Clear explanation of the difference between nobles and commoners.

[Ays]

Commoners are essentially slaves. they work our land, produce our food, give us their earnings, and we protect them. What nobles want to do is keep this distinction strong and keep the commoners calm.

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. 

[Indirik]

Ohnar West tried to do the same thing regarding arresting advies. And so did Astrum on Dwilight.

I always object strenuously to such laws. In Ohnar West we got the judge to change it so that the advies owner/employer needs to bring a complaint and prove damages, at which point the offending noble needs to compensate the lord.

Anyway, most of these laws have the opposite effect intended. They almost always trigger a rash of advy beatings/arrests. Most of them in protest to the just-passed law.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Arrests can be somewhat mollified if the judge is reasonable. It's just the beating up part that I don't really like. Any noble with a unit can randomly beat up any adventurer. Sure, the adventurer would know who did it, but for the most part, what good would it do? The adventurer would be wounded, or seriously wounded maybe, losing time and possibly more.

[egamma]

Arrests can be somewhat mollified if the judge is reasonable. It's just the beating up part that I don't really like. Any noble with a unit can randomly beat up any adventurer. Sure, the adventurer would know who did it, but for the most part, what good would it do? The adventurer would be wounded, or seriously wounded maybe, losing time and possibly more.

And that's what the people of Giblot didn't seem to understand--the law is easy enough to weasel out of, just invent an excuse. After all, it's the word of a noble against that of a commoner. People seem to object, strenuously, to going to the trouble of making up excuses, to the point that they spend more effort opposing the law, than they would circumventing it.

[Foundation]

And that's what the people of Giblot didn't seem to understand--the law is easy enough to weasel out of, just invent an excuse. After all, it's the word of a noble against that of a commoner. People seem to object, strenuously, to going to the trouble of making up excuses, to the point that they spend more effort opposing the law, than they would circumventing it.

I find that most people feel some guilt since we no longer live in a society that accepts such prejudice.  Thus, we're trained to go against what BM tries to do with the peasant and noble distinction, thus the dilemma and conflict, so it's not that people aren't trying to weasel out of the law, but people don't want to, or they are taught it is bad to do so.

Of course, they *are* doing the right thing from a RL perspective.

[De-Legro]

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.

Rubbish in a historical context. Nobility was often some of the most depraved, callous and cruel figures we know of. Besides Magical items are fluff, some people like to have them, but really they do very little in game terms. And with the introduction of too much peace, realms are often LOOKING for monsters and undead to fight.

[Foundation]

Rubbish in a historical context. Nobility was often some of the most depraved, callous and cruel figures we know of. Besides Magical items are fluff, some people like to have them, but really they do very little in game terms. And with the introduction of too much peace, realms are often LOOKING for monsters and undead to fight.

I understand, in the history context I'd agree with you, but we are playing a game with fellow, modern, humans who have a different perspective.  I'm saying (as post above) that it is very *hard* not to view things through tainted glass.

[De-Legro]

If we suffered from that kind of guilt, then why do we attempt to destroy each others realms? Surely that causes just suffering to the players in the opposing realm. Even just TOing a region from someone could be placed into this category.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Beating up another realm is "equal", in that whatever you can do to those nobles they can hypothetically do to you. Sure, things like resources and abilities and location might differ, but the point is there is no disparity mechanically. For adventurers, there is mechanical disadvantage. That isn't exactly a bad thing since it does help drive home that nobles are greater than adventurers. I have nothing against being able to arrest an adventurer, but I don't exactly agree with beating them up. If an infiltrator stabs an adventurer that's ok since it's the same risk priests and other unitless nobles run. It just seems a bit harsh by game mechanics to allow any noble with a unit to at least wound any adventurer in the same region.

[Alpha]

This would be a nice addition, but I don't want to see any prohibitions on equality. Because nobles should be allowed to do as they please even if their idea will be viewed as ridiculous. Though, it should be made evident that prevailing thought of the time would have considered it abhorrent to consider a commoner as an equal.

All my characters behave as pompous nobles. However, Alpha is protective of adventurers that are in his service. Not out of any love for the adventurers, but because they have proven useful, and will likely be useful in the future.

Shouldn't freeman be held in higher esteem than regional serfs?

How does a freeman compared to a noble classified under the "outlaw" status?

[De-Legro]

They can also be executed without being banned, and freeman status means nothing outside of their own realm. Those are the breaks I see no reason why this is problem. Advies aren't equal, game mechanics simply support this. There was a reason you used to have to wait 30 days to even create a advy, and that is because it is an odd class, designed to be used by those that know the game and now what to expect. The change to character limits lead to a flood of people creating a advy and not understanding this.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

It sounds like we're all talking different things now. I can only say that what I have been saying (Maybe my communication is not good enough to get across to people so I apologize but that can't be helped) is that there are differences between adventurers and nobles and those should exist. However, I am in favor of "fair" differences enforced by mechanics. Right now, that involves arresting and beating up adventurers. The results of arrests are ultimately left to the judge. For those their judgment will have to be trusted. But for beatings, an adventurer can be wounded (maybe seriously wounded, not sure) by any random noble with a unit who just happens to be in the area. I'm not saying it always happens, but maybe there are some sadistic characters who would. With the new wounding system, I'd advocate for light wounds scaling upwards depending on unit size.

[De-Legro]

I had some trouble with a character like this back when I was a advy. Bottom line was, after him wounding me twice, I simply used the travel advantage to out distance him. Later on when I had achieved my nobility, I duelled him to the death and buried him.

[Tom]

There can be no discussion about this. Remember the motto of the French Revolution? It had "equality" in it. What does that tell you? That the idea was REVOLUTIONARY - in 1783!!!

In the middle ages, it was unthinkable. Any Adventurer voicing such thoughts should be immediately executed as an anarchist. Any Noble should lose at least half his prestige and honor.

[Tom]

I have humble request that mayby that rape word could be removed...

No. This is not PoliticallyCorrectShelteredFromRealityMaster.

Rape was an active part of warfare for pretty much all of history. Heck, in most conflicts today it still is. And frankly, you think that's bad? Try the african tribal wars going on this century where they systematically slash off both hands of civilians in "enemy" villages. The mental trauma of rape is horrible and I wish it on no one, but at least there's a chance that you can overcome it. Losing both of your hands? How are you going to even live your life after that?

I would much rather my players engage with the facts than pretend they don't exist.