Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - Purchasing a Title
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    Purchasing a Title
    Author Message
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 20, 2002
    Posts: 164
    From: England

    Send private message
    Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:16 am  
    Purchasing a Title

    A question for the community;

    IMC a player wishes to purchase a title from the Lord of Saltmarsh (in Keoland). This player has recently converted to Zilchus, as this god supports his primary aims of gaining power and wealth.

    I would prefer not to just dish out a "Sir" to him in exchange for a sizable cash outlay, so what other alternatives are there? A squire-ship, and what would this entail on his behalf, or are there honourary non-obligation titles that are awarded by the state on merit (in which case the purchase of one of these makes sense). I believe he just wants to better his character up the social ladder but of course moving up the scale has it drawbacks.

    Question
    _________________
    The only Good hobbit is a well-done hobbit.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 13, 2002
    Posts: 1077
    From: Orlane, Gran March

    Send private message
    Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:05 am  
    Titles

    Hey Yabusama,

    I find it hard to believe that an old established kingdom with and active aristocracy like Keoland is going to sell a title for a price that most players would want to pay. I would think that they would expect him to have a manor or castle already, be a common figure in the right social circles, and then he could purchase the title for a small fortune.

    Or he could go to those areas of the Flaness where they are in need of nobles, or where they are percieved as being in need of nobles... such as Sterich, the borders of Geoff, Ulek, Bissell or Gran March come to mind in the Sheldomar. I dont know that the title would be easy to get there, but I would think it would be easier than one in Keoland.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Sep 18, 2001
    Posts: 35


    Send private message
    Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:29 am  

    Yeah I am pretty sure it was reitirated in the latest info on Sterich (the Dungeons with the Istivin campaign arc) that lands and titles are readily available. Of course if the troubles related to these adventures are still ongoing in your campaign then a title and land might be more trouble than a paltry outlay of gold is really worth.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 12, 2001
    Posts: 188
    From: Hanover Park

    Send private message
    Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:23 am  
    Well...

    England has an old established aristocracy -- and they gave a knighthood to Mick Jagger! Face it, money buys respectability no matter what world you're talking about.

    That said, you could distinguish levels of "bribability," perhaps by Alignment. I would think Chaotic Good rulers would be least likely to give titles for cash, wanting to see individual merit first. Lawful Evil rulers would be easily bribed.

    ~Scott C.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 20, 2002
    Posts: 164
    From: England

    Send private message
    Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:19 am  

    The idea of sucking up to the right people is a good idea. I think I will suggest that he raises his profile from that of an adventurer to that of a man of class and taste. Of course, this won't be cheap, he will have to host dances and hunting, provide gifts and generally show his desire to be one of the elite (as they see it).

    The political make up of the town is thus IMC, the elderly Lord of Saltmarsh is a shadowy figure who rarely makes an apperance, he prefers to spend time in the Manor contemplating matters. He has delegated the running of the Saltmarsh to his eldest son, making him the Town Reeve, his other son is head of Customs & Exise (the major money maker for the town). The two sons run a pretty efficient business between them, with the elder son waiting for his chance to inherit the family estates when his time comes, the second son "seems" content to play second fiddle to his elder brother.

    It is to this second son, that the player is making his overtures for nobility, and this son is encouraging him to make suitable demonstrations of his eligibility.

    As has been mentioned, money can buy you pretty much anything, and an established aristocracy would have many titles that are just that, a title, with no real political power or estates (errr Mick-Jagger-style Shocked )

    Now obviously the player can not aim at a title such as Lord or even Sir, but Squire is an achievable goal, just what did a Squire do exactly? What wold be his duties or could it be a title in name only?
    _________________
    The only Good hobbit is a well-done hobbit.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 23, 2004
    Posts: 1212


    Send private message
    Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:51 am  

    The title of squire changed over time. First it was a noble boy serving a knight waiting to be a knight. Later, it and esquire was used to designate a landed person who did not rise to the level of knight because the institution of knighthood changed to political rather than military. Now, in America it is used to describe lawyers. Esquire Errant or Squire of the Court could be nice meaningless titles.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 13, 2002
    Posts: 1077
    From: Orlane, Gran March

    Send private message
    Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:50 am  
    Purchasing a Title

    Well Scott, I didnt say that a Title couldnt be bought, just that it would be more expensive that most PCs would generally pay. You need a manor and/or a large castle so you are probably looking at 500k to 1million gp, while the parties, the gifts, the appearances and such will cost that much again. And Mick Jagger has an awful lot of money.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 05, 2004
    Posts: 666


    Send private message
    Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:19 am  

    Scott, Knighthood now is a purely honorary feature, unlike in the past or in Keoland.

    Whether a title is for sale depends a lot on how you envision your campaign functioning, Yabusama. The requirements have changed significantly over time, ranging from anyone who fights as heavy cavalry to those in a specific vassal relationship to purely honorary political award.

    Titles (knightly or otherwise) almost always are associated with landownership or military service in medieval style societies and come with serious military or financial responsibilities. If the character wants a title, he should have to serve as a soldier in the Lord of Saltmarsh's forces or pay a 'shield tax' to allow the hiring of a stand in.

    If he is looking for a sinecure with some cool sounding name associated with it, he's probably looking for an office, not a title. The Lord of Saltmarsh could sell him some meaningless political job like Alderman or some made up job. That won't carry much weight outside of Saltmarsh, though, other than as a vague indication of the Lord's favor.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:17 am  

    IMC, the answer is a "yes."

    In general:

    (1) It is _NOT_ possible to purchase a landed title of Greater Nobility, anything greater than a Baron.

    (2) It _is_ possible to purchase a landed title of Lesser Nobility, anything less than a Baron.

    (3) Baron (landed) is a gray area but it would be highly unusual for anyone to purchase such a title.

    (4) Purchasing a landed title requires a) the purchase price to the seller and b) approval of the feudal lord of the seller, who may also charge a "titling fee."

    (5) It is also possible, and much easier and less expensive, to purchase an unlanded or landless title. These are also called "Court Titles" and are generally not well respected outside of strictly court circles and society. Court titles are variants of all noble titles, except Duke, for which there is no equivalent court title. A holder of a Court title has the right to be addressed and treated as a fully titled individual but has no land and may not vote in Royal Assemblies, Landsrats or Parliaments. Court titles are only recognized in - The Great Kingdom (and Post-War Successor States), Keoland, the County of Urnst and Nyrond.

    (6) All purchases of titles are exceptions, not the rule. Titles will rarely be for sale. They are most commonly for sale when a line dies out or when a higher ranking noble needs to raise money fast.

    IMC Cool
    _________________
    GVD
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 11, 2003
    Posts: 161
    From: The Nexus

    Send private message
    Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:58 am  
    Re: Purchasing a Title

    Yabusama wrote:
    A question for the community;

    IMC a player wishes to purchase a title from the Lord of Saltmarsh (in Keoland). This player has recently converted to Zilchus, as this god supports his primary aims of gaining power and wealth.

    I would prefer not to just dish out a "Sir" to him in exchange for a sizable cash outlay, so what other alternatives are there? A squire-ship, and what would this entail on his behalf, or are there honourary non-obligation titles that are awarded by the state on merit (in which case the purchase of one of these makes sense). I believe he just wants to better his character up the social ladder but of course moving up the scale has it drawbacks.

    Question


    France had a system during the late Renniascance/Revolutionary age referred to as Nobles of the Sword and Nobles of the Robe. Nobles of the Sword were the old nobility: the Counts from the feudal era who carved out their lands and their titles during the times of the Carolingian dynasty. Your player would find it hard if not impossible to simply buy such a title: the old nobility would not stand for such a presumption.

    Nobles of the Robe, OTOH, were nobles of later eras, when there just wasn't that much land available, who were rewarded with titles for social purposes in return for services to the crown. These nobles usually had important positions in the royal government but were either gentry (descended from lesser sons, and therefore not entitled to be nobles) or commoners who rose through the ranks of either the military or the clergy. At first most of these titles were non-hereditary, although some later did become hereditary and these nobles also later owned land (altho the land was seldom associated with the title). At one point in time the King, in need for cash, sold so many titles that the Nobles of the Sword openly scorned them, and their value dropped immensely (sorta like tech stocks).

    Your player could easily buy a Noble of the Robe sort of title. Its value would depend on the state of affairs in Keoland at the time, and whether it was awarded simply because he had the cash, or if he had recently performed some true service for the King that others knew about and would honor him for. If the former, then he could find other nobles snicker at him behind his back, and commoners become confused at the new title for which they've never heard (Earl who?, Sorry m'lord). If the latter, then he would be treated with due respect, but remember being a member of the nobility opens you up to all sorts of new intrigues "Lord Bastion, did you hear? The King gave that young adventurer, Gordan of Greyhawk, a title--he's now Lord Gordan Greymist--he has the King's ear, if we act quickly and earn his friendship . . ." Either way, don't tell the player! Laughing
    Let him find out for himself the hard way--it opens the door to all kinds of adventures! Wink

    He would not need to buy land, or build a castle--in fact, building a castle in someone's kingdom without royal authority is usually looked on as a hostile act, and the King would likely send someone to crush the effort. Players who want to utilize the traditional AD&D role of "reach a certain level, build a castle and attract followers" either have to earn or buy a noble rank to build in civilized lands, or do so in an area where a King or other powerful noble is powerless to stop him (like some parts of the Shield Lands, of course you have the Old One for a neighbor).

    Oh, and your player likely wouldn't get anything higher than a knighthood from the Lord of Saltmarsh. Only Kings can grant noble titles. The King and other knights can confer knighthood--and not all nobles were knights. So if the Lord of Saltmarsh is a knight he can sell a knighthood to your character (this actually was not an uncommon practice, under the table, along with negotiating for ranks within the Church for second sons). If your player wants something of higher rank he has to go to the King of Keoland.

    Theala
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:22 am  

    As a note on "canon" Keoland:

    The King does not approve noble titles except in newly taken areas. Even confirming an heir of a previous provincial ruler is something neither the King, nor the Court, have any jurisdiction over. If you can convince the Viscount of Salinmoor to make you a Baron, and assign you a Barony within Salinmoor that has a seat in the Court, all they can do is welcome you and being plotting to subvert or neutralize you. Indeed, if you can convince the Duke of Gradsul to make you a Count that is his decision alone.
    Now of course the chance of either of those happening should be effectively non-existent, but the wonderfully complex government of Keoland is such that only the provincial ruler makes such decisions.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 11, 2003
    Posts: 161
    From: The Nexus

    Send private message
    Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:40 am  

    Samwise wrote:
    As a note on "canon" Keoland:

    The King does not approve noble titles except in newly taken areas. Even confirming an heir of a previous provincial ruler is something neither the King, nor the Court, have any jurisdiction over. If you can convince the Viscount of Salinmoor to make you a Baron, and assign you a Barony within Salinmoor that has a seat in the Court, all they can do is welcome you and being plotting to subvert or neutralize you. Indeed, if you can convince the Duke of Gradsul to make you a Count that is his decision alone.
    Now of course the chance of either of those happening should be effectively non-existent, but the wonderfully complex government of Keoland is such that only the provincial ruler makes such decisions.


    Hmm. I took a look at the Living Greyhawk Gazeteer, which describes Keoland as a monarchy. The King has absolute power in principle, with some limitations in practice due to the number of factions in the Council. Sucession is a matter of the Council, and thus rulership can pass from one House to another. Nothing says or implies that the various noble houses can create noble titles on their own. In fact, the political nature of the Council would to my mind make it impossible as it would only serve to dilute the power of the Council by creating more nobility than the Kingdom can support (too many chiefs, not enough indians).

    If there is no heir to an existing title, then the King (probably with the Council's "guidance" ie a real political dogfight) would assign a new noble to that title--probably someone he trusts to support him in the Council.

    Do you have another canon source? If so, I'd love to look at is.

    Theala
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 05, 2004
    Posts: 666


    Send private message
    Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:16 am  

    The very definition of "baron" is a nobleman who holds land directly from the sovereign tenant in chief. If you hold your land from another vassal lord, you aren't a baron. You are a banneret knight.

    You could argue, given Keoland's structure, that the Court of the Land is the sovereign, not the King. I don't consider it that way, prefering to look at the King=Court relationship as being similar to the Holy Roman Empire's elected Kingship structure. But even if you do, the Viscount of Salinmoor (or even the Duke of Gradsul) wouldn't be able to create a baron with a seat on the Court of the Land by himself.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:59 pm  

    The other source would be my discussions with Gary Holian, who wrote the LGG and LGJ Keoland material.
    The King is not the sovereign tenant in chief in Keoland. He is more of a regent with significant executive powers and functions. He could no more deny a noble the right to appoint a Baron than the President of the US could deny a Governor the ability to appoint a member of his state Cabinet.
    As for a provincial noble creating a vassal with a vote, look at what I wrote. I said he could appoint one to a position that has a vote, not that he could create a new voting position by himself. That is a function of a combination of the King and Court when outside lands are incorporated.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 13, 2002
    Posts: 1077
    From: Orlane, Gran March

    Send private message
    Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:18 pm  
    Sam

    Sam, can you direct me to this work?
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 05, 2004
    Posts: 666


    Send private message
    Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:22 pm  

    Like I said, you could make the case that the Court of the Land is the sovereign, not the King. That would still not allow for a *member* of the Court to make an appointment in their own right unless your version of the Court gives votes to subenfeoffed nobles like Banneret knights. Since the Keoland article says its the "chief independent nobles", I'm pretty sure that wouldn't include any vassals.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:33 pm  

    Samwise wrote:
    The other source would be my discussions with Gary Holian, who wrote the LGG and LGJ Keoland material.


    While I find what I have understood of your and Gary's discussions very interesting and would look forward to a "Political Guide to Keoland," Gary's word is not canon. Using Tzelios' notion of "derived canon," it would be fascinating to see an "annotated" Political Guide to Keoland (annotations being to canon). Until then, I think there is some reasonable room for debate. Smile

    I can imagine that:

    In Keoland, were the King to wish to sell a title of a landed variety, he would have to have control over the land to do so. I imagine this might come about in a variety of ways but most likely in newer areas where there is "open" land or, in older areas, if the King is called upon to function in something like a "regency" capacity. Either way, I think, the King's power to sell the title would be limited by the need to gain the approval of whomever would be the purchaser's direct leige, or risk creating significant problems down the line.

    If a greater noble in Keoland with the power to subinfeudate wished to sell a landed title, I think he or she could do so as long as the title carried with it nothing that would be impactful on the rule of the realm from the King's perspective - basically lesser titles.

    On the other hand, if there would be an impact on the rule of the realm from the King's perspective - basically a middling or greater landed title - I think the greater noble would need to secure the King's approval, though not necessarily permission. Were the greater noble to fail to secure the King's approval, the noble could go ahead with the sale but the King could refuse to recognize the new noble. The new noble would thus find him or herself having purchased something less than what they thought they were getting.

    Landless titles could be sold by the King or greater nobles but might only be recognized within the respective courts, although there might well be a tacit understanding that mutual regard would accorded the landless noble, absent some significant reason not to do so.

    To use the United States example, the Governor of State X can appoint anyone he wants as Attorney-General of State X. If, however, the President is sufficiently unhappy with the appointment, the President can refuse or make difficult federal cooperation and can refuse or make difficult the transfer of funds from the federal government to State X. The Governor of State X will know the President is unhappy and, depending on how bad things get, will "feel the President's displeasure." Worst case scenario, the President federalizes the National Guard of State X and/or sends in federal troops or marshalls- as was done in Arkansas and Alabama in the 1950's.

    To avoid problems, given Keoland's complex political structure, I can imagine the sale of titles would be highly limited with every attempt made to see that any sale was inoffensive and any sale that raised eyebrows would likely not be concluded.
    _________________
    GVD
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 05, 2004
    Posts: 666


    Send private message
    Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:01 pm  

    The direct sale of titles is generally not much of an issue until those titles are largely honorary anyway. If the title carries real political or military obligations, only very corrupt or destitute sovereigns would sell them.

    Even then, doing so tends to generate a great deal of ill will from existing nobles.

    I don't really think any state in GH is at a level of development where 'landless' titles are a meaningful reality. But that's just IMO.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:08 pm  

    Anced_Math:
    Most of it is implied in the political background of Keoland developed for LG. You can check the Laws in Keoland essay on the LG Keoland website for some insight, and perhaps find my essay on Absolute Power and the Kings of Keoland. (Which may currently be gone from any records but mine.
    You can also look at Part 1 of the Sheldomar Timeline for more insight. Otherwise just ask me and Gary some time. Smile

    Vomaerin:
    The Court is still not sovereign in the lands of other nobles. As long as the Charter of Niole Dra is not violated, a noble can get away with a heck of a lot before anyone bothers to speak up Tavish II drove a province that had been part of the Kingdom for more than 3 centuries away. Tavish III drove 4 more away, lost 2 that had been fully incorporated, and 1 that had been conquered, and the Court still elected his son to suceed him.
    As for "chief" independent nobles", there are several issues with that in regards to number and composition of the Court. The short version is, there are more nobles with votes in the Court that are not listed in either the LGG or LGJ. They aren't named, but they have to be there for the political dynamic Gary wanted to exist. Me being the after the fact editor and developer, I have been the one to note this, and make the various additions to the material to account for it.

    GVDammerung:
    Gary's word might not be canon, but it is what was intended. Given how much was cut from the LGG, it remains up to individuals how much they care what he has to say now.

    As for the political situation, you have to understand that in many cases, "it depends".
    Mandros the Oeridian caused problems because he created the riverine Counties then packed them with his cronies. After he died, many of them were forced out by the Court as soon as it was feasible, and a minor civil uprising was fought to force others to move.
    Contrast that with Tavish the Great. Not only did he transfer all of the trans-Sheldomar fiefs to new provinces, he seized three completely new provinces, and expanded another, placing his political allies in most of them with political allies.
    Recently there was the "incident" with the Baron of Dilwych, where the Duke of Dorlin was the one who forced him to deal with the "change" in rulership of the Baron's technically sovereign province.
    So in the first case the King ignored the desires of the Court, in the second the Court gleefully rubber stamped anything the King wanted, and in the third one noble ran roughshod over another. So who is in charge?
    The Charter defines significant rights for the nobles of Keoland. The reality is that force of personality counts for significantly more at times.
    Consider it part of the subtext that Gary loves to put into what he writes and keep secret from the world while he chuckles evilly.

    Overall Summary:
    Again I will note I am saying "possible", not "likely", or "commonly".
    Should a Duke decide to sell one of the counties of his province, he can, and no noble, the Court, or the King can gainsay him. They can treat the new Count, and his vote, like dirt. And they can make sure his tenure is woefully short. But they couldn't legally tell the provincial ruler what he can or can not do. It is what keeps the Rhola or Neheli from simply seizing power permanently, or from letting Kimbertos reform the government as he'd like.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 05, 2004
    Posts: 666


    Send private message
    Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:49 pm  

    So Keoland is even less of a 'nation' than the Holy Roman Empire (which wasn't much of one). Its barely a confederation. Its more likea regional version of the United Nations in your view, it sounds like.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:19 am  

    Not really. Even a Kingdom like that of England or France was subject to having nobles ignore the King completely if they felt they could get away with it. Keoland is no less united than they are. The HRE model is useful for the election of the King, but again it falls short of the particular and peculiar politics involved in Keoland. Perhaps a closer model would be the Five (later Six) Nations, but I don't know as much about their internal structure.
    Keoland has lasted over 900 years. There is quite a bit that keeps them together. There is more that keeps them from always agreeing on everything, and establishing a single, unified, government like a post-feudal, post-monarchical, republic. But then again, no nation has such a government in the Flanaess.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 11, 2003
    Posts: 161
    From: The Nexus

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:50 am  

    Samwise wrote:
    Anced_Math:
    Most of it is implied in the political background of Keoland developed for LG. You can check the Laws in Keoland essay on the LG Keoland website for some insight, and perhaps find my essay on Absolute Power and the Kings of Keoland. (Which may currently be gone from any records but mine.


    Well, it was all very interesting on the Keoland LG site, but I still don't see anything either directly stated or implied that supports your postion. It really doesn't address the question at all. I couldn't find your essay, though I would be interested to read it. Without a canon source, I would be more inclined to follow medieval historical fact to create a real feel for the genre in my campaign.

    <snip>
    Quote:


    Vomaerin:
    The Court is still not sovereign in the lands of other nobles. As long as the Charter of Niole Dra is not violated, a noble can get away with a heck of a lot before anyone bothers to speak up Tavish II drove a province that had been part of the Kingdom for more than 3 centuries away. Tavish III drove 4 more away, lost 2 that had been fully incorporated, and 1 that had been conquered, and the Court still elected his son to suceed him.
    As for "chief" independent nobles", there are several issues with that in regards to number and composition of the Court. The short version is, there are more nobles with votes in the Court that are not listed in either the LGG or LGJ. They aren't named, but they have to be there for the political dynamic Gary wanted to exist. Me being the after the fact editor and developer, I have been the one to note this, and make the various additions to the material to account for it.



    The point is, though, that Tavish still had the authority to do what he wanted, it was just the lords of those provinces preferred to revolt and break away (for good reason or bad) rather than go along with him. The King of England had to deal with contentious barons who in principle owed everything they had to the King, but in practice had a lot of autonomy. It wasn't until after John that the crown was able to centralize royal authority. It wasn't until many centuries later that Parilment became more than the King's rubber stamp, so its not suprising the Council still voted Tavish's way.

    I do wish, as GVDammerung notes, that there were an "Atlas of Keoland" or something similar where the material that you (or anyone else for that matter) could have been developed and published in a form that could be accepted as canon.

    <snip>

    Quote:

    Overall Summary:
    Again I will note I am saying "possible", not "likely", or "commonly".
    Should a Duke decide to sell one of the counties of his province, he can, and no noble, the Court, or the King can gainsay him. They can treat the new Count, and his vote, like dirt. And they can make sure his tenure is woefully short. But they couldn't legally tell the provincial ruler what he can or can not do. It is what keeps the Rhola or Neheli from simply seizing power permanently, or from letting Kimbertos reform the government as he'd like.


    Whew! Hope that Duke doesn't sell a title out from under someone, or his successor may be sitting on the Council a little earlier than anticipated!

    Theala
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:59 am  

    Quote:
    Well, it was all very interesting on the Keoland LG site, but I still don't see anything either directly stated or implied that supports your postion. It really doesn't address the question at all. I couldn't find your essay, though I would be interested to read it. Without a canon source, I would be more inclined to follow medieval historical fact to create a real feel for the genre in my campaign.


    Medieval historical fact?
    Like what?

    Like the King of France transferring title of lands held by the King of England in France to other heirs when the King of England refused to do homage for England to him?
    Like the Hundred Years War fought to make the King of England the King of France because of that?
    Like the Barons forcing the Magna Carta on King John of England because of his demands on them to fight the Hundred Years War, and their refusal to support him?

    Like the transfers of ruling line in the HRE?
    Like the splitting and transferrence of Electoral rights and provinces in the HRE?
    Like the ecclesiastical electors in the HRE that can't exist in Keoland?

    Like the feudalism of Charlemagne, which led to the quasi-federation of the HRE, as well as the powerless "King" of France who ruled less than some Barons?
    Like the feudalism of William the Conqueror, which led not only to Runnymede as mentioned above, but to the eventual supremacy of Parliament over the King?

    What "medieval historical facts" are you referring to?
    I hate to break it to you, but feudalism is a dictionary definition. It never existed in real life. All of those elements were never present in one place at the same time. So looking to medieval historical fact is either going to lead to something that isn't fact, or to something as seemingly kludged together as what I've described.

    Now, as for the "proof":
    First, look at the note of the founding of Keoland. It was formed from a union of the Rhola, Neheli, and Oeridians (Keogh). Right there you have no medieval model to work from. No medieval nation was formed from such a union. The closest you can get is the founding of Rome and the various unions of the Latins, Sabines, and other people.

    Second, look at the political dynamic described. The Rhola and Neheli are the "royal" families, with the Oeridians (Keogh) choosing between them as Kingmakers. Again, there is no medieval model you can use for that. The early HRE nearly had something similar, but it quickly collapsed into civil war to determine who would be in charge permanently. Indeed, while you can find multiple instances of wars deciding issues of succession involving a change of a family line in medieval and renaissance history, you won't any that are decided by the votes of a racially distinct moderating political group internal to the nation.

    Third, if you check the maps Gary provided of Keoland and do some simply math, you will note that the number of Suel nobles, as noted by him, rather overwhelms the number of Oeridian nobles. Enough so to make the ones not directly linked to the Rhola or Neheli the swing votes in any election for a King. That means there must be more electoral nobles than just those of the provinces listed on his map.

    Fourth, if the King is as sovereign as you seem to want, then there would have been no real opposition during the various expansions and contractions. If the King simply ordered and the nobles had to obey, any who dissented would have been crushed. Or, if they could, there would have been multiple civil wars over the course of the years, and many spontaneous minor rebellions. None of that is indicated in any of the canon materials.

    Fifth, if the Court were sovereign instead, then this would obviously be noted. It is not, so there must be some other dynamic.

    Sixth, there is significant subtext in the canon material, you just have to know what to look for. This includes the one extremely violent civil war that did split off part of the Kingdom. So there is canon support for much of this.

    Quote:
    The point is, though, that Tavish still had the authority to do what he wanted, it was just the lords of those provinces preferred to revolt and break away (for good reason or bad) rather than go along with him. The King of England had to deal with contentious barons who in principle owed everything they had to the King, but in practice had a lot of autonomy. It wasn't until after John that the crown was able to centralize royal authority. It wasn't until many centuries later that Parilment became more than the King's rubber stamp, so its not suprising the Council still voted Tavish's way.


    Well actually, no he didn't. He was supposed to get the consent of the Court. He, actually most of them, didn't.
    Tavish I established some settlements that produced major commercial gains. He could do that, without giving them voices or votes in the Court unilaterally. But when those cities where threatened by invaders, he needed the consent of the Court to send armies to create new provinces. Of course the fact that the nobles involved had a major economic stake in defending those new settlements meant they were very much inclined to go to war when they were later threatened. From there, he gained "poltical capital" that he was able to leverage into support for another war to eliminate a long standing (centuries) rival to the Kingdom, rather than just defeat them and leave them yet again.
    Tavish II didn't get the consent of the Court. He just sent armies out to invade. And he allowed his generals to abuse certain troops. The result? One province rebelled, and two others were on the verge of declaring independence.
    Luschan IV walked away from one war, and kept those two in. But the rebelling province remained obstinate.
    Tavish III then decided to go even further. He changed the ruler of one province unilaterally, then let that ruler start a war with a foreign nation. As a result, one province refused to support the war, leading to a war with them, and three others declared independence without a significant conflict.
    After his death, Tavish IV was left with support to do only one thing - end all conflicts no matter what. As a result, five provinces were left independent, and one stripped away by war. Another was lost because of its distance and an intervening province that was now independent. The Court didn't care, they just wanted an end to conflict and an assertion of their powers.
    So no, the King's can't act unilaterally and expect things to work out just because he is the King.

    Quote:
    I do wish, as GVDammerung notes, that there were an "Atlas of Keoland" or something similar where the material that you (or anyone else for that matter) could have been developed and published in a form that could be accepted as canon.


    Part 1 of the Sheldomar Timeline is up.
    Part 2 is waiting for Gary to finish futzing with it. It will cover the Tavish era, and explain a lot more.
    Beyond that, I'm working on it, but Gary is afraid people will plotz over too many of the changes and additions made to canon material with the benefit of additional thought and focus.

    Quote:
    Whew! Hope that Duke doesn't sell a title out from under someone, or his successor may be sitting on the Council a little earlier than anticipated!


    Yes indeed. However sucession rights are extremely strong in Keoland. If the holder of a title has a legitimate heir, even a provincial ruler like Duke Luschan would have trouble removing him.
    At least politically. Shocked
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 05, 2004
    Posts: 666


    Send private message
    Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:47 am  

    heh, I think the"medieval historical fact" (yes, the phrase is pretty funny on its face) is that landed nobles are gonna grab as much power and autonomy as possible. And with a structure like your Keoland, with no sovereign authority, its not a surprise half the lords split off. Its a miracle any remain...

    Medieval kings, who supposedly had sovereign legal power and full religious endorsement, couldn't keep even their ethnically homogenous nations stable for any length of time. The multi ethnic ones, well, those were really scary... Even though the great french and german counts started existance as lifetime appointed offices, they quickly became hereditary estates and many a war had to be fought to keep them subject to the king.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 11, 2003
    Posts: 161
    From: The Nexus

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:24 pm  

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Well, it was all very interesting on the Keoland LG site, but I still don't see anything either directly stated or implied that supports your postion. It really doesn't address the question at all. I couldn't find your essay, though I would be interested to read it. Without a canon source, I would be more inclined to follow medieval historical fact to create a real feel for the genre in my campaign.



    I hate to break it to you, but feudalism is a dictionary definition. It never existed in real life. All of those elements were never present in one place at the same time. So looking to medieval historical fact is either going to lead to something that isn't fact, or to something as seemingly kludged together as what I've described.

    Now, as for the "proof":
    First, look at the note of the founding of Keoland. It was formed from a union of the Rhola, Neheli, and Oeridians (Keogh). Right there you have no medieval model to work from. No medieval nation was formed from such a union. The closest you can get is the founding of Rome and the various unions of the Latins, Sabines, and other people.


    Any country in Greyhawk that uses titles like Dukes, Counts, Barons and the like can be presumed to follow the feudal ideal. Western European civilization created those titles, and despite the heavy Suel influences in the region, the area definately has a strong Oeridian (European) flavor to it. Remember, "medieval" is a TIME PERIOD, not a governmental philosophy. Feudalism in one form or another was a dominant feature in many European nations--you may feel that the political infighting and outright wars of the period make feudalism a "dictionary definition", but I can assure you the average tradesman and serf knew otherwise. What we were talking about was a player character who wants to buy his way into the nobility, and what I described was a probably way in which it might be done. You claim the King doesn't have the power to grant titles--you seem to believe the King has no power at all, yet this obscure Ranger Lord who became king handed the Scarlet Brotherhood a defeat, and managed to (finally) lend some aid to the Ulek states to fend off Turrosh Mak. Not the actions of a weak king ruled by his nobles.


    Quote:
    Second, look at the political dynamic described. The Rhola and Neheli are the "royal" families, with the Oeridians (Keogh) choosing between them as Kingmakers. Again, there is no medieval model you can use for that. The early HRE nearly had something similar, but it quickly collapsed into civil war to determine who would be in charge permanently. Indeed, while you can find multiple instances of wars deciding issues of succession involving a change of a family line in medieval and renaissance history, you won't any that are decided by the votes of a racially distinct moderating political group internal to the nation.


    Hmm. I might argue that the early Irish and Welsh had similar systems, with candidates for kingship having to prove their ability to rule to other nobles (physical perfection being one of the standards) but that's neither here nor there. I'm talking about creating a FEEL, not reproducing the history of Western Europe. I asked you if you could produce a more canon source to support your position that the King of Keoland lacks the power to grant titles--can you? Because in NO country in Europe did anyone but the ruler grant titles. Now I recall your example of the pissing contest between the Kings of England and France during the 100 years War--but the difference in that example is the fact there was a real contention as to who the real King of France was. Each party believed himself to have true royal authority, and thus the power to remove nobles who were in rebellion against that authority (ie sided with the other guy).

    Quote:
    Third, if you check the maps Gary provided of Keoland and do some simply math, you will note that the number of Suel nobles, as noted by him, rather overwhelms the number of Oeridian nobles. Enough so to make the ones not directly linked to the Rhola or Neheli the swing votes in any election for a King. That means there must be more electoral nobles than just those of the provinces listed on his map.


    Yes, I looked at it. So? That doesn't address the point: who really runs the country, the King or the Council? The canon material says the King does. Yes, the Council can oppose him, and cause problems for him (just like Parliment did for the Kings of England), but the King is the boss.

    Quote:
    Fourth, if the King is as sovereign as you seem to want, then there would have been no real opposition during the various expansions and contractions. If the King simply ordered and the nobles had to obey, any who dissented would have been crushed. Or, if they could, there would have been multiple civil wars over the course of the years, and many spontaneous minor rebellions. None of that is indicated in any of the canon materials.


    It all depends on the strength of the King in question. The Tudor Kings certainly had no trouble crushing nobles or clergy that didn't toe the royal line. The canon material on Keoland's history is clear enough: weaknesses in the rulership caused the loss of the Pomarj, the Ulek States, Celene, and the Yeomanry. Keoland went from an empire to a kingdom, but what remained from there retained a strong enough core to prevent further disintegration of the kingdom for two centuries, indicating royal power is not comletely dissolved.

    Quote:
    Fifth, if the Court were sovereign instead, then this would obviously be noted. It is not, so there must be some other dynamic.


    Precisely! The dynamic is monarchy, as noted in the LGG. The Court is like Parliment: at best a rubber stamp, at worst using the power of the purse to influence royal decisions.

    Quote:
    Sixth, there is significant subtext in the canon material, you just have to know what to look for. This includes the one extremely violent civil war that did split off part of the Kingdom. So there is canon support for much of this


    I've read it. See above.
    <snip history of Keoland>

    Quote:
    So no, the King's can't act unilaterally and expect things to work out just because he is the King.


    Never said he could.

    Quote:
    Part 1 of the Sheldomar Timeline is up.
    Part 2 is waiting for Gary to finish futzing with it. It will cover the Tavish era, and explain a lot more.
    Beyond that, I'm working on it, but Gary is afraid people will plotz over too many of the changes and additions made to canon material with the benefit of additional thought and focus.


    Isn't that the idea behind Living Greyhawk? Question

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Whew! Hope that Duke doesn't sell a title out from under someone, or his successor may be sitting on the Council a little earlier than anticipated!


    Yes indeed. However sucession rights are extremely strong in Keoland. If the holder of a title has a legitimate heir, even a provincial ruler like Duke Luschan would have trouble removing him.
    At least politically. Shocked


    Well, we agree on that one Happy

    Theala
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 29, 2001
    Posts: 719
    From: Bronx, NY

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:17 pm  

    Quote:
    Any country in Greyhawk that uses titles like Dukes, Counts, Barons and the like can be presumed to follow the feudal ideal. Western European civilization created those titles, and despite the heavy Suel influences in the region, the area definately has a strong Oeridian (European) flavor to it. Remember, "medieval" is a TIME PERIOD, not a governmental philosophy. Feudalism in one form or another was a dominant feature in many European nations--you may feel that the political infighting and outright wars of the period make feudalism a "dictionary definition", but I can assure you the average tradesman and serf knew otherwise.


    And you are quite wrong.
    I repeat, the feudal ideal never existed. No nation ever encompassed every aspect of the feudal ideal at one time.
    They may have had manorialism, but they didn't have a set chain of authority to a King.
    They may have had a King with Dukes and Counts, but the people were not oathbound.
    They may have had the people swear fealty to the King, and yet be ruled by lesser nobles.
    And on and on.

    Further, the average tradesman and serf likewise never existed. There is a very excellent essay on this website that discusses that, I recommend it to you.

    Quote:
    What we were talking about was a player character who wants to buy his way into the nobility, and what I described was a probably way in which it might be done. You claim the King doesn't have the power to grant titles--you seem to believe the King has no power at all, yet this obscure Ranger Lord who became king handed the Scarlet Brotherhood a defeat, and managed to (finally) lend some aid to the Ulek states to fend off Turrosh Mak. Not the actions of a weak king ruled by his nobles.


    He does have the power to grant titles - in his own lands. And in new lands taken by the Kingdom. But not in the lands of other nobles. That isn't a lack of power, merely a limitation.
    You also seem quite confused. If Kimbertos has unlimited power, Geoff and Sterich never would have fallen, Turrosh Mak would be pushing up daisies right now, and the Scarlet Brotherhood would be long expelled from the Hold of the Sea Princes. Keoland has THAT much population, and by extension, that much military capability. But Kimbertos hasn't been able to project it. Why not? Some would assert it is because he is incompetent. I assert it is because he is the equivalent of a constitutional monarch.

    Quote:
    Hmm. I might argue that the early Irish and Welsh had similar systems, with candidates for kingship having to prove their ability to rule to other nobles (physical perfection being one of the standards) but that's neither here nor there. I'm talking about creating a FEEL, not reproducing the history of Western Europe. I asked you if you could produce a more canon source to support your position that the King of Keoland lacks the power to grant titles--can you? Because in NO country in Europe did anyone but the ruler grant titles. Now I recall your example of the pissing contest between the Kings of England and France during the 100 years War--but the difference in that example is the fact there was a real contention as to who the real King of France was. Each party believed himself to have true royal authority, and thus the power to remove nobles who were in rebellion against that authority (ie sided with the other guy).


    That is for Stonehold.
    As for a FEEL, that is precisely what I am providing. What you seem to be looking for is a RUBBER STAMP or a COOKIE CUTTER IMAGE.
    And yes, in several countries in Europe did someone other than the ruler grant titles. And not just the palatines. As Duke of Normandy, William made nobles in Normandy without the consent of the King of France, his liege. And while you can assert that meant he was the ruler of Normandy, that is no more than what I am saying about the provincial rulers of Keoland.

    Quote:
    Yes, I looked at it. So? That doesn't address the point: who really runs the country, the King or the Council? The canon material says the King does. Yes, the Council can oppose him, and cause problems for him (just like Parliment did for the Kings of England), but the King is the boss.


    That is because there is no simple answer. The King is chief executive, the Court is chief legislature for the nation as a whole. Within the provinces, each noble is both. If you can't accept that because it is too realistic, and has too much of the real FEEL of medieval feudalism, then so be it.

    Quote:
    It all depends on the strength of the King in question. The Tudor Kings certainly had no trouble crushing nobles or clergy that didn't toe the royal line. The canon material on Keoland's history is clear enough: weaknesses in the rulership caused the loss of the Pomarj, the Ulek States, Celene, and the Yeomanry. Keoland went from an empire to a kingdom, but what remained from there retained a strong enough core to prevent further disintegration of the kingdom for two centuries, indicating royal power is not comletely dissolved.


    Ummm . . . yes . . . that's why I said what I did about the Kings.

    Quote:
    Precisely! The dynamic is monarchy, as noted in the LGG. The Court is like Parliment: at best a rubber stamp, at worst using the power of the purse to influence royal decisions.


    No, the dynamic is two separate, distinct, and competive royal lines, that change control of the throne in a peaceful manner. Although that may seem minor, it is a very critical distinction. And given the lack of historical model for it, you will either have to dispense with it, or dispense with getting a medieval feudal FEEL for Keoland.

    Quote:
    Isn't that the idea behind Living Greyhawk?


    No, it is the idea behind canon wars, and thus somewhat the idea behind the name Canonfire!
    Living Greyhawk is about providing a campaign for the RPGA that benefits from a body of background material. Any development done has been effectively decanonized by WotC's and the RPGA's policies towards the material produced for the campaign.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 11, 2003
    Posts: 161
    From: The Nexus

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:46 pm  

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Any country in Greyhawk that uses titles like Dukes, Counts, Barons and the like can be presumed to follow the feudal ideal. Western European civilization created those titles, and despite the heavy Suel influences in the region, the area definately has a strong Oeridian (European) flavor to it. Remember, "medieval" is a TIME PERIOD, not a governmental philosophy. Feudalism in one form or another was a dominant feature in many European nations--you may feel that the political infighting and outright wars of the period make feudalism a "dictionary definition", but I can assure you the average tradesman and serf knew otherwise.


    And you are quite wrong.
    I repeat, the feudal ideal never existed. No nation ever encompassed every aspect of the feudal ideal at one time.
    They may have had manorialism, but they didn't have a set chain of authority to a King.
    They may have had a King with Dukes and Counts, but the people were not oathbound.
    They may have had the people swear fealty to the King, and yet be ruled by lesser nobles.
    And on and on.



    Further, the average tradesman and serf likewise never existed. There is a very excellent essay on this website that discusses that, I recommend it to you.


    And where on earth did you get this? Because what you're saying conflicts with every class I've taken in history (I have an MA in History BTW), and every book I've read on the subject. Perhaps you could quote me an autoratative source on the subject? A real one, not a web one--that's not authoritative. Feudalism existed: just ask Wat Tyler and William Wallace. In pure perfect form? Perhaps not, nothing is pure on this earth. But to the degree I've discussed, yes.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    What we were talking about was a player character who wants to buy his way into the nobility, and what I described was a probably way in which it might be done. You claim the King doesn't have the power to grant titles--you seem to believe the King has no power at all, yet this obscure Ranger Lord who became king handed the Scarlet Brotherhood a defeat, and managed to (finally) lend some aid to the Ulek states to fend off Turrosh Mak. Not the actions of a weak king ruled by his nobles.


    He does have the power to grant titles - in his own lands. And in new lands taken by the Kingdom. But not in the lands of other nobles. That isn't a lack of power, merely a limitation.
    You also seem quite confused. If Kimbertos has unlimited power, Geoff and Sterich never would have fallen, Turrosh Mak would be pushing up daisies right now, and the Scarlet Brotherhood would be long expelled from the Hold of the Sea Princes. Keoland has THAT much population, and by extension, that much military capability. But Kimbertos hasn't been able to project it. Why not? Some would assert it is because he is incompetent. I assert it is because he is the equivalent of a constitutional monarch.


    Hmm. Well, LGG does mention a charter that describes rights and responsibilities of every citizen from every level: peasant to king. That sounds like feudalism, and it also sounds like a consititutional monarch.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Hmm. I might argue that the early Irish and Welsh had similar systems, with candidates for kingship having to prove their ability to rule to other nobles (physical perfection being one of the standards) but that's neither here nor there. I'm talking about creating a FEEL, not reproducing the history of Western Europe. I asked you if you could produce a more canon source to support your position that the King of Keoland lacks the power to grant titles--can you? Because in NO country in Europe did anyone but the ruler grant titles. Now I recall your example of the pissing contest between the Kings of England and France during the 100 years War--but the difference in that example is the fact there was a real contention as to who the real King of France was. Each party believed himself to have true royal authority, and thus the power to remove nobles who were in rebellion against that authority (ie sided with the other guy).


    That is for Stonehold.
    As for a FEEL, that is precisely what I am providing. What you seem to be looking for is a RUBBER STAMP or a COOKIE CUTTER IMAGE.
    And yes, in several countries in Europe did someone other than the ruler grant titles. And not just the palatines. As Duke of Normandy, William made nobles in Normandy without the consent of the King of France, his liege. And while you can assert that meant he was the ruler of Normandy, that is no more than what I am saying about the provincial rulers of Keoland.


    Normandy was in effect an independant nation at that time. It was only later that it was absorbed back into France--after France had been split apart after the death of Charlemagne.


    Quote:
    That is because there is no simple answer. The King is chief executive, the Court is chief legislature for the nation as a whole. Within the provinces, each noble is both. If you can't accept that because it is too realistic, and has too much of the real FEEL of medieval feudalism, then so be it.


    No, we simple disagree as to what's real.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Precisely! The dynamic is monarchy, as noted in the LGG. The Court is like Parliment: at best a rubber stamp, at worst using the power of the purse to influence royal decisions.


    No, the dynamic is two separate, distinct, and competive royal lines, that change control of the throne in a peaceful manner. Although that may seem minor, it is a very critical distinction. And given the lack of historical model for it, you will either have to dispense with it, or dispense with getting a medieval feudal FEEL for Keoland.


    Quote:
    Quote:
    Isn't that the idea behind Living Greyhawk?


    No, it is the idea behind canon wars, and thus somewhat the idea behind the name Canonfire!
    Living Greyhawk is about providing a campaign for the RPGA that benefits from a body of background material. Any development done has been effectively decanonized by WotC's and the RPGA's policies towards the material produced for the campaign.


    Sorry you don't like Living Greyhawk, WoTC, or the RPGA. I actually can understand why on that score--but the original idea behind Living Greyhawk was a good one--to allow the setting to evolve and grow in new directions, and not be monopolized, especially since the people who own it are no longer interested in actively supporting it.

    Theala
    CF Admin

    Joined: Aug 29, 2002
    Posts: 178
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:24 pm  

    Theala_Sildorian wrote:
    Because what you're saying conflicts with every class I've taken in history (I have an MA in History BTW), and every book I've read on the subject. Perhaps you could quote me an autoratative source on the subject?


    In any debate about a fantasy setting everyone is right as far as thier personal campaign is concerned. Smile But beating someone over the head with a degree and demanding authentication is pointless.
    In this case reality collides with a fantasy setting and looking too close reveals those discrepancies and in the end its a game setting for gaming, not personal attacks and bluster. Whatever is said further let it reflect what is known about Keoland and Greyhawk and less about what people supposedly know about midieval politics and feudalism in real life.
    _________________
    Canonfire Community Supporter and Forum Justicar
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 05, 2004
    Posts: 666


    Send private message
    Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:21 pm  

    Well, actually the assertion of right and wrong began with Samwise. But that's neither here nor there.

    The fact that feudalism, like democracy, covers a spectrum of features and isn't present in its entirety in any given nation is not particularly relevant.

    I only have Samwise's couple of assertions about Gary's unpublished conversations and putative master plan, so maybe I just don't see the whole picture. But it sounds to me like he's saying Keoland is the United Nations: a bunch of sovereign lords somewhat loosely united under an elected leader they are largely free to ignore. I don't find that a compelling conception of a state that has lasted some 900 years with a high degree (by RL standards) of stability.

    It also does not seem to follow from what *was* published in the Keoland article. The Court of the Land is said to comprise the "great independent nobles plus the heads of certain long established guilds and secret societies". [Presumbably the "secret" societies are secret in the same way the Yale Glee Club is....]. And "chief independent nobles" seems to rule out the idea of nobles who are vassals of other nobles being part of the Court. Further, it states the Council adjudicates disputes, levies taxes, approves the royal succession, and ratifies changes to the Founding Charter. None of those things are significantly different from a number of consultive noble bodies in RL.

    There is nothing in I am aware of in published GH material or in real world parallels that supports the idea of a peer of the realm being able to create other peers of the realm on his own authority. Certainly the peers would have lesser lands that are in their gift, but I don't see those as being peerages with seats in the Court of the Land. I also think it unlikely they would sell them for simple cash, considering that Keoland/GH is still at a level fo development where the nobility has legal, political, and military rights and responsibilities.
    CF Admin

    Joined: Aug 29, 2002
    Posts: 178
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:19 pm  

    Vormaerin wrote:
    Well, actually the assertion of right and wrong began with Samwise. But that's neither here nor there.


    Sorry too seem like I was singling anyone out but, since you brought it up lets review:
    I have been reading the whole thread since it began and I felt it was taking a negative turn for a bit now but was hoping for actual GH material to spring back up. Perhaps that was my mistake as its so far off the orginal topic that its probably too late to salvage the orginal intent, but I'm an optimist.

    In my above post I tried to point out that the subject was becoming personal when the posts stopped using GH canon and instead used degrees and asking for 'historical' material in a fantasy game with elves and dragons. All I asked for was it get back on track. Sorry if I didnt bust a few others a$$es along the way but,, if we cant play nice and get back on topic then this thread is at an end.

    The assertion of right and wrong begins and ends with that.
    _________________
    Canonfire Community Supporter and Forum Justicar
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 05, 2004
    Posts: 666


    Send private message
    Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:37 am  

    Well, there is no GH canon on the subject of buying and selling titles. The only reference I can recall is that the Knights of Medegia were held in considerable scorn because they were known to sell membership, unlike most other states with an equivalent "National" Order.

    So beyond that you sort of have to rely on interpretation. I like to go with "how did real people act when faced with similiar circumstances" because I find that provides a wider range of options to choose from and a more consistent world, as well.

    So, I can answer the question for "IMC" (which I have) and explain why I do it that way. And that's all anyone else can do on this subject as well.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 20, 2002
    Posts: 164
    From: England

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:33 am  

    Okay, thanks for everyones input, I didn't expect the sincere opinions posted to proke a verbal sparing match Embarassed .

    But back to my original question (if you can still remember it Happy ), it would appear that it is within the rights of a lord to appoint nobles as he sees fit, however appointing nobles with a vote in the ruling Council is highly unlikely and asking for political suicide.

    However I was never proposing such a title, mearly an honourary title. I like the idea of "Court Titles" that are really only relevant within each Lord's area.

    My mind goes back to a Blackadder episode which ran something like this;

    Narrator: England 1498, St Junipers Day on which the King would lavish new honors upon his kinfolk.

    [Scene : The court of Richard IV]

    King Richard : St Juniper once said, "By his loins shall ye know him and by the length of his rod shall he be measured." The length of my rod is a mystery to all but the Queen, and a thousand Turkish hoards, but the fruits of my loins are here for all to see. I have two sons, Henry and .... another one. Step forward, Harry, Prince of Wales.

    [Harry approaches and prostrates himself in front of his father]

    King Richard: Harry, I hereby name thee, captain of the Guard, Grand Warden of the Northern and Eastern Marches, Chief Lunatic of the Duchy of Gloucester, Viceroy of Wales, Sheriff of Nottingham, Marquis of the Midlands, Lord Hoe-Maker in ordinary and Harbinger of the Doomed-Rat. Step forward, the other one.

    [Edmund approaches and prostrates himself on the step below Richard]

    King Richard: Till now thy titles have been but few, Duke of Edinburgh and Warden of the Royal Privvies.

    Edmund Black Adder: Just so my lord.

    King Richard: We thank thee Egbert for thy work in Edinburgh, know now that we do relieve thee of thy heavy task and give the Dukedom to our lord cousin Hastings. (aside) Many Happy Returns Tom. Thus have I discharged the duties of Juniper. Chiswick, fresh horses. We ride at once to rebellious Stoke where it is my sworn intent to approach the city walls bare my broad buttocks and shout "Behold. I honor thee most highly"

    < Fanfare and cheers >

    [Court empties leaving Edmund, Percy and Baldrick]

    Percy: Well, it could have been worse my lord.

    Baldrick: Yeah, for a moment there I thought you were going to lose the Privies.


    Now there a title you can get your teeth into: Lord Hoe-Maker in ordinary and Harbinger of the Doomed-Rat. Laughing
    _________________
    The only Good hobbit is a well-done hobbit.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 05, 2004
    Posts: 666


    Send private message
    Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:58 am  

    Yes, that is what I meant by selling offices rather than titles. A nobleman could certainly offer a variety of those, of varying degree of meaning, and the status of knight (with our without an associated holding). Looks like we'll be agreeing to disagree on whether Peers can create other Peers.
    CF Admin

    Joined: Aug 29, 2002
    Posts: 178
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:31 pm  

    Due to lack of progress this thread is locked.

    Thanks to all those who helped get it off track.
    _________________
    Canonfire Community Supporter and Forum Justicar
    Sage of Canonfire

    Joined: Jun 28, 2001
    Posts: 179


    Send private message
    Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:41 am  
    A Final Word

    Leave it to Greyhawk fans to virtually ignore the original question and make a virtue of acrimony. ;-)

    Ultimately, I have to agree with dethand that its probably not doing any of us any good to continue this thread.

    I just have a couple comments to close out:

    I am the first to make the argument that if its not published, its not canon (and that includes the whole of the universe of LG meta-documents.) At best, the Sheldomar Valley material that was not included (for a variety of reasons) in the LGG or LGJ1 is apocrypha, take it or leave it as you will. That doesn't mean it might not be published some day, or that all this meta-background isn't useful material for your campaign. But its not canon.

    These forums should be about debating your questions and ideas, not making sure everyone adheres to someone else's definition of canon. Alot of good stuff was posted in this thread, its a shame when we lose sight of that or devolve in ad hominem commentary.

    Perhaps its my (not wholly irrational) fear of having my truename bandied about where it can fall into the hands of a Demon Lord, but I don't like seeing my name in a thread I didn't participate in. ;-) So please don't involve me unless I directly involve myself. I have enough trouble as it is.

    On the matter of Keoland, taking just material from the LGG and LGJ1, you would see that the kingdom is not even close to a typical medieval feudal monarchy (like say, Furyondy or Nyrond). Sovereignty lies with the Houses/Tribes of the founders of the realm and their interactions were agreed to be governed by a founding charter. The monarchy is like a permanent regency and never exists outside this structure. The houses (as assembled in the Court of the Land) choose/ratify he who sits on the Throne of the Lion and not the other way around. The leaders of the houses/tribes are the so-called Independent Nobility of the kingdom (not that they do not owe some form of fealty to the Throne of the Lion, but their titles are not beholden to it.) The number of seats they hold in the Court of the Land is roughly proportional to the size/population/age of the province they rule, but they and not the king control which of their cousins and other candidates hold those seats. The king controls a handful of seats, mostly guilds and military-oriented. Both the king and these independent lords can ennoble someone (the king can always award numerous land-less titles, usually militarily oriented or he can grant unincorporated lands as fiefs). But a lord who publicly sells titles only cheapens his own (not that it isn't done subrosa). All in all, there are a myriad of ways of getting a title in Keoland. Salinmoor is impoverished and its not out of the question that Lord Secunforth might strike a deal with the right person, but its unlikely he'd publicize it. ;-)

    If you have any final comments or questions, you can send me a Private Message.

    -Gary
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    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

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.44 Seconds