers simply "Chancellor", though this has confused a few on occasion.
-
Former Dukes and Lords in general are generally continued to be called Lord by my characters. Unless they don't like them, then they're just Sir or Dame.
And if his character really dislikes you he calls you by your first name.
-
Gregor's lucky he gets that much. Backstabbing, politicking, habitual liar that he is. =p
-
My take on the respect vis-a-vis hieracrhy is simple: Rank matters less than your actual influence. Don't insult people you can't handle, no matter their station.
-
My take on the respect vis-a-vis hieracrhy is simple: Rank matters less than your actual influence. Don't insult people you can't handle, no matter their station.
That's an interesting take. I've seen a few people in the last week or so treat my Dwilight character with respect far above his feudal ranking of lord even though they were dukes. (Placed him at least on an equal level, if not above them to the point of flattery)
-
My take on the respect vis-a-vis hieracrhy is simple: Rank matters less than your actual influence. Don't insult people you can't handle, no matter their station.
+1.
-
My take on the respect vis-a-vis hieracrhy is simple: Rank matters less than your actual influence. Don't insult people you can't handle, no matter their station.
^ perfectly spoken.
My characters, all of them, try to use titles as a form of respect and announcement of plain fact.
If my character (me really), can remember someone's former highest held title, and is neutral towards or positively inclined towards them, then my character tends to use it. I've been that way since I started playing.
On one character, if I use just the first name of an individual, it is normally out of scorn and distaste. The other character is just the opposite, he uses the first names of those he is closest with.
And oddly, as different as they are in approach and goals, they are both rather instigatory and precise with their usages of titles.... I wonder why that is.... ::)
-
Gregor's lucky he gets that much. Backstabbing, politicking, habitual liar that he is. =p
I'll give you the backstabbing and politicking but he almost never lies. =)
-
Personally, I'm way too forgetful to keep past titles except in very few circumstances. Usually, if I remember dealing with someone when they were a higher rank, I still afford them the respect, but not the title itself. It also depends on the kind of title it was; if someone can acquire it easily or is easily removed, I'm less likely to grant them the respect after they've lost it. (For example, someone who is only a Marshal and loses that title is still essentially a Knight. I am unlikely to know the reason why he lost the title, but if he has no others, it's not likely a nice reason.
My rule is simple: If in doubt, check the Message page and pick the most relevant.
As for religion, my characters generally treat holy men with respect because they've dedicated their lives to their gods... but I completely ignore their authority if they're not of my faith. My realm? My laws. My region? My religion. I eagerly await the day a high-ranking member of a religion steps into Coria trying to convince us to do something Ravendon doesn't agree with.
I will note, however, that I always get confused with personal messages and befriended characters. Generally, I'll keep up titles for respect unless I'm really trying to appeal to their nature or emotion. Yet somehow, saying "Merlin" without a title feels weird. I think it's an OOC concept of the "real" legend.
-
Sacha hit the nail on the head, but as far as neutrality goes address varies widely based on positions and how the person is being addressed. Emperors are always "your Imperial Majesty", Kings "your majesty", Princes and Royals "Your Highness", Dukes are Duke X in a general address or "your grace" directly, Ambassadors and most government offices are "his excellency" in a general address or "your excellency" directly. As for courtesy titles it depends on if my character wishes to be courteous. Religious titles are tricky. Prophets/heads of religions I belong to are "your holiness" or "holy father". High ranking religious officials I tend to address like a catholic cardinal as "your eminence". Religious figures who are the rough equivelant of Bishops I address as "your grace".
-
This is mostly a BM contrivance since historically we didn't have many (or usually any) ex-Kings around. Ex-lords and ex-Dukes did occasionally pop up and they would keep their titles unless they had purposefully abdicated but Sacha has the right of it - in BM we have loads of ex-officials and it's tough to have any kind of blanket rule.
-
I was looking this up before when wondering how to refer to Jenred, the king before Velax. As long as he's paused (in-game, he's in a coma), referring to him as "King Jenred" seems fine, as that's the way history refers to dead Kings. King Edward I is still King Edward I, even though he died more than 700 years ago and isn't King right now. But when he comes back, I can't really call him King Jenred any more, as he's isn't the King. But Lord Jenred or Sir Jenred doesn't seem to accord him the respect he would deserve from having built Arcaea up from almost nothing.
-
So give him another honorific and be done with it :P
-
I was looking this up before when wondering how to refer to Jenred, the king before Velax. As long as he's paused (in-game, he's in a coma), referring to him as "King Jenred" seems fine, as that's the way history refers to dead Kings. King Edward I is still King Edward I, even though he died more than 700 years ago and isn't King right now. But when he comes back, I can't really call him King Jenred any more, as he's isn't the King. But Lord Jenred or Sir Jenred doesn't seem to accord him the respect he would deserve from having built Arcaea up from almost nothing.
I think King Jenred would be just fine. Or, simply as "His Majesty" perhaps "Your Highness"
It depends honestly. If I was trying to insult Jenred I'd simply call him Sir Jenred or Lord Jenred. If I wanted to show him the respect he deserves I'd show him deference even as the reigning monarch of Arcaea.
Alternatively, if you really want to show him respect, you can grant him a new title such as "Lord Arcaea." That would certainly be a bit flattering. If your character stands by your statement here, then it would also fit quite well I think.
-
Since Jenred never formally abdicated, technically (or legally, rather) he is still the King of Arcaea and Velax only the Regent. There is not really a good example of this happening in the Middle Ages but if I had to speculate, I'd say that no King of Arcaea who hadn't formally lost the title would ever accept losing the title unless he was willing to abdicate it.
If he did not abdicate and return, what would probably happen socially (at least from the 'kinda sorta actually medieval' POV) is that he would retain formal address, e.g. Your Grace, but nobody who values their head would call him 'King Jenred.'
They would also probably avoid Your Majesty. Your Grace is easy because it's also a generic 'you da boss' address used for Dukes as well as Kings. 'Your Majesty' is more renaissance than Medieval and would probably be avoided even if it had been.
Interestingly, however, Jenred was never crowned Emperor, so even if he has a claim on the Kingdom, he doesn't have a claim on the Empire. This is one reason that the HRE liked having the Pope crown its Emperors - it was a pain in the ass when you had an ornery pope but it kept pretenders in a solidly illegitimate stance.
All of this is pretty tough to translate to BM since Jenred would have to be an idiot to come back from the dead and declare himself King and Velax not-King, at least given the number of magnates who barely have any idea who Jenred is. A historical setting would have lots of families (rather than just individuals) loyal to the House of Bedwyr and there would also be less turnover in lordships than there is in BM. So a 'what would really happen' question is easily misleading.
Summary: Jenred should retain Kingliness but avoid the word 'King' like the plague.
-
Since Jenred never formally abdicated, technically (or legally, rather) he is still the King of Arcaea and Velax only the Regent. There is not really a good example of this happening in the Middle Ages but if I had to speculate, I'd say that no King of Arcaea who hadn't formally lost the title would ever accept losing the title unless he was willing to abdicate it.
If he did not abdicate and return, what would probably happen socially (at least from the 'kinda sorta actually medieval' POV) is that he would retain formal address, e.g. Your Grace, but nobody who values their head would call him 'King Jenred.'
They would also probably avoid Your Majesty. Your Grace is easy because it's also a generic 'you da boss' address used for Dukes as well as Kings. 'Your Majesty' is more renaissance than Medieval and would probably be avoided even if it had been.
Interestingly, however, Jenred was never crowned Emperor, so even if he has a claim on the Kingdom, he doesn't have a claim on the Empire. This is one reason that the HRE liked having the Pope crown its Emperors - it was a pain in the ass when you had an ornery pope but it kept pretenders in a solidly illegitimate stance.
All of this is pretty tough to translate to BM since Jenred would have to be an idiot to come back from the dead and declare himself King and Velax not-King, at least given the number of magnates who barely have any idea who Jenred is. A historical setting would have lots of families (rather than just individuals) loyal to the House of Bedwyr and there would also be less turnover in lordships than there is in BM. So a 'what would really happen' question is easily misleading.
Summary: Jenred should retain Kingliness but avoid the word 'King' like the plague.
Its a bit later than BM's time period, but I feel it gives some precedence for Jenred/Velax. King George III of the United Kingdom never formally abdicated the throne and remained King after a final relapse of the mental illness that had plagued him on and off for years. In that time, his son, George IV ruled as Prince Regent. While George III never recovered, he would have likely taken over again as King had he recovered. Which you can relate to Jenred/Velax, the only difference being that they are not related.
Whether Velax wants to give the crown up is its own issue in and of itself, but by this precedence I'd think it would be fair that Jenred be recognized as rightful King of Arcaea, but not the rightful Emperor of the Empire, depending on how the oaths of allegiance Coralynth and Sorraine swore. If they swore to Arcaea, then Jenred is rightful Emperor, if they swore to Velax, he is the rightful Emperor, but merely a regent as far as Arcaea would be concerned.
This is of course assuming one side doesn't attempt to force the other into something, or one side just drops claim.
-
Sir Jenred or Lord Jenred.
Lord is never, impolite, especially if you use it as "My Lord". It conveys a general feeling of the other character as being of very high rank, without being specific about which piece of land this refers to.
-
Lord is never, impolite, especially if you use it as "My Lord". It conveys a general feeling of the other character as being of very high rank, without being specific about which piece of land this refers to.
If one of my characters is called "Lord" by another noble and my character happens to be a Duke or higher, he will take insult for it. The only nobles able to address my characters as "my lord" and get away with it are my direct vassals.
-
Eh... I find that being anally retentive about titles really just makes you look like an uptight jackass to the rest of the realm. It's more likely to win you ridicule rather than respect.
-
I'm pretty sure nobles didn't win respect. They were granted it because they inherently deserved respect due to their stations.
-
Eh... I find that being anally retentive about titles really just makes you look like an uptight jackass to the rest of the realm. It's more likely to win you ridicule rather than respect.
Agreed. Lord and Duke aren't mutually exclusive, it's not as if he's out calling you "Noble", like Raoul, the king of Minas Leon, is saying to the King of Minas Ithil.
-
The difference is that "My lord" is an address, "Your Grace" is an honorific.
What's wrong with playing a character who simply wants to receive the respect he deserves?
-
I'm pretty sure nobles didn't win respect. They were granted it because they inherently deserved respect due to their stations.
Pfeh, that's not respect. It's the same as a little kid saying 'sorry' because his mom made him do it, but you know he doesn't mean it.
Real respect must be earned. It doesn't come as a perk with the title.
-
Pfeh, that's not respect. It's the same as a little kid saying 'sorry' because his mom made him do it, but you know he doesn't mean it.
Real respect must be earned. It doesn't come as a perk with the title.
Of course, that's right. So if I've earned respect but not shown it, am I allowed recourse?
-
The difference is that "My lord" is an address, "Your Grace" is an honorific.
What's wrong with playing a character who simply wants to receive the respect he deserves?
There has to be a way to say "I respect you, I'm just not quite sure which title you prefer to be called by, so I'm going to use a generic title that means respect."
In other words, there has to be non-ironic way to say "with all due respect".
I am under the impression that "Lord" fitted the bill in BM context, other adresses could be better.
-
VonGenf,
In that part I agree. I always give either new nobles or young nobles the benefit of the doubt. Those that don't know me perhaps. I'm mainly talking about those that are aware of my character, what positions he holds/held and what level of respect to show him.
-
"My lord" would be considered an acceptable inferior-to-superior, equal-to-equal address, and even superior-to-inferior address of general respect. The pig farmer uses it when talking to the sheriff, the sheriff uses it when talking to the bailiff, the bailiff uses it when talking to the count who uses it when talking to the Duke who uses it when talking to the king who uses it when talking to God.
"Lord" is still a nonspecific reference to rank but it is more specific than 'my lord.' Baron/Count//Viscount/Earl Scarlett are all 'Lord Scarlett.' Duke Scarlett is 'Duke Scarlett' and not Lord Scarlett, and King Scarlett is most definitely not Lord Scarlett.
Eh... I find that being anally retentive about titles really just makes you look like an uptight jackass to the rest of the realm. It's more likely to win you ridicule rather than respect.
This is a very 20th/21st century view. In any Western Medieval land, there were few things more important than social rank because it represented civilization - without it you'd just have 'strongest wins' and so even when it sucked it was the agreed-upon system for recognizing authority, excepting of course all of the times you didn't recognize it and had an army at your back.
Real respect must be earned. It doesn't come as a perk with the title.
Of course, but this is not mutually exclusive with the above. Bowing and scraping was very important but these were gestures. Real respect was something else entirely. Everyone is expecting to go through the motions; it's like knowing the rules to football when you show up for a match. It doesn't say anything about how good a player you are - just that you've done the requisite work to be allowed to participate.
The best sword-fighter in the world isn't going to be allowed to rise very far if he craps all over the pecking order because if you get rid of the pecking order all you have is despotism, and even the medievals knew that that wasn't preferable. Tuchman's A Distant Mirror brings this up a lot - it's very easy for us to look back at the 1300s and go 'wow that sucked' but even as corrupt as the nobility and Catholic church were back then, most everybody still preferred that system to the dark ages. Medieval hierarchy was the least bad system available to them at the time, and in some respects was superior to later systems in that you didn't have absolute monarchies or slavery in the West (serfdom was much, much better) as you did in the 1500s and 1600s.
-
Its a bit later than BM's time period, but I feel it gives some precedence for Jenred/Velax. King George III of the United Kingdom never formally abdicated the throne and remained King after a final relapse of the mental illness that had plagued him on and off for years. In that time, his son, George IV ruled as Prince Regent. While George III never recovered, he would have likely taken over again as King had he recovered.
George III came in and out of madness on occasion and did rule in the in-between bits, but this is not quite comparable to Velax and Jenred; in the first place, in BM we don't have anointed successors, whereas everybody knew that the Prince Regent was going to be King anyway and they weren't risking a lot by temporarily advancing him some of the authority he was already due. They also figured (usually correctly) that, if and when George 3 did snap out of it, he'd recognize on some level that it wasn't a bad thing that his heir was making many of the decisions.
BM has no concept of regent, though - you're King until you're not and that's that. But then Galiard's been King'd and un-King'd four or five times now and not once would he have been able to show up and say 'hey everybody I'm King again now right?' and get away with it, even though on one or two occasions he came pretty close. So any discussion of Jenred being 'legally' King is probably academic.
He gets enough advantage just by being royalty. Should anything happen to Velax, or discredit Velax, Jenred wins just by hanging around. 'Oh, what? You need a King? Uh, sure, I guess.'
-
George III came in and out of madness on occasion and did rule in the in-between bits, but this is not quite comparable to Velax and Jenred; in the first place, in BM we don't have anointed successors, whereas everybody knew that the Prince Regent was going to be King anyway and they weren't risking a lot by temporarily advancing him some of the authority he was already due. They also figured (usually correctly) that, if and when George 3 did snap out of it, he'd recognize on some level that it wasn't a bad thing that his heir was making many of the decisions.
BM has no concept of regent, though - you're King until you're not and that's that. But then Galiard's been King'd and un-King'd four or five times now and not once would he have been able to show up and say 'hey everybody I'm King again now right?' and get away with it, even though on one or two occasions he came pretty close. So any discussion of Jenred being 'legally' King is probably academic.
He gets enough advantage just by being royalty. Should anything happen to Velax, or discredit Velax, Jenred wins just by hanging around. 'Oh, what? You need a King? Uh, sure, I guess.'
Also good points. I don't foresee Jenred trying to make a grab for his old seat back, and I don't see Velax just stepping aside. Should Velax ever abdicate though, you know Jenred will grab that up. The Lurian in me wants to see a power struggle for the top seat though.
-
Six months ago it might've been fun, but there are just too few nobles left who know Jenred.
I ran into the same problem coming back to Cathay - not the first time but the latter two times. The first time not only did only two people know who I was, Galiard ended up being practically driven out of the realm and ended up as PM of Ohnar West.
The last time things turned out a bit better. ;P
-
Except Velax was a recognized heir. There was no title associated with it, but Jenred had been training him up in King-ing for, what, a year? Something like that. Velax wasn't the only one (Maurus and Drake were both similarly trained), but he certainly isn't someone Jenred would have worried about taking the throne. Not to mention that per Arcaean customs and law, Jenred abdicated when he was no longer capable of Ruling, and Velax was duly elected by the assembled nobility, so he is the King, no ifs, ands, or buts. Following the precedent set with Dentara, Jenred would likely be first among equals at whatever other title he takes as his primary one.
I am quite certain Jenred and Velax can reach an amicable arrangement, especially since Jenred hated most of the Kinging work, and the older he got the more he thought his religious title of Paladin was the more important one, especially given how the Invasions went.
As far as the Empire goes, as long as Jenred is ceremonially granted the historical title of "First Emperor" or something like that (I've always been partial to Phoenix Emperor, resurrecting the old Empire as it were), then he's unlikely to kick up any fuss about Velax being the Second and Current Emperor.
Jenred's never needed actual game mechanic power to get anything done, and I don't see that changing. He wouldn't have trained up Velax if he didn't think he could continue working with him, after all.
-
That sounds like most of Arcaean law in that it's not written down anywhere that anybody has ever actually read it and it suits the convenience of whomever is the boss at the time. :)
Velax may have been Jenred's heir, but he wasn't 'recognized' in the sense that he was the lawful heir to the throne - because there are no lawful heirs to the throne in elective politics except for whomever is elected.
At any rate, Jenred would still have to be an idiot to claim to be King or current Emperor or anything like that, and he'd never do it in such a ham-handed way even if he had the influence to pull it off. Jenred and Galiard both share one elder statesman quality, or at least ideal, even if it doesn't always quite turn out this way: by the time they come gunning for you, it is presumably already too late.
The trouble with the current situation is that the OOC planning on Velax's and Marvel's part to stir things up has put Velax in an uncharacteristic position of defending Marvel. If somebody had just done what Marvel did and claimed the same things, Velax would string him up in ten seconds. That that isn't happening now is causing Velax to appear arbitrary, which is probably not enough to bring him down but it is definitely not good, especially given that the whole rest of the continent has been counting the minutes until Arcaea finally makes a political mis-step.
-
That sounds like most of Arcaean law in that it's not written down anywhere that anybody has ever actually read it and it suits the convenience of whomever is the boss at the time. :)
I can neither confirm nor deny the truth of this statement.
Velax may have been Jenred's heir, but he wasn't 'recognized' in the sense that he was the lawful heir to the throne - because there are no lawful heirs to the throne in elective politics except for whomever is elected.
See the above possibly true statement about the law being whatever the King says it is. I would argue that Jenred declaring someone an heir is lawful so long as it works...And it did. Velax and Maurus, the two acknowledged heirs, got, what, 80% of the votes between them? Might have even been more. It might not have been lawful if anyone had bothered challenging it, but no one did when Jenred declared it, so there wasn't any fight over whether he could or not.
At any rate, Jenred would still have to be an idiot to claim to be King or current Emperor or anything like that, and he'd never do it in such a ham-handed way even if he had the influence to pull it off.
The trouble with the current situation is that the OOC planning on Velax's and Marvel's part to stir things up has put Velax in an uncharacteristic position of defending Marvel. If somebody had just done what Marvel did and claimed the same things, Velax would string him up in ten seconds. That that isn't happening now is causing Velax to appear arbitrary, which is probably not enough to bring him down but it is definitely not good, especially given that the whole rest of the continent has been counting the minutes until Arcaea finally makes a political mis-step.
Who the heck is Marvel and what am I missing?
-
I'd say Jenred is something of a mythical figure in and around Arcaea. He could declare himself God-Emperor and get away with it, probably :p
-
Marvel is the guy giving the pristine reputation Jenred and Velax worked so hard for a big black eye. :>
-
I'd say Jenred is something of a mythical figure in and around Arcaea. He could declare himself God-Emperor and get away with it, probably :p
That worked out so well for the last guy who tried it.
-
Marvel is the guy giving the pristine reputation Jenred and Velax worked so hard for a big black eye. :>
...????
I'd say Jenred is something of a mythical figure in and around Arcaea. He could declare himself God-Emperor and get away with it, probably :p
Amusingly enough, Jenred actually has plans in place to deal with himself should he ever go that far off the deep end. He was extremely worried about succumbing to the Ruler's Curse like every other long-time Ruler on the Far East, and being the kind of man he is, made sure that there were people who had ways of taking him down if it became an issue. It's a short list, but the people on it are more than powerful enough to stop him, especially as Jenred was publicly afraid of the Ruler's Curse, so they would have significant support among the older Arcaeans who might have been inclined to support Jenred, and the newer ones wouldn't have any personal ties to him that might make them overlook his insanity.
Short version: Yes, Jenred is crazy enough to worry about going crazy and take crazy precautions to deal with himself.
-
@Bedwyr: so, the lesson is Jenred is crazy?
-
I understand that there are only one or two of those people left.
-
Velax and Maurus, the two acknowledged heirs, got, what, 80% of the votes between them? Might have even been more.
It was.
Who the heck is Marvel and what am I missing?
The players of Marvel, Morgan and me were attempting to get a war going, with Marvel trying to assassinate Morgan. Unfortunately, Morgan's player's illness has meant little has happened yet.
-
The players of Marvel, Morgan and me were attempting to get a war going, with Marvel trying to assassinate Morgan. Unfortunately, Morgan's player's illness has meant little has happened yet.
And, again, even with Arcaea trying to kill our Regent, Zonasa would have to be dumb to declare war on Arcaea. We'd stand absolutely no chance whatsoever.
-
Sounds like the perfect war, then. The only way you can disappoint people is by winning!
-
We'd stand absolutely no chance whatsoever.
If Zonasa wanted to, they could at least have an outside chance of enlisting Kindara, Cathay, Aenilia, and Ohnar versus Arcaea and Sorraine and Coralynth.
It'd be a tough sell but the door is certainly there. Doesn't sound like Morgan wants to walk through it, though.
-
I agree. I am surprised that Zonasa has not tried harder to portray Arcaea as standing in the way of justice and all that. I would think that they would be doing their best to outline this as an attack by Arcaea and try to get people on board. Sending investigators sounds so silly to me!
-
I agree. I am surprised that Zonasa has not tried harder to portray Arcaea as standing in the way of justice and all that. I would think that they would be doing their best to outline this as an attack by Arcaea and try to get people on board. Sending investigators sounds so silly to me!
Morgan is extremely anti-confrontational. Almost absurdly so.
For him to suddenly flip and start declaring that Arcaea is a brazen imperialist bent on world domination or something would be a huge departure for him.
Which is why Zonasa should elect Baranion Ruler, instead! ;D
-
I am new to the Far East and have a lot to learn. At the same time, I was not even going that far. Something like "An agent of Arcaea tried to kill me and Arcaea is obstructing due justice. They are responsible for the actions of their nobles at the least and this wanton obstruction only makes them more bad. Please join me into pressuring those bastards into giving me the infils head on a platter." sounds like a minimum to me... Can a Cathayan vote for this Baranion dude?
-
I understand that there are only one or two of those people left.
Not sure, myself. Most of them were Arcaeans, for the obvious reasons. I know there are at least two left, and those two are in a good enough position to stop Jenred should he do something as insane as declaring himself God-Emperor.
@Bedwyr: so, the lesson is Jenred is crazy?
Yes. I've been saying it for years. I don't know why no one believes me...
-
Yes. I've been saying it for years. I don't know why no one believes me...
Perhaps because Jenred has been the kind of crazy that gets !@#$ done?
-
Perhaps because Jenred has been the kind of crazy that gets !@#$ done?
I suppose so, yes. Doesn't mean he's not nuts.
-
Um, this has gone extremely off topic. Perhaps if you want to discuss this, split the thread into a new topic?