Sexuality in your games.

[Nine Hands]

We've had many campaigns where sexuality was prevalent. I think every character had some sort of relationship (or fling) with an NPC and sometimes the PCs were involved with each other. It kind of helps that I had two women in the game at the time and that sort of drove the romance angle. Plus, I as a GM am not against those sort of things.

Romance is a prime motivator, it creates plot, reason, etc. Plus without it, how are you going to have your children grow up to avenge the death of thier parents.

Now as to homosexuality, I've been in a campaign where a straight guy played someone who was gay and he did a good job. Made a great friend for my female character, we got to go shopping together I don't dwell on the homosexual angle in my games, its there but its not a huge deal.

 

[fusangite]

One thing I should clearly point out about slaves is that they belong to the Empire not individual people.

But, from my understanding of Roman slavery, the empire's courts functioned as arbitrators of master-slave disputes and dealt with such questions as disputed ownership, self-purchase, etc. This seems like a pretty major modification of the Roman system. I see three things arising from this:
(1) De facto chattel status: If it is always in the imperial interest to maintain an individual's status as a slave (as opposed to supporting self-purchase in order to pad the tax rolls and undermine patrician power), wouldn't slaves just be permanently consigned to this state? Why would it ever be in the interests of a magistrate to permit self-purchase? Furthermore, if masters cannot grant manumission, there would exist no other way for slaves to be freed.
(2) Lower standards of treatment: If patricians have no financial incentive to keep slaves alive, given that they don't actually belong to them, wouldn't treatment of slaves be much worse?
(3) Reduced patrician power: If patricians can have all their slaves seized by the state at any time, they would be even more like a service gentry class, their status contingent upon maintaining good relations with the army.

On another matter, your use of elections is obviously beyond what most pre-modern societies engaged in. Having so many decisions made by simple majority rather than general acclamation would likely destabilize society at the local level as small shifts in support could result in significant realignments of power.

First, you have the Nobility. Local nobility is elected by the citizens who own land.

What do you mean by "own land" -- I'm assuming we're not dealing with fee simple title here. What does this entail?

They make up the local lords, which are in charge of levying taxes on the towns and villages under their control, providing a respectable militia, etc.

A big problem in Rome is that tax farming was often a money-loser. Is this the case here? Do people try to avoid election for fear of their net worth declining?

They can be seen as the executive branch of government with some legislative power.

If I were you, I would strongly resist the use of such categories in an imperial despotism.

They also come together to elect local mayors and councilmen

You might want to deploy different words here for a more ancient feel. Also, remember that representative democracy was really not an operating idea until the 18th century. The idea of an elected assembly was non-existent until modern times. Elections were for single offices with absolute power. Assemblies tended to be populated by people who were there by birthright.

I think you would be more likely to see a local magistrate being elected and then selecting councillors of his own choosing.

The combined local lords then have the ability to come together and elect a local governor for their province, based on the Noble Houses among the High Blood living within the province.

Wouldn't the governor be appointed by the emperor? If the emperor's authority is as absolute as you say, why would he not choose who governed the province?

These local lords function as the Governors Council and can serve as a legislative branch of government.

You're getting way too modern here. Power flowing upwards from the bottom with clear areas of jurisdiction -- too clean in my opinion. One of the ways that imperial systems survive is they create areas of concurrent, contested jurisdiction so that different groups fight with, and thereby undermine eachother at the local level, thereby maintaining imperial authority.

You then have the Imperial Church, which is best thought of less as a religion and more as a branch of government.

The idea of religion and branch of government as distinct and separate categories is a very modern way of looking at the world. Surely it is both.

Typically speaking when a religion merges with the government the government becomes ruled by the religion.

Wrong. Go and read my stuff in the Politics in D&D thread.

The opposite has happened here, with the government gaining considerable power over the religion. (Although not without relinquishing a considerable amount of its own.)

There is nothing exceptional about this. If you want to look at church-state relations in Byzantium and Imperial Russia (ie. the states that descended from the Roman order) you will see very much the situation you are describing. A religion that sanctifies and emperor thereby subordinates itself to imperial authority.

Anyway, I'm short of time so I'm going to stop there and pick up the rest of your post when I get back from my holiday. Happy world building.

 

[Malanath]

Aikuchi-

Thanks for your insights, I'm going to take them into consideration. It is certainly helpful to have someone who actually lives in a culture where the practice exists. Your insights are very valuable, and again I thank you.

fusangite-

On the issue of slavery, I believe it is important to point out that slavery, while prevalent, is highly regulated by the Empire. Slaves, rather than being the result of conquered nations are actually more likely to be citizens of the Empire who have committed a crime (real or perceived). Slavery is a common punishment for crimes, and is considered a slightly lesser punishment than death. Theft, for example, would result in you being sold into slavery.

Why is slavery used in this way? Several reasons. First and foremost it is cheap. You basically have three other options with criminals: maim them, imprison them or kill them. Maiming them will lessen their value to society, such as the removal of a hand for stealing. Imprisoning them actually involves building prison complexes to house them, and then costs money to higher prison guards and the like, which means from the logical prospective of the Empire you'd just be better off taking the third option which is killing them.

However, if you enslave them then not only does the Empire have a cheap source of labor, then they also turn previously unproductive people in society into productive people. Why pay a citizen to dig a ditch when you can force a slave to do it for free?

I should point out that the Imperial Economy is still, for the most part a labor driven economy, even though it makes a rather large use of slaves.

This brings me to your points.

(1) De facto chattel status: If it is always in the imperial interest to maintain an individual's status as a slave (as opposed to supporting self-purchase in order to pad the tax rolls and undermine patrician power), wouldn't slaves just be permanently consigned to this state? Why would it ever be in the interests of a magistrate to permit self-purchase? Furthermore, if masters cannot grant manumission, there would exist no other way for slaves to be freed.

This is more or less what happens, slaves are viewed as little more than chattel - a resource to be used and exploited. And although slavery comes with a sentence, such as "3 years of servitude to the Empire," the fact of the matter is there are so many loopholes in the "law" that you will likely end up serving your entire life as a slave. Which, to be honest, is going to be a short life as you'll be worked to the bone and find that dogs receive better treatment.

Understand that slavery is used as a deterrent and a punishment. It serves as a warning to others who would violate the law, as well as punishing those who broke the law, as well as fulfilling various roles in society.

(2) Lower standards of treatment: If patricians have no financial incentive to keep slaves alive, given that they don't actually belong to them, wouldn't treatment of slaves be much worse?

Yes, there is certainly a low standard of treatment, but there are financial incentives to keep slaves alive. Slaves are used in dangerous jobs, such as mining or labor intensive jobs such as building walls and roads. To a MUCH lesser degree, slaves serve as personal servants, and a slave with specialized skills - such as a blacksmith - would be forced to use those skills in such a way as to provide a financial benefit to the Empire.

You can think of slavery in a similar way as a modern day prison. There is a whole infrastructure built around it. Rather than simply housing the criminals, they are put to use for the good of the Empire - most likely expending their lives in the process.

(3) Reduced patrician power: If patricians can have all their slaves seized by the state at any time, they would be even more like a service gentry class, their status contingent upon maintaining good relations with the army.

No, I think you misunderstand how it works. The Patricians (the ruling caste) are the ones (I.E. the Empire) who own the slaves. The Emperor could, yes, demand that slaves be sent to him but there is little need for it outside of spite. The primary purpose of slaves are not personal servants, but rather as hard laborers. They dig the ditches, they haul the stone, they dig the stone from the Earth, they shape the stone and then they place it where it needs to be. Slaves are often treated and even viewed as sub-human. Slaves have almost no rights, and the rights they do have primarily exist to prolong their life so that they can continue to serve in their current status. If those rights did not exist, they would likely die within the first few weeks of service as they would be forced to work non-stop, with almost no food or water.

Slave revolts when they happen, are easily put down, and typically result in mass slaughter, with their bodies being used as a deterrent and a warning to other slaves who contemplate rebellion.

In the end, you would probably be more lucky in receiving a death sentence than being forced into slavery.

Now, on to your other points.

On another matter, your use of elections is obviously beyond what most pre-modern societies engaged in. Having so many decisions made by simple majority rather than general acclamation would likely destabilize society at the local level as small shifts in support could result in significant realignments of power.

I agree I think I went rather overboard. When I made the system, I was working from the bottom up, and neglected to realize that in an Imperial society things would work from the top down.

I was thinking too locally, so here is how things would work - revised with the things you pointed out.

First of all, the Emperor as I previously stated has complete authority to do whatever he wants, however there are obvious limits to this. He may be able to order someone's execution, but it does not mean people will jump to obey, and if he oversteps his bounds, he will receive a backlash.

The Emperor is held in check primarily by the other Nobility under him and the Imperial Church. The Imperial Church, in many respects, is equal to the Emperor in power - not only because they have the ability to say who is a noble and who is not (and therefore have the ability to influence the Nobility), but because they have the power to influence the citizenry as well.

There is also the factor of the Imperial Shadows. While they are seen as primarily servants of the Emperor, they are an organization all of their own, who has a leader, and as a organization have goals that may conflict with the Emperor's goals. While they would most likely not act out directly against the Emperor, they could (and have in the past) indirectly acted in ways as to subvert the Emperor and his authority and power to better suit their own goals. The Shadows power is not one used through force, but one used through subtlety and guile.

Obviously, things were not like this in the beginning, but over time as Emperors came and left there were changes to the institutions and framework of the Empire. The society largely grew organically, seeking a balance of powers - which is how the three Pillars of the Empire emerged.

Now, below the Emperor is the Nobility. I am taking your advice, and am somewhat dumbfounded that I didn't do it myself - by making the Governors of the individual provinces appointed by the Emperor. I'll then allow that Governor to promote and demote the local lords.

This works much better with my goals involving nobility and their attempt to weasel their way up the blood-chain. It promotes a culture of bootlicking and backstabbing, which is always fun and exciting.

On the local level, villages and towns, a local mayor is elected and he then elects his own town council. This local mayor will be the one responsible for the town or village, and will be the one who confers with the local lord. This promotes local politics.

I think in the end this system is ideal for my purposes and is more of what I was going for.

What do you mean by "own land" -- I'm assuming we're not dealing with fee simple title here. What does this entail?

Well I am still working things out, but here is what I am throwing around in my head.

Land Ownership is still a relatively new concept. It came out of a particularly tumultuous period in the Empire's history (100-200 years ago). At the time all land was owned by the Empire, and administered by the local lords just in a typical feudal society. However, a period of relatively long drought left farmers with particularly low yields - which began to result in famine. When the common people turned to the Nobility for aid, they were basically turned away, and as people died and tensions rose a revolt was eminent. The result was years of sporadic uprising, which was put down typically through the use of the sword.

Even after the drought had ended, there were still bad feelings, and the common folk eventually began to simply refuse to relinquish their yields. Shabby town militias formed to protect the food. There began to be disputes to who actually owned the land and who did not. Did the land belong to the local lords or the people who worked on it?

The Emperor at the time was a rather intelligent fellow, and approached things in a way that was win-win for everybody. (Or almost.) He came up with a number of reforms, the land reform idea being one of them. It was designed to spread the amount of land owned across a greater range of people, give the commoners a sense of responsibility in their ownership of the land, enhance their productivity, and stimulate the Imperial Economy on a more local level.

Up until that point the vast majority of the money has been in the hands of the Nobility, and while this is still true today the poor are not as poor as they used to be - giving rise to a middle class of sorts.

Landowners were required to pay taxes on their land, which they had to purchase from their local lord. No one of non-noble blood may own more than 500 acres of land. The landowner is subject to pay taxes on whatever profits are made on the land as well as pay taxes for simply owning the land. The land could then be used to rent, lease, live on, use for a private business or even sold to another individual. A private landowner is also entitled to certain extra rights not afforded to non land owning citizens, which tied into another reform on the local level - the institution of small local government. (Mayors and Town Councils.)

Now while this may seem all great on the surface, you must keep in mind that the reasons for doing this were not for the benefit of the common people, but for the benefit of the Empire as a whole. While commoners may own land, a local lord may take the land away, provided he can provide a "just" reason. So in reality land ownership is more or less an illusion.

The downside is that the nobility can no longer demand certain services for free on the simple fact that they owned the land. However, there are laws in place that require the goods produced on the land to be distributed first to the local lord before any other lords - to prevent bidding wars on goods and services produced on the land. This works to the favor of the nobility as they also get to set the price at which they pay, which is typically low.

The Empire has been largely reshaped by land ownership.

I think this by and large answers your major questions, and perhaps makes some of your other questions and statements moot after I changed things. Thanks again, have a good holiday, and I hope to hear from you again soon.