BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Case Archives => Questions & Answers => Topic started by: dustole on February 17, 2019, 03:05:53 PM
-
I started a Mercenary Guild. We move to each realm when we take a contract there. Contracts are a minimum 3 months extendable to 5 months total. One of our payments is a lordship in order to build and expand our guildhouse network.
Is it against the rules to take a lordship I know I am going to abandon in 3-5 months when I go to the next mercenary contract?
-
holding it for 6 months is okay I think. 3 months might be pushing it. I'd suggest not taking a lordship to begin with. But then again, if you are moving to other realms, not too sure.
-
Tom was pretty firm years ago about nobles not being mercenaries, full stop.
-
For real? Why did he let Darka be around then? ???
-
For real? Why did he let Darka be around then? ???
More or less grandfathered. This was...I forget exactly, but probably in the neighbourhood of 2010, so mercenary-Darka had been around for a long time by then.
-
Why was Tom against the idea? Did something happen around the time he decided against it?
-
Basically, that high nobility—which all of our non-adventurer characters are—would not have lowered themselves to such things. Some lesser nobility might have, but not the upper echelons.
-
Aren't knights pretty much lesser nobility? I wouldn't consider any non-landed noble to be high nobility. Unless you think all playable nobles should be the firstborn... Even sons of some kings ran mercenary companies.
I mean I see how allowing people to make a mercenary guild may lead to people forming a clan which is frowned upon but I don't see any harm in people making another Darka.
-
There's a big difference between running a mercenary company, and being a foot commander in a mercenary company.
Every noble in BattleMaster is considered to be high nobility, the cream of the crop, the people to know.
Look at it this way: The difference between the high nobility—the player characters—and the lesser nobility—part of the faceless masses of NPCs—is that no one would ever even think it possible that an NPC could be elected Ruler. Just as no one would ever think it possible that a lesser noble could be King.
-
There's a big difference between running a mercenary company, and being a foot commander in a mercenary company.
Every noble in BattleMaster is considered to be high nobility, the cream of the crop, the people to know.
Look at it this way: The difference between the high nobility—the player characters—and the lesser nobility—part of the faceless masses of NPCs—is that no one would ever even think it possible that an NPC could be elected Ruler. Just as no one would ever think it possible that a lesser noble could be King.
That is a good way of putting it.
So if someone tries to recreate Darka, you would be against it these days right?
-
Probably. It might depend upon how it was structured and how it was presented in RP, but in general, yes, I'd be against creating a mercenary realm at present.
-
Fwiw, darka was never destroyed on atamara, so if we ever had the playerbase to bring back atamara, darka would be back too.
-
So you're saying that not only is it against the rules for temporary lordships it's against the rules to have a Mercenary group?
-
Yes.
-
Wasn't Arcaea a mercenary realm for a while as well?
-
There's a big difference between running a mercenary company, and being a foot commander in a mercenary company.
Every noble in BattleMaster is considered to be high nobility, the cream of the crop, the people to know.
Look at it this way: The difference between the high nobility—the player characters—and the lesser nobility—part of the faceless masses of NPCs—is that no one would ever even think it possible that an NPC could be elected Ruler. Just as no one would ever think it possible that a lesser noble could be King.
I have several issues with this statement
Not only were there several high nobility mercenaries throughout the medieval period, there are examples of them becoming rulers of what we would consider realms. The Sforza in Milan, Cesare Borgia in the Romagna etc
If you are saying that there wouldn't be higher nobility as lesser commanders in a mercenary company, you are also inexplicably misinformed. To use just one example:
Cesare Borgia's mercenary force, which fought for King Louis XI of France, had such commanders as Vitellozzo Vitelli, Gian Paolo Baglioni, at least two Orsinis, and Oliverotto Euffreducci, to name some of the key ones. All of these people would be considered high nobility by BM standards, as they all held cities. So not just run of the mill BM knights, we are talking margraves. And some of these men led individual units within Cesare's force. For example, Vitelli was the commander of the cannon.
Another example of a mercenary noble serving under another mercenary noble would be Giovanni dalle Bande Nere, who was a Medici
And the most famous of them all, the Montefeltro family, which rose to fame due to their condottiere status
By forbidding this, you are stifling significant rp by players (I have roleplayed Franz for over a year now as a condottiere)
Mercenaries were not faceless npcs. They could become rulers (the Sforza in Milan, as I said, are the most famous example of this)
So this argument that mercenary realms are not allowed because it would not be suited to the historical setting is grounded in a total lack of evidence and is a furthering of the Anglo-French centric nature that BM seems to be at its core. And even if you want to dismiss Italy, you need only look to the Flemish during the Anglo-Norman Civil War, where the likes of William of Ypres were not only mercenaries, they were granted lordships in England and even became the commander in chief of King Stephen's forces
And the logic is flawed further by the fact that we are all small unit commanders in one larger feudal army. Heinrich is a foot commander on War Island, that doesn't make him low nobility.
I think this stems from one of the fundamental flaws of BM rules atm in that the rule makers are just picking and choosing what aspects of Medievalism they want to use
On the one hand you have them saying 'BM is not a historical game, it is set in its own world' and on the other you have 'you can't do that, it's not historically medieval'. Do you not see the contradiction here?
Sorry, rant over, but when arguments are fundamentally flawed, I have to intervene. If there are other reasons against it, such as balance that is fair enough. But if you spoke to many of the players about it, I am not sure many would be against such a realm. It was the original plan for the replacement Alaran realm after Perl removed it, to set up a Mercenary company realm around Itorunt
-
Sorry, just thought of another point which is perhaps the most pertinent here
I think the problem partially stems from the difference between our modern perception of mercenaries and Medieval mercenaries
Today mercenaries are the lowest of the low. They are forbidden under the Geneva Convention. Being a mercenary today is an anathema. Hiring mercenaries is an anathema. A lot of people get around it through calling them private security companies, but that is beside the point
For the medieval period, especially the early and late, being a mercenary was a perfectly respectable career for a noble and many made a career out of it. If that weren't the case, it would not have been possible to have prolonged campaigns of the sort seen in the HYW, for example, as feudal obligation only lasted certain parts of the year. A non-noble mercenary was another matter entirely, but that would be the way we would treat all commoners
So I do not buy the 'higher nobility would not stoop that low' argument. If people want to RP that way, more power to them. People reacted like that to Franz and I applauded them, as it added to the enjoyment of the RP. But wholesale banning it in the rules is enforcing modern values onto SMA and attempting to whitewash the brutality that is a medieval world
-
On the one hand you have them saying 'BM is not a historical game, it is set in its own world' and on the other you have 'you can't do that, it's not historically medieval'. Do you not see the contradiction here?
Not touching the militia discussion, just this.
It is not a historical simulator, it is set in its own world, but it is based on a medieval setting/environment/atmosphere. So yes, we strive to not have elements outside of that setting if they are not historically medieval. Sometimes, because its a game not a simulator, elements of that setting have to be discarded for balance and enjoyment.