Nyeshet
First Post
When I first got the Player's Guide to Kingdoms of Kalamar, I liked the suggestions for abilities gained by various ranking lords who truly ruled by 'Divine Right.' They were over the top, granted, but with just a bit of nerfing or altering I thought they could prove useful. I never got around to implementing such because the group rarely adventured in Kalamar except in areas where heirarchies were not that common or rulers were likely there by means almost certainly other than 'Divine Right'.
Despite this, the idea that certain benefits should be able to come from various ranks in a heirarchy - benefits with more than mere role playing utility - has continued to have a bit of a hold on me, regardless of whether the heirarchy was governmental, religious, or so forth. However, I never really thought out a way to make it work. Then PHB II came out, and it had at least a score of pages on 'Affiliations.'
Now, I realize that Affiliations were meant to be used with Secret Organizations and Cults, but I can just as easily see it working with governmental heirarchies of peerage, religious heirarchies of priesthood, and artisan heirarchies of guilds.
Something like this, for instance, might work:
* Gentry, based on the country, may include any wealthy individuals who lack 'typical' peerage rank but have notable influence: Guildmasters, Bishops and High Priests, Grandmaster Artisans, Merchant Princes, etc.
The Criterion for increase would have to be more difficult to achieve, however, or nearly anyone would quickly work up the ranks. There should be very few means of increasing other than remarkable acts on behalf of a higher ranking lord and major achievements such as literally saving the kingdom or saving the life of the crown prince.
^ These should be very notable events. Committing a crime against a lord from a neighboring realm could increase frictions between those two realms. Saving the life of a high ranking lord of a neighboring realm or slaying a powerful creature or menace that had been preying upon the realm for ages (such as an Adult or older Dragon, perhaps), or maybe even foiling a coup attempt in a land allied with your homeland. Merely being polite or making a social error should not be enough to incur either penalty or benefit.
^^ Not sure if this should exist, but it may make some sense. I'll have to think about it, as it would make levels an issue, which I was trying to avoid.
* Used primarily when a non-peerage performs an act that raises them into peerage, keeping their initial rank from being too high, etc.
** This bonus exists only to explain the usual shifting up a rank of a child to the parent's rank when the parent dies. I initially considered making it +4 so that the child had to work for it just a bit more, but so many examples exist in history where someone obviously poorly suited for their rank gained it anyway that it seems non-sensequal to have a +4 rather than a +5 for this purpose.
I'll need something else to explain why a child automatically has a certain rank. The problem is that the peerage system differed markedly in some areas. In some the first born had rank one step less than the father and all other immediate members of the family (sons, almost always) were two steps lower. This would be akin to -5 and -10, respectively. On the other hand, in some areas it was based on lands, and such were divided equally amongst the children (this would be more difficult to establish). Also, there were some areas in which one's rank was based upon the lowest ranking parent while in others it was one step less than the highest ranking parent.
Thus the initial Affiliation score cannot be zero for one born into peerage, but it cannot necessarily adhere to a single formula either. I would probably go with -5 from highest ranking parent for the heir and -10 from the highest ranking parent for other children. Or perhaps the second born takes up one rank less than the heir or one rank less than the lower ranking parent - whichever is higher - and later in life inherits the lands of the lower ranking parent. Other children (beyond the first two to inherit) would be two steps lower than the higher ranking parent or one step lower than the lower ranking parent - whichever is lower. Since it was not uncommon for a lower ranking parent to (basically) ascend to the rank of the higher ranking parent upon marriage, most of the time this will not be much of an issue, I think.
Note that class level does not affect Affiliation score of Peerage. This is prevent automatically gaining ranks in peerage based on arbitrary levels. A 10th level fighter may swear alligiance to a king and become the general of his armies, but he may still only be a Baron in terms of Peerage, despite his levels. Winning battles, however, could easily raise him up a level of peerage in short order (+2 for putting down uprising here, +1 for enhancing honor of kingdom by might/etc in battles, etc). The same could be true of a Cleric or Wizard 10 that becomes a councilor, etc.
^ This is mostly to act as a penalty against an individual who may later become a member of peerage for some major act. It may be that this crime will pull that down, preventing him from even becoming Gentry. A minor crime against a Gentry will likely make little difference (no more than -3), but anything worse and even an act that saves a kingdom may not quite be enough to raise him to a +0 Affiliation score.
Lastly, note that the restitution received will raise the one harmed by half the point difference lost from the convicted criminal, rounded down.
As an example, a major crime is commited by a Duke (27 pts) against a Viscount (12 pts). This is -3 (marjor crime) -3 (15/5, due to difference in rank) for a total of -6, but because the Duke is of higher rank, the penalty is only -3. So the Duke finds himself at 24. The crime was just enough to lower him by one degree of rank. Note that a single great deed on behalf of the kingdom will return him to his prior rank. Note also that he in all likelihood lost lands, titles, &/or honor, but it is possible that since he is within one point of his prior rank that many will still refer to him as 'Duke.' It could be, in fact, that he keeps his lands and title, but he pays so major a fine that he is a year or more recovering. Or perhaps he lost just enough land to the Viscount in restitution that his title of 'Duke' is questionable. Note that the Viscount, despite gaining these lands, does not increase in rank. His benefit from restitution is half the penalty paid by the criminal rounded down - or +1 point in this instance. He still needs another point to become a Count / Earl.
Note that if the criminal is a lower ranking member of peerage, if the penalty reduces the criminal to +0 Affiliation points or less then they lose all titles, lands, etc and are no longer a member of peerage. If a difference in points still exists (ie: if the debt is not yet paid in full) then the difference in points may be used to determine additional penalites (years in prison or indentured servitude / slavery, etc). This area will need more work.
An example could be the reverse of the prior one: A major crime is committed by a Viscount (12 pts) against a Duke (27 pts). This is -3 (major crime) -3 (15/5, due to difference in rank) for a total of -6, but because the Viscount is of lower rank, the penalty is multiplied by *2 for a total of -12. This is just enough to have the Viscount reduced to non-Gentry, no longer even a menial member of peerage. He has certainly lost all lands, titles, honors, etc. But consider if the crime was a Heineous act or if the Viscount had been 10 pts and the Duke 29 pts. The latter is less of an issue, as the result is still technically rounded down (19/5, rounds down to 3), but the former would certainly result in a penalty of -14 - two more points than the Viscount has. He would not merely be reduced to non-Peerage, he would not merely lose everything. He would find himself likely facing extended prison time, years (or even a lifetime) of indentured servitude (perhaps with the rest of his family if the act was terrible enough), or he may even face execution.
The actual penalties (beyond loss of lands, titles, etc) will need some work. They will also likely vary according to the alignment of the legal system. I can see a lawful one focusing more on service to repay loss (servitude) while a chaotic one may look upon the loss of freedom represented in prison time as more terrible. It will definately need some work.
To continue on:
* Thrown in to give an idea of relative merit of these tasks. Thus one who saved the life of the reigning king as great personal risk would likely become a Baron (+5 or +6) if not yet a member of Peerage or would move up 1,5 ranks (+7 or +8) in the peerage if already a member.
This system likely needs a lot of work, but it gives a general idea of what I am considering (and considering that I wrote the whole thing up in the last couple hours it's not too bad for a brainstorming session).
Now, the beneifts from being a member of Peerage of a given rank are still up in the air at this point. One can assume some benefits in social skills related to others in peerage, as well as perhaps the Landlord feat (Stronghold Building Guidebook, I think it was called) at lower levels, along with perhaps some income per month (or more likely per year), and likely a retinue of body guards / advisors at higher levels. Beyond that I'm uncertain, and in fact I think the social skill bonuses should be based on the difference in peerage rank divided by five (minimum 0). Thus a Duke conversing with a Viscount would have +3 to the Viscount's +0. (15/5 vs 0 [-15/5]) On the other hand, a Viscount would likely have a +0 or +1 vs a Baron and +1 or +2 vs a Gentry (based on differences in points of Peerage).
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Something similar could be done for priesthoods:
Of course, what benefits would be gained would be another matter to consider. I imagine that, unlike Peerage, levels should have a small bit of consideration. Perhaps 1/5 or 1/4 number of ranks in Knowledge (religion) automatically applies to rank, such that a Clr 20 with maximum ranks automatically has +4 or +5 to their score. Hmm, +5 sounds better at that point, actually. I would even consider making it 1/2 (for a total of +10 at level 20), but I want the raise in priesthood level to be based on more than merely knowledge of their faith, and also the examples in the PHB2 never gave more than +2 per five or more ranks, and often it simply gave +1 per specific skill in which 5+ ranks existed. So +1 per four ranks (1/4 ranks, for a total of +5 at level 20) is actually pushing the envelope of what should be allowed / used. The example organizations that used divine casters granted +1 or more for divine casting spell level, but considering some settings that use little of such (Eberron, for example) for most of its priesthood, I think +1 is about the best that should be had for casting at all. I use a variant of the cleric with delayed casting but that also make use of Lay on Hands and something similar to Touch of Vitality (but spread over many more levels, rather than 'all of these for only this many points at this level'), so perhaps something akin to +1 for casting, +1 for Lay on Hands, and +1 for this type of Divine Touch and +1 for that type of Divine Touch could make levels relavent without actually focusing on casting or granting too much of a bonus. It is something to consider.
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
But anyway, what do you all think of my idea regarding Affiliations outside of (Secret) Organizations and Cults, for something as common as typical Peerage?
Despite this, the idea that certain benefits should be able to come from various ranks in a heirarchy - benefits with more than mere role playing utility - has continued to have a bit of a hold on me, regardless of whether the heirarchy was governmental, religious, or so forth. However, I never really thought out a way to make it work. Then PHB II came out, and it had at least a score of pages on 'Affiliations.'
Now, I realize that Affiliations were meant to be used with Secret Organizations and Cults, but I can just as easily see it working with governmental heirarchies of peerage, religious heirarchies of priesthood, and artisan heirarchies of guilds.
Something like this, for instance, might work:
Code:
Affiliation . . Titles /
Score . . . . . Benefits & Duties
1-4 . . . . . . Gentry*, Landless Knight
5-9 . . . . . . Baron, Landed Knight
10-14 . . . . . Viscount
15-19 . . . . . Count / Earl
20-24 . . . . . Margrave / Visiduke
25-29 . . . . . Duke
30+ . . . . . . Grand Duke / Visroy / PrinceThe Criterion for increase would have to be more difficult to achieve, however, or nearly anyone would quickly work up the ranks. There should be very few means of increasing other than remarkable acts on behalf of a higher ranking lord and major achievements such as literally saving the kingdom or saving the life of the crown prince.
Code:
-2 . . . * not a member of peerage
-1 . . . ^ embarresses the honor / dignity of the kingdom
+1 . . . ^ enhances the honor / dignity of the kingdom
+1 . . . negotiates a favorable treaty for the kingdom (peace, trade, etc)
+2 . . . is instrumental in putting down an uprising, coup, etc
^^ +(1/5 ranks in Knowledge [Nobility / Heraldry])
+5 . . . ** parent holding family title dies^^ Not sure if this should exist, but it may make some sense. I'll have to think about it, as it would make levels an issue, which I was trying to avoid.
* Used primarily when a non-peerage performs an act that raises them into peerage, keeping their initial rank from being too high, etc.
** This bonus exists only to explain the usual shifting up a rank of a child to the parent's rank when the parent dies. I initially considered making it +4 so that the child had to work for it just a bit more, but so many examples exist in history where someone obviously poorly suited for their rank gained it anyway that it seems non-sensequal to have a +4 rather than a +5 for this purpose.
I'll need something else to explain why a child automatically has a certain rank. The problem is that the peerage system differed markedly in some areas. In some the first born had rank one step less than the father and all other immediate members of the family (sons, almost always) were two steps lower. This would be akin to -5 and -10, respectively. On the other hand, in some areas it was based on lands, and such were divided equally amongst the children (this would be more difficult to establish). Also, there were some areas in which one's rank was based upon the lowest ranking parent while in others it was one step less than the highest ranking parent.
Thus the initial Affiliation score cannot be zero for one born into peerage, but it cannot necessarily adhere to a single formula either. I would probably go with -5 from highest ranking parent for the heir and -10 from the highest ranking parent for other children. Or perhaps the second born takes up one rank less than the heir or one rank less than the lower ranking parent - whichever is higher - and later in life inherits the lands of the lower ranking parent. Other children (beyond the first two to inherit) would be two steps lower than the higher ranking parent or one step lower than the lower ranking parent - whichever is lower. Since it was not uncommon for a lower ranking parent to (basically) ascend to the rank of the higher ranking parent upon marriage, most of the time this will not be much of an issue, I think.
Note that class level does not affect Affiliation score of Peerage. This is prevent automatically gaining ranks in peerage based on arbitrary levels. A 10th level fighter may swear alligiance to a king and become the general of his armies, but he may still only be a Baron in terms of Peerage, despite his levels. Winning battles, however, could easily raise him up a level of peerage in short order (+2 for putting down uprising here, +1 for enhancing honor of kingdom by might/etc in battles, etc). The same could be true of a Cleric or Wizard 10 that becomes a councilor, etc.
Code:
Commits a crime against a member of peerage:
Base penalty:
-4 . . . heineous act
-3 . . . major crime
-2 . . . moderate crime
-1 . . . minor crime
plus: - (difference in peerage rank divided by five)
Finally, the final result is multiplied base on the difference in rank:
*3 . . . ^ if the criminal is non-peerage
*2 . . . if the criminal is of lower peerage rank
*1 . . . if the criminal is of equal peerage rank
*(1/2) . if the criminal is of higher peerage rankLastly, note that the restitution received will raise the one harmed by half the point difference lost from the convicted criminal, rounded down.
As an example, a major crime is commited by a Duke (27 pts) against a Viscount (12 pts). This is -3 (marjor crime) -3 (15/5, due to difference in rank) for a total of -6, but because the Duke is of higher rank, the penalty is only -3. So the Duke finds himself at 24. The crime was just enough to lower him by one degree of rank. Note that a single great deed on behalf of the kingdom will return him to his prior rank. Note also that he in all likelihood lost lands, titles, &/or honor, but it is possible that since he is within one point of his prior rank that many will still refer to him as 'Duke.' It could be, in fact, that he keeps his lands and title, but he pays so major a fine that he is a year or more recovering. Or perhaps he lost just enough land to the Viscount in restitution that his title of 'Duke' is questionable. Note that the Viscount, despite gaining these lands, does not increase in rank. His benefit from restitution is half the penalty paid by the criminal rounded down - or +1 point in this instance. He still needs another point to become a Count / Earl.
Note that if the criminal is a lower ranking member of peerage, if the penalty reduces the criminal to +0 Affiliation points or less then they lose all titles, lands, etc and are no longer a member of peerage. If a difference in points still exists (ie: if the debt is not yet paid in full) then the difference in points may be used to determine additional penalites (years in prison or indentured servitude / slavery, etc). This area will need more work.
An example could be the reverse of the prior one: A major crime is committed by a Viscount (12 pts) against a Duke (27 pts). This is -3 (major crime) -3 (15/5, due to difference in rank) for a total of -6, but because the Viscount is of lower rank, the penalty is multiplied by *2 for a total of -12. This is just enough to have the Viscount reduced to non-Gentry, no longer even a menial member of peerage. He has certainly lost all lands, titles, honors, etc. But consider if the crime was a Heineous act or if the Viscount had been 10 pts and the Duke 29 pts. The latter is less of an issue, as the result is still technically rounded down (19/5, rounds down to 3), but the former would certainly result in a penalty of -14 - two more points than the Viscount has. He would not merely be reduced to non-Peerage, he would not merely lose everything. He would find himself likely facing extended prison time, years (or even a lifetime) of indentured servitude (perhaps with the rest of his family if the act was terrible enough), or he may even face execution.
The actual penalties (beyond loss of lands, titles, etc) will need some work. They will also likely vary according to the alignment of the legal system. I can see a lawful one focusing more on service to repay loss (servitude) while a chaotic one may look upon the loss of freedom represented in prison time as more terrible. It will definately need some work.
To continue on:
Code:
Saves the life or otherwise performs a major / noble deed for a member of peerage:
+ (1/5 min points to be one of stated peerage) . . . saved the life of a member of peerage
+ (1/5, as above) . . . performed a vital task / noble deed for the person or lands of a member of peerage
+ (1/5, as above, -1) . . . saved the life of a close friend / relative of a member of peerage
+ (1/5, as above, -1) . . . performed a major / important task for the person or lands of a member of peerage
This works out to:
+1 . . . saved the life of a Baron or Barony
+2 . . . saved the life of a Viscount, saves the life of a close relative / friend of Count
+3 . . . saved the life of a Count / Earl or Countdom / Earldom
+4 . . . saved the life of a Margrave / Visiduke
+5 . . . saved the life of a Duke or Duchy, performs an important / major task for a Prince / Visroy
+6 . . . saved the life of a Grand Duke / Prince / Visroy
+7 . . . * saved the life of a Crown Prince
+8 . . . * saved the life of a King* Thrown in to give an idea of relative merit of these tasks. Thus one who saved the life of the reigning king as great personal risk would likely become a Baron (+5 or +6) if not yet a member of Peerage or would move up 1,5 ranks (+7 or +8) in the peerage if already a member.
This system likely needs a lot of work, but it gives a general idea of what I am considering (and considering that I wrote the whole thing up in the last couple hours it's not too bad for a brainstorming session).
Now, the beneifts from being a member of Peerage of a given rank are still up in the air at this point. One can assume some benefits in social skills related to others in peerage, as well as perhaps the Landlord feat (Stronghold Building Guidebook, I think it was called) at lower levels, along with perhaps some income per month (or more likely per year), and likely a retinue of body guards / advisors at higher levels. Beyond that I'm uncertain, and in fact I think the social skill bonuses should be based on the difference in peerage rank divided by five (minimum 0). Thus a Duke conversing with a Viscount would have +3 to the Viscount's +0. (15/5 vs 0 [-15/5]) On the other hand, a Viscount would likely have a +0 or +1 vs a Baron and +1 or +2 vs a Gentry (based on differences in points of Peerage).
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Something similar could be done for priesthoods:
Code:
1-4 . . . Initiates, lower ranking priests
5-9 . . . priests
10-14 . . bishops
15-19 . . arch-bishops
20-24 . . patriarchs, cardinals
25+ . . . the equivalent of the popeOf course, what benefits would be gained would be another matter to consider. I imagine that, unlike Peerage, levels should have a small bit of consideration. Perhaps 1/5 or 1/4 number of ranks in Knowledge (religion) automatically applies to rank, such that a Clr 20 with maximum ranks automatically has +4 or +5 to their score. Hmm, +5 sounds better at that point, actually. I would even consider making it 1/2 (for a total of +10 at level 20), but I want the raise in priesthood level to be based on more than merely knowledge of their faith, and also the examples in the PHB2 never gave more than +2 per five or more ranks, and often it simply gave +1 per specific skill in which 5+ ranks existed. So +1 per four ranks (1/4 ranks, for a total of +5 at level 20) is actually pushing the envelope of what should be allowed / used. The example organizations that used divine casters granted +1 or more for divine casting spell level, but considering some settings that use little of such (Eberron, for example) for most of its priesthood, I think +1 is about the best that should be had for casting at all. I use a variant of the cleric with delayed casting but that also make use of Lay on Hands and something similar to Touch of Vitality (but spread over many more levels, rather than 'all of these for only this many points at this level'), so perhaps something akin to +1 for casting, +1 for Lay on Hands, and +1 for this type of Divine Touch and +1 for that type of Divine Touch could make levels relavent without actually focusing on casting or granting too much of a bonus. It is something to consider.
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
But anyway, what do you all think of my idea regarding Affiliations outside of (Secret) Organizations and Cults, for something as common as typical Peerage?
Last edited:
