Quote from: Bren;899207One has one's car washed, but a peasant is always dirty.

"Must be the King's car... 'asn't got shit all over it."

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;899148Hear! Hear! I say, rather. What, What?

It's Wot, Wot old chap! (it's the first and third person singular present of 'wit' an archaic meaning of which is 'to know').

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;899338Disagree strongly.  I only run "sandbox" worlds where there is no such thing as "the need of the story."  The story... that is, "what happened" ... is shaped BY THE NPC PERSONALITIES (and how the PCs react to them), NOT the other way around.

Ahem, I think he doesn't mean the usual "needs of the story"...

Quote from: Crüesader;899340Eh, I can see that.  I dunno, sometimes for me it depends on how important the NPC is.  I mean, I kinda want to make an NPC that isn't cliche', but also one that fits into the setting.  Like, there's certain times you want the NPC to completely defy stereotypes and be something unexpected just to set the tone and have fun...

... but you also kinda need one that meets some expectations based on the culture, too.  If everyone is unique, no one is.  So I play them to their culture and such, to a large degree.  Even for me- an Aristocrat, a Noble, a Politician, a mob etc... they're supposed to do certain things and be a certain way to some degree.  Beneath that, they're individuals but it all depends on how far into the surface the PC's scratch.

Like, in one of the games that I play there's an old Apache former OSS guy.  He's kind of stone-faced and soft spoken, as you'd expect that guy to be.  He has a respect for nature and his culture.  But he's also obsessed with model trains, he's serious about his 'Days of Our Lives', and he tends to forget his shoes (he carries them in his hand as he's looking for them, he's pretty old).  He was raised a certain way (secretly- he's cursed to 'bury all of his sons, and his sons' sons', and so on- and he's been around since the 1700's) and he holds to his traditions.

Certain things are kind of expected based on environment.  And like I said, it all depends on how far you go.  For me, one of the most important aspects of a campaign is the setting and the environment.  But it's like you said- people do shape that, but for example when you see 'Shitty urban sprawl'... you kinda expect 'understaffed, stressed, emotionally drained police chief'... just like you'd expect to see 'mayor that is oblivious and aloof, and neglects people for what his sycophants advise'.

Make sense?

Makes sense to me. But that's not the way most people use "fitting the need of the story" today.
It's usually taken to mean "I put the NPC there because I need someone like him there for improving the narrative", often with "even if it doesn't make sense" added on;).
I'm pretty sure Gronan took it to mean like that...because I also had TBP flashbacks after reading the post he replied to:D!

Quote from: Crüesader;899364Truth.  Nutrition in the first 5-7 years of a child's life has a HUGE impact, and not just on the physique.  It actually affects their brain functions.  Not disparaging anyone's economic situation or upbringing... but there's a reason that in impoverished communities there are more children with poor grades and learning disabilities or other mental challenges.  These children grow into adults, and... well... let's just say 'stupid peasant' might not have just been something they said to make themselves feel better back in those days.

Citation needed. There are many people in underdeveloped countries that have known famines in their youths, and yet show amazing cognitive abilities.
A relatively modern example is here.
http://www.folkecenter.net/gb/news/world/african_windturbine/
And then cross-reference with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malawian_food_crisis

Quote from: Daztur;899370As far as people having roles in society that fit together, I don't really see that. More just gangsters demanding protection money.

And that's still "people with roles in society", even if you were true. "People without roles in society" is a city riot combined with guerilla activity.

QuoteFor modern old money types, a lot of people don't really get them since they really move in their own circles. They often imagine rich people the know just more so, when real old money is quite different like you say. Most rich people are really focused on acquiring status while old money often just doesn't give a shit since they were born with it. They're generally much less uptight than people imagine since they take their status too much for granted to be touchy about it.

That part, however, is spot-on IME.

Quote from: Ravenswing;899382
Of course we don't fear anarchy.  Beyond images on TV sets or the memories of veterans serving in war zones, no native-born American has the faintest idea what anarchy looks like.

I kinda disagree.
People have seen that. A well-known self-defense author keeps mentioning on his FB page that he "know(s) what it is like with no police at the streets". His memories date back to the LA riots when the cops went off the streets, it seems.
He usually mentions it when people wonder how comes that someone with his background is strictly pro-police;).

To complicate things, what it meant to be a aristocrat varied over time and space. What was true in classical Rome was different during the 5th century germanic invasions which was different than the high middle ages.

In general this is what I uses for my rules of thumb when comes to roleplaying aristocrats.

At their most basic, the nobles are glorified biker/mafia gangs. They have fierce sense of pride in their family. They will do much to defend the family and to advance it's fortune. The highest noble is what he is because he "earned" it in the eyes of his followers. Because he is provider for everybody else, and finally because he is the biggest and baddest of them all. He may not be actual best fighter in the group, but generally combines smarts, social savvy, and fighting ability.

The biggest badass of the realm becomes the king whose basic job is keep all the noble families from just outright killing each other every time somebody stubs a toe. While partly clothed in tradition and law, the basic principle is that the king can kick the shit out of anybody else, not just because his family can do it, but also because he a bunch of families who follow his lead.

So how did we get from the above to today's Rule of Law.

In a nutshell, in Western Europe is was driven by the discovery by the kings that money is really damn useful tool. Now even with a kingdom behind him, a king is generally unable to fully fund all his plans. Plus a lot of what he is owed, is tied up in a bunch of ifs and buts summarized in the traditions of the realms. Money in contrast is more easily spent. And the extra money can be obtained by securing loans from wealthy merchants.

What this sets up is a cycle where the king finds it advantageous to advance the commercial interest of his realm. This requires that the power become centralized in royal hands at the expense of the nobles. Centralized power allows for more efficient trade, and more efficient collection of taxes to fund the king's plans and to repay loans.

This eventually will lead to a new aristocracy dependent on the offices and favors bestowed by the king. This in contrast to the older nobles who were living semi-autonomously on land and local wealth. Money is ultimately the foundation of the new aristocracy.  Eventually commercial interests grow to the point where even royal authority begins to be questioned over that of the rule of law. Some realms this leads to rise of parliaments and the foundation of democracy, and others it leads to a new theory of the absolute monarch.

From old to new, traditions and mores are important as guide how nobles should conduct themselves socially. For old nobles it was a matter of life or death as a ruffled feathers could lead to a feud or worse war. Things weren't quite so dire for the new aristocrats but since their income was dependent on the rights and offices they held, they want to make sure they acted properly lest they fall out of favor and lose what they have.

At various there was a mix and tension between the old and the new, creating unique circumstances in each country. However I found breaking it down like the above helped me figure out motivations of the nobles. Which in combination with their personality allow me to roleplay them as people rather than caricatures.

Quote from: Manzanaro;899164"I've never seen anything like it. What do you CALL this act?"

"The aristocrats!"

I was paging through the thread to see if anyone else had posted this, working my way backwards, getting all excited and BAM!  Beat me to it.

Instead of Biker Gangs or Mob Bosses, the Manorial Lords are more like large Ranchers, in a modern sense, with an added divine right, and class distinction. "Space Aristocracy" is just hand wavy stuff, so make up anything you want for that as it would not ever happen anyways.

Quote from: estar;899608In a nutshell, in Western Europe is was driven by the discovery by the kings that money is really damn useful tool. Now even with a kingdom behind him, a king is generally unable to fully fund all his plans. Plus a lot of what he is owed, is tied up in a bunch of ifs and buts summarized in the traditions of the realms. Money in contrast is more easily spent. And the extra money can be obtained by securing loans from wealthy merchants.

What this sets up is a cycle where the king finds it advantageous to advance the commercial interest of his realm. This requires that the power become centralized in royal hands at the expense of the nobles. Centralized power allows for more efficient trade, and more efficient collection of taxes to fund the king's plans and to repay loans.

This eventually will lead to a new aristocracy dependent on the offices and favors bestowed by the king. This in contrast to the older nobles who were living semi-autonomously on land and local wealth. Money is ultimately the foundation of the new aristocracy.  Eventually commercial interests grow to the point where even royal authority begins to be questioned over that of the rule of law. Some realms this leads to rise of parliaments and the foundation of democracy, and others it leads to a new theory of the absolute monarch.

What an elegant summary. Thank you.

Quote from: dragoner;899639Instead of Biker Gangs or Mob Bosses, the Manorial Lords are more like large Ranchers, in a modern sense, with an added divine right, and class distinction. "Space Aristocracy" is just hand wavy stuff, so make up anything you want for that as it would not ever happen anyways.

Depends on the time. The times of a strong emperor (the chinese) or we approach the Renaissance in Western Europe, then nobles become more of the local political boss than the biggest baddest guy of the region. As long as there a rule of law than nobles can be something else other than a (mostly) popular thug.

As for Space Aristocrats they will likely be new nobles type who are jockeying for rights and positions to for money and power. A technological civilization can be autocratic but I have a hard imagining a plausible situation where it would be a bunch of barbarians except for very limited cases.

Quote from: estar;899672...I have a hard imagining a plausible situation where it would be a bunch of barbarians except for very limited cases.

Well there is this.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]79[/ATTACH]

Quote from: dragoner;899639"Space Aristocracy" is just hand wavy stuff, so make up anything you want for that as it would not ever happen anyways.

Quote from: estar;899672As for Space Aristocrats they will likely be new nobles type who are jockeying for rights and positions to for money and power. A technological civilization can be autocratic but I have a hard imagining a plausible situation where it would be a bunch of barbarians except for very limited cases.

Niven and Pournelle justified  it in their CoDominion setting by pointing out that in the case of an aristocrat, you have an entire lifetime in which to train one to be a leader. In the case of an elected leader, the training time is usually only a few elections.....

Traveller's OTU justifies it due to the decentralized nature of interstellar government. The technology limits the communications range of the leaders at the capital.

Quote from: Bren;899679Well there is this.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]79[/ATTACH]

If you haven't bothered to read it, you might want to. The ideas inside that book apply to many genres.

Quote from: Bren;899679Well there is this.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]79[/ATTACH]

I read Space Viking, in that case the Space Vikings hailed from Swords Worlds. That culture took advantage of the fact that the Terran Federation was collapsing to raid and pillage and eventually to conquer Federation worlds. The Sword Worlds had an autocratic government along with a technological civilization with a functioning economy. The Federation didn't. The Sword Worlds were not less sophisticated just more organized at the time.

Quote from: jeff37923;899681Niven and Pournelle justified  it in their CoDominion setting by pointing out that in the case of an aristocrat, you have an entire lifetime in which to train one to be a leader. In the case of an elected leader, the training time is usually only a few elections.....

My point is that technological civilization will collapse in a very different way than Rome or China did. For no other reason that the successors will be technological civilizations themselves.

Quote from: estar;899686I read Space Viking, in that case the Space Vikings hailed from Swords Worlds. That culture took advantage of the fact that the Terran Federation was collapsing to raid and pillage and eventually to conquer Federation worlds. The Sword Worlds had an autocratic government along with a technological civilization with a functioning economy. The Federation didn't. The Sword Worlds were not less sophisticated just more organized at the time.

I'll skip the question of what "more organized" means. The Sword Worlds had a superior technological base than the Federation worlds and a higher tech level than most Federation worlds - which is why their raids were successful.  But the Sword Words were not autocratic. They were feudal. None of their rulers had absolute power though part of the background to the world the protagonist was from was an attempt by the most powerful lord to become a king and to increase the level of autocracy he had.

But I mostly included the cover for grins and because I like the story.

Quote from: jeff37923;899681Niven and Pournelle justified  it in their CoDominion setting by pointing out that in the case of an aristocrat, you have an entire lifetime in which to train one to be a leader. In the case of an elected leader, the training time is usually only a few elections.....

Traveller's OTU justifies it due to the decentralized nature of interstellar government. The technology limits the communications range of the leaders at the capital.

Traveller is hand wavey, and varies by source, say from The Kinunir to GT Nobles, as to how it functions.

The CoDo stories, are great, and Space Viking too, I have them both, and reread them for nostalgia's sake. Manstein says it better in Lost Victories that the main benefit of democracy is that while it doesn't ensure good leaders, it does provide a mechanism for getting rid of bad ones. Estar pointed out rightly the dissolution of the old aristocracies in the 18th century, precisely because they were inefficient. Today we use professional managers, so that even elected officials are often there just to take the blame, and democracy gives an air of legitimacy that had fallen away from the old aristocracy. Political science is probably just another emergent property in a deterministic universe, meritocracy and interchangeability are just used for reasons of efficiency.