I'm currently designing a map for the City of Niole Dra. I would need opinions and maybe hints to where I could find information on the city.
First.
I have planned to create 12+ quarters each named with a working name (e.g. The Noble Quarter), and in the end with something more interesting (e.g. The Blind Quarter).
An idea that occured to me would be a quarter for each social class and a quarter for each race. Does anyone know the real name for different classes in keoland?
My first plan for the quarters is:
-Noble (Suel)
-Ambassador
-Royal (Kings Palace and gardens)
-Harbour
-Slum
-Artisan's (Freeman's)
-Artists
-Market
-Guard
-Keogh (Oeridian)
-Flan
-Demihuman (could be just gnomes?)
Second.
According to the LGJ#1 Niole Dra does not have walls as such, but instead hanging gardens. I did a bit of googling and came with the idea of having all the quarters in a different elevation levels, connected by stairs instead of gates. (Apparently hanging gardens are normally associated with zigguarats but there will be no pyramids in my Niole Dra!!! )
Actually, no offence to the artist, but I hope Niole Dra is a whole lot more impressive than that drawing depicts. Sorry if that's a bit catty (and I should say I couldn't draw myself out of a wet paper bag) - but the pic was not that guy's best (or a fair reflection of a majestic and impressive city).
In terms of general lay out - drawing on the lay out of Hesuel Ilshar from the SB sourcebook (and assuming that might be traditionaly Suel) - the layout might be circular - with concentric rings and the quarters divided by hanging gardens and avenues. Holians write up places the Palace Precinct in the west of the city, while the river port (and the river) lies to the east. The centrepiece of the city is likely to be the Court of the Land (and auxillary plazas, buildings, arches, triumphal arches etc etc etc. The Suel like thin high spires and domes - but there'd also be solid square-built Oerid buildings.
The hanging gardens - hmmm...the stepped elevations idea is interesting, but even with the centrepiece of the city being on a hill (I seem to remember someone mentioning that the centre of Niole Dra was built on a hill), any sort of significant steps (the kind you'd need for hanging gardens - think that scene from Alexander where they enter Babylon) up are going to require a lot earthmoving as Niole Dra is in a flood plain. Perhaps the gardens are built on raised and stepped "walls" radiating out from the centre of the city like spokes rather than ziggurats?
Further to this - the backburner of my brain's been quietly simmering on this all morning...
So - let's assume that
A: the city is built on a circular layout like Hesuel Ilshar.
B: the centre of the city is a resonably tall hill dominated by the palace complex containing the Court of the Land.
C: That the hanging gardens are long stepped wall-like structures radiating out from the centre of the city like spokes on a wheel.
D: the Keoish go in for the old Suel penchent for tall thin tapering spires like those seen in Shar.
Ok: how about this:
The Court of the Land is surrounded by 8 of those soaring spire towers. The towers stand at the hubward end of each of the radiating walls of hanging gardens. Furthermore, the towers channel water (via magic or an Archimedes' screw) up from the water table to the top of each "wall", which, as they slope downwards as they move rimward, double as aquaducts (think the Aquaduct of Valens in Constantinople buttressed with stepped terraces covered in verdant greenery). At the end of each garden/aquaduct there's a park with lakes and formal gardens.
You can get 12 quarters from this arrangement, if you divide the city first into two concentric circles (there might be a level split between the circles (with the inner circle being higher than the outer) with the step also adorned with hanging gardens). You run a garden aquaduct from the centre to the circumferance of the outer circle at the four cardinal points. Then you run garden aquaducts from the centre to the circumferance of the inner circle at the intermediate points (NE, SE, SW, NW). So the inner circle is divided into 8 districts and the outer circle is divided into 12.
So you have the sprawl of the city rising up to a highpoint at its centre, crowned by the shining platinum dome of the Court of the Land, surrounded by 8 minaret like spires from which verdent hanging gardens slope outwards as far as the edge of the city.
I wish I was an artist so I could depict the picture I have in my head of this, but I think it fits the bill of majestic, sprawling and impressive.
Too bad I have no artistic talent either however Hesuel Ilshar is pure suel design where Nicole Dra would incorporate the various sensibilites in the design to show the peaceful union of suel and flan and the oeridian Keogh.
How do you see the flan and oeridian aspects within your vision of Nicole Dra?
Perhaps this is why the SB tried for Gradsul, once established the SB long term desire was the capture of Nicole Dra since it is such an impressive example of a suel city; once it has been cleansed of degenerate influences.
I have never found a description of Niole Dra that really inspireda vision of the city. A city of its magnitude and caliber should inspire, like Paris, Rome, Rio, or New York. I have used this map http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mapofweek/City_map_overview_432hr98_150dpi.jpg repeatedly for Niole Dra. I have never been really satisfied with the physical layout, yet it has a great deal of distinctivfe character.[url][/url]
Given the Keogh were still fairly nomadic byt the time they hit the Sheldomar - I'm not sure if they'd have had time to develop a sophisticated architecture (whereas the Suel would have come from a highly sophisticated urban society). However, I've always seen the Oerids as being big on square towers (like Norman tower houses, the castles of Edward I or the Theodesian Walls of Constantinople). The Oerids in Ull did have the city of Kester and that might have served as an architectural inspiration. I'm not sure how that's relevent to Niole Dra where what fortifcations there are seem to be mostly decorative.
I do thing that there'd probably be an arena for combats - in line with the Aerdi penchent for such. A hippodrome seems very likely, given the Keoghs' love of horses and wide open spaces. Solid sensible, square built houses set around courtyards and arranged in clusters around a central square or green common - an echo of Oerid settlements in the West and on the plains of Keoland.
I'd see the main Oerid contribution to the city being a fusion of solid sensible Oerid design with the High Imperial Suel architecture - to give a hybrid Keoish style. Quite what that might be, I don't know - but it would be distinct from either the more pure Aerdi styles of the east and the old architectures of the Suel Imperium.
Given the Keogh were still fairly nomadic byt the time they hit the Sheldomar - I'm not sure if they'd have had time to develop a sophisticated architecture (whereas the Suel would have come from a highly sophisticated urban society).
While the Keogh not having a developed archticture or architectural stye is relevant, what is more critical is how old Niole Dra was at the time of the founding of Keoland, as well as the fact that it started as just the capital of the Neheli, and only later became the capital of Keoland.
Likewise, even if the Neheli Seers had prophecies from Slerotin, there is still a limit on how much they could have built while settling in to the area in general.
I think when Niole Dra was first built it was little more than a slightly beefed up refugee town, struggling to maintain the remaining libraries and culture the Neheli had fled with. Once Keoland was created, it developed slowly and haphazardly, like most any other ancient city, with various sections showing particular cultural traits (the Neheli for gardens, the Rhola adding coastal elements, the Keogh favoring large stables, and the like), or social traits (even Niole Dra has slums).
The city grew in fits and starts, demonstrating different elements at different times. During the first few hundred years, extensive fortifications were needed because of the House Wars, and the wars against the Yaheetes and Tyrus. Once the Slumbering set in, new building was focused extensively on culture. (I didn't include it in the timeline, but I expect one of those kings was like Tiberius, finding Niole Dra in mud and leaving it in marble.) Under the Tavishes, the riches of the Sheldomar were gathered, and even more glorious decorations were added. With the post-Tavish Neheli, things began to sink into decadence, in style and decoration. And now under Kimbertos there has been a minor reaction back to simpler styles.
Like all cities that old, Niole Dra should show the influence of centuries, and be constantly evolving.
I do thing that there'd probably be an arena for combats - in line with the Aerdi penchent for such.
I tend to think of that as a specifically Aerdi trait rather than an Oeridian one. The early years of the Aerdi kingdom were very much along Roman lines, while other cultures - like the Keoish - developed very differently. I think it would be a nice illustration of how these two civilizations differ if the Aerdi had a penchant for public arenas and the Keoish did not, perhaps the latter relying on the church of Norebo to satisfy their cravings.
Hmmm...the Oerids are painted as having a love of ritual combat - not just the Aerdi. That said - I agree there should be a differentiation between the Suel infleunced Keogh and the Aerdi, Nehron etc. That difference might be the emphasis on hippodrome races rather than ritual combat as a trial of strength and skill or bull/monster fighting rather than gladiator v. gladiator.
I'm getting the feeling of the Keogh - given they occupy those central plains of Keoland - that they might be more horsey than the Aerdi. Kind of like the Magyars maybe. The Hungarians still have a strong respect for the horse in their culture - as embodied in the csikos:
The csikos seem to be proficient with the whip - so perhaps the Keogh horsemen are the same, as well as practising the traditional skills of horse archery etc.
I've been quite busy and will be for the whole spring, but I expect to get this map done little by little.
Few points.
The illustration of skyline of niole dra in the Keoland.PDF sucks to my opinion and should not be used as a reference. It contradicts even the description of the town in the previous chapter of the same article. (Did someone forget to tell the artist to read the text before drawing?)
I will check the Scarlet Brotherhood book once I get home... It should provide me with the needed pure Suel aspect in desingning streets. (I was terrified at first of the mention of Hesuel Ishtar but to my relief the talk was not about the horrid Fate Of Istus map! )
Umm... I am not really exited on a typical cogs of the wheel /concentric walls type of design.
The idea was not to build the city on a hill... I was more into thinking of the use of Flan peasant working force and a lot of layered building... maybe this could have been done at a later point, so that the elevation in the city would be formed on top of old city walls and lower buildings dating to the time of the Neheli capital.
As pointed here. There most likely was a time when walls were surrounding Niole Dra, but the modern city has not had a need for walls for the last 900 years. There are many cities in europe for example Edinburgh.
I think I will add the royal mile as one of the streets in Keoland. This would be a mile long straight street leading to the court of the land from the Kings Palce. The royal mile would be the center street of the blind quarter (the bureaucratic quarter) and the main reason for the quarter to cut a swathe through the city, further dividing it in to two sides i.e. "commoner's" and "aristocracy"
I think somekind of an arena should be added as well. Jousting ???
And please do not refer to the WoTC canal city map anymore!
yes indeed, the SB-2nd ed book pictures of the tilvaot cities was good example of what pure suel city would look like.
cheers...
Is there any definition on the social classes of Keoland? I was looking at the Gran March project site and there they had divided the peasants in to classes such as:
"The peasant class of Gran March can be classified into three groups:
1.free men (known as sokemen),
2.serfs (ceorl), and
3.cotters.
Free men have certain fixed dues which they had to pay or deliver.
Serfs have the same dues, but also have to provide labor services for the lord on his land.
Cotters are essentially squatters with no rights to arable land whatsoever. They work for some sort of wage in kind."
Is there a similiar existing class system for Keoland that i should be aware of ? If not, I will probably create one.
Any definition of what sort?
In canon?
No.
I did develop a generic social class breakdown for Keoland, and by extension the rest of the Flanaess, based on presenting real world differences a bit more thoroughly than just "peasant", "serf", or what not.
Generally, social class is defined by three elements:
1. How much land you own.
2. How many obligations you have.
3. Where you live.
These combine to create the various social classes.
A serf generally owns on the low end of land, has huge land service obligations, and lives in a village.
A guildsman owns very little land, has no land obligations, has some guild obligations and probably some minor military obligations to where he lives, and lives in a town or city.
For Keoland, the social classes were generally:
1. Householder - a free man who only owns a small shack or cottage.
2. Smallholder - a free man who doesn't own enough land to provide food for the year.
3. Freeholder - a free man who owns enough land to provide food for the year.
4. Largeholder - a free man who owns more land than he can work alone, and provide food for more than one family in a year.
5. Guild Apprentice - the same as a Householder.
6. Guild Journeyman - of equal status to a Smallholder, but only owns a home.
7. Guild Master - of equal status to a Freeholder, but only owns a home and a shop.
8. Guild Officer - of equal status to a Largeholder, but only owns a home and a shop.
9. Armsman - added to any landholder who performs military service in exchange for other considerations. They are considered one step higher than otherwise.
10. Liveryman - any professional who works for a noble instead of as an independent contractor. They are generally the equal of guildsmen, but generally better regarded by nobles.
Many Guild Officers and some Guild Masters also become landholders, renting the lands to others, and acquiring the obligations of a landholder.
Likewise many of both types become armsmen, trading militia or feudal service for lower labor obligations, or the right to pay labor obligations in coin. (Which is very common to begin with.)
Above those ranks you get knights and then nobles.
It is all very general to allow the most flexibility and conversion to other areas.
To my opinion the 'serf' does not own anything. He only has got the right to carry out his profession on the land owned by a noble while living in a house owned by the lord of the land.
He has got obligation to produce a agreed upon amount of agricultural goods that are being sold forward by his liege, the leftover is what he lives upon.
I would like to think that the 'serf' is the main social class in keoland. say a ratio of 1 milloin of the 1.8 million population. This would create a realistic feel of a feudal kingdom.
To my opinion the 'serf' does not own anything. He only has got the right to carry out his profession on the land owned by a noble while living in a house owned by the lord of the land.
He has got obligation to produce a agreed upon amount of agricultural goods that are being sold forward by his liege, the leftover is what he lives upon.
That is historically incorrect. Serfs had considerably more rights than that. What you have described is closer to a slave than a serf.
Quote:
I would like to think that the 'serf' is the main social class in keoland. say a ratio of 1 milloin of the 1.8 million population. This would create a realistic feel of a feudal kingdom.
Keoland doesn't have serfs. The main noble houses never believed in such extreme limitations of freedom. The exceptionally low population density and vast stretches of suitable land also make it difficult to hold people like that. Most will simply wander off to farm in the wilderness, or take up service with a noble who is more rational.
That doesn't mean they don't have a predominantly agrarian population, or that most of them only hold enough land to support their family and pay taxes, but that is significantly different from them being serfs.
Yes?
I have done rather extensive research, so I am not surprised the article says the things I did about serfdom in relation to slavery and rights. Nor did I notice any statement about Keoland practicing slavery.
People consistently overstate the degree of subjugation in which serfs were held. It was not at all a clear case that it was better to be a free peasant than a serf. The worst off of all villagers were the poor freemen and serfs could be quite wealthy (by peasant standards). Many village officials had to be serfs, for instance. Serfs had considerable rights and, though there was often abuse in the courts in favor of their lords, were not without recourse in enforcing them.
Unfree status was not limited to peasants, btw. There were unfree knights in the Holy Roman Empire (Ministeriales). They were noble, but unfree.
One part of the confusion is that the same word is used to describe the chattel peasants in Russia as it is for the unfree serfs of western europe. "Serfs" in Russia were much closer to slaves in practice than their western counterparts. Serf is a range on a continuum of rights and obligations, not a single spot.
There also seems to be confusion among historians on whitch social systems should be called feudalism and witch not. For example it is common practice to call the japanese social system of the samurai era feudal. I am a bit lost here on what really defines feudal in the end...
Maybe i have had a wrong impression on the definition. According to the picture samwise is drawing here, the main point in feudalism is the relation of ownership of land.
What doesn't fit in to the picture though is that i have not seen any mention anywhere (except for samwise's post) that the land would be actually given to anyone. All articles seem to talk of system of 'leasing' rights instead of selling or donating. in this case i would not talk of owning even though it might simplify matters as we would not need to think of the contingency of the ownership of the land.
in practice the system would to my opinion seem like the people who held the right on the land actually owned it.
Maybe my realworld poit of view is a bit different from yours, since i live less than 300 miles from Russia
You missed all the discussions we had about feudalism in Greytalk.
Basically, feudalism never existed. At best, it is nothing but a dictionary definition, as all the elements of it were never fully present in one place at the same time.
Feudalism is also heavily tied to the economic system known as manorialism. That causes further confusion in distinguishing what is properly feudalism, what is the economic system, and what is the combination of the two most commonly presented in books and movies as feudalism.
The main element of feudalism is the exchange of vows of service and obligation, primarily of military support. It would very commonly involve an exchange of land, the vassal receiving land from the liege for his support, but this did not always occur. (For example, if Church lands were involved, which might legally change hands in an absolute manner.)
Indeed, land ownership was also questionable depending on the time and place. While in theory the King owned everything and the lords were nothing more than glorified leaseholders themselves, in practice and fact this was not always true, and could confuse things significantly. Worse was when such land grants were used to bind people, and someone could wind up with mutiple lieges, or even be both liege and vassal to someone.
As a result, feudalism becomes a very iffy term, best left to theory rather than defining any specific practice.
As for land ownership or use under manorialism, that is also questionable. Yes, it could just be mere "use" of the land. Other times it was more comprehensive, and the land could be sub-leased, sold, granted, inherited, and more.
It is also useful in that to distinguish between sovereign ownership of land and the occupation and use of it. Most people mistakenly believe that absent a feudal system, they "own" their land completely. In law, this is actually not true, and the land is still "merely" held in fee simple, and can be taxed or seized by eminent domain and such. In that context, how is modern land ownership any different from feudal serf or peasant land ownership, beyond who the "liege" is? Functionally, the only differences are the economic and social systems surrounding it.
So when you say "feudalism" you have to be very specific about what you mean.
And when the lowest classes are free peasants rather than serfs or villeins (or any of a number of other variations on a theme), it doesn't mean they are sovereign landholders, merely that they don't have as many (or any) labor obligations, and greater freedom of movement.
Basically, feudalism never existed. At best, it is nothing but a dictionary definition, as all the elements of it were never fully present in one place at the same time. . . .
So when you say "feudalism" you have to be very specific about what you mean.
I think in a fantasy game it an option to embrace the theory as fact without qualification. Numerous fantasy novels and games do just this and get along fine.
While it may be satisfying to say "feudalism after the Moldavaian model of 1202" or "as practiced in the Duchy of Grand Fenwick between 1136 and 1138," nothing demands this or even rewards it beyond any personal satisfaction someone might garner.
I recommend Expeditious Retreat's A Magical Medieval Society, Columbia Games's Harn Manor and Chaosium's Lordly Domains for how to model and run feudal societies in a fantasy setting. While only the first is d20, the latter two are easily adapted to D&D. _________________ GVD
Sure, you can set up your socio-economic model however you wish in a fantasy game. Real world information merely serves to point out that nothing is ever as clear cut as it seems in theory.
In public discussions, its tricky to use terms like feudalism, manorialism, serf, etc without definition as the basis for any sort of if/then type statement. Better to just say how you have your system set up if you need the example, since the reference to the real world will only add confusion, not clarity.
I am glad you were taking the time to look at the Gran March Website. However, in the forum, you will see that we have posted a revised draft of the classes. You will also note that we took out most recognized names, as most gamers have preconceived notions of what a serf/slave/noble is. Therefore we went with a variety of more obscure names.
Most people mistakenly believe that absent a feudal system, they "own" their land completely. In law, this is actually not true, and the land is still "merely" held in fee simple, and can be taxed or seized by eminent domain and such.
Thanks samwise, this is something i have been trying to got to.
On good reading regarding the medieval social class system i would like to add the Ars Magica book "Myhtic Europe" it is a fictional book, but relies hugely on historical real world backgrounds.
If you want a book, just go with Gies and Gies, Life in a Medieval Village.
as for names, as Anced Math said, that's one of the reason I eventually abandoned real world names. Too many images locked into them.
And indeed, the difference between land ownership and land ownership is one of those wonderfully confusing things because of the specifics of the legal definitions. Again, why it is usually easier to specifically describe what is going on rather than rely on general terms as Vormaerin says.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
)
