More Peasants!

[Juniper Onyx]

~This is moved from another topic~
What every Settlement, needs are 'peasants'! NPC's would be nice, but that's asking for too much from too few people.

A Baron can own as much land as he wants, but without peasants, that land produces nothing. Without a 'Crafting' middle class, there is no basis for taxes or 'skilled' labor.

How 'Guilds' and more especially 'players' interact as a 'team' or community needs to change. We can solve this problem as players.

It's been said before that there are too many 'Chiefs' and not enough 'Indians'. This is true, and when the 'Chiefs' have to do all the work themselves, they are sooo busy, they really can't get anything done fast enough to keep the people happy and interested. The guild soon becomes inactive.

I would like to see every player have a 'Main' character, that can be a 'chief' if they wish (spend 2/3 time IG), but also have a 'secondary' character that 'serves' another player, guild or whatever (For 1/3 time IG), with no ambition beyond that. I tried this with my Halfling "Darby" and I enjoyed it, until her Master suddenly couldn't speak Halfling! ((Dev's, can't live with them, can't live without them......LOL))

One character to lead, one to follow. If every player did this, I think we could get more done, and increase cooperation with other players. I think it would also add some great dynamics as we all play 'peasants and servants' in addition to having fun with our ambitious main characters.

Could everyone think about doing this?

One "Main" character played about 2/3 of your available time with the purpose to have fun!

One "Secondary" character played about 1/3 of your available time with the purpose to serve another player's "Main" Character and to help their 'fun'.

Who would like to promise to do this? Sign Below!

P.S.:For real fun, you could write the names of all the settlements on the Island on strips of paper and draw them from a hat! Then have your 'peasant' serve there! Who knows? It might be fun to RP with players you usually wouldn't!

Sign me up for peasantry.

Awesome Holy Knight! Thanks!

I'll also make another 'peasant' character.

[Achae Eanstray]

Description of the character
Wearing a peasant skirt and blouse ,......

Achae has never indicated being any different then a peasant. She serves the Druids.

[Magdha Tiefenerz]

Well, let's see.
Once upon a time there was a dwarven kingdom, called Silverbrand. It was the home of the dwarves, of those speaking the old language and of those who spoke only the new language. It was noticed in this kingdom that the dwarves with the new language where not as involved in the kingdom affairs as the dwarves with the old language. So an inquiry was ordered to find out how this could be and how it could be amended. To everyones surprise only one single dwarf answered the inquiry and stated that nothing can be changed.
And then came a dwarf called Chester Copperpot. He was a dwarf of the new language and quite eager to change something. But instead of joining and helping Silverbrand he decided to found a new settlement and proclaiming himself chief...

So Juniper Onyx increased the number of chiefs in Illarion and now he want to tell us, that we need more indians. Sorry, I don't buy it.

[Korm Kormsen]

the main point seems to be, that we have basicly two kinds of players.
"fairytalers" and "coincounters"

the fairytalers don't need money. they might get it as a byproduct of adventuring, if they play "he-man" chars or "ubermighty" mages, but they don't really need it.
and houses for them are a background only.
why should they feel the need, to play a "productive" second char?

for the other type of players money is essential, because it shows them their achievement in crafting/trading/monsterslaying.
they allready play first chars, that try to get rich. why should they play a second char, that works to get rich?

[Faladron]

Sorry, this idea won't work.

As you already stated, everyone plays as a primary character, someone who tries to accumulate wealth, fame, whatever.

It's inside peoples heads that they have to be the best, the richest and so forth.

Do you really want to play a character that is being used by another chief to become rich himself? Be bossed around, ordered, maybe treated bad as the other character is your peasants lord?

Nah thank you, I'm not into that kinky stuff with domination and the whips and the like.
I play this game for fun, not to serve someone else.

I sense this is a poor attempt for Goldburg to get more peasant slaves (be it by raffle it's still a chance ).

[Nitram]

Faladron got the point.

The players do only let their character do the things they get something from. So servants will never work.

day laborer could work in case the payment is good enougth. But for a good payment the characters need the be sure that the work they pay for offers more money then they payed in return.

And that leads to the money problem stated in the other topic.

[HolyKnight]

Faladron you are very judgmental it seems. Calm down, this has nothing to do with being kinky. And a lot of these bossing around orders your master gives you can be discussed oocly (to make sure that you have fun playing the character and not be another characters bitch) If you don't want to rp a peasant then dont. I for one like to test things out before making judgment, the truth is it is hard for factions/guilds to last without people to serve a leader. Uh... btw my peasant IS NOT serving Goldburg hehe.

[Faladron]

I don't know where I lost my temper but thanks for pointing that out.

I don't know where you get the impression that I have never tried to play a peasant, but thanks for pointing out that you should only talk about things you can judge, I feel perfectly able to give a judgement regarding this topic, thank you.

You are of course right with your observation that guilds do not last without people being ruled. That's a matter of fact and as you can see on the guildboard (talking about active guilds), the community does find it hard to play characters that accept at least some authority, and for people playing authority characters it is hard to enforce authority on the people (as you can see with every guild that has a "... is not allowed" in their charta). Thus the general lack of guilds, everyone wants to be a leader, OR most people do not care and just live somewhere without being taken into any official census.

Also the main reason why playing a tyrant ruler (besides being the king of Silverbrand or the high earl of the grey rose) does not work with this community is this: Everyone's playing an individual, self thinker with a lack of sense for authority, correct me if I am wrong

On the other hand: As soon as you play a peasant and get involved in the roleplay, you will notice that most people craft, fight and may even do magics as a pass-time activity, and they will tell you "Yeah I learned that while being on the island, it changed me".

So you'll either have to: Adjust and make your character a fighter / crafter as Roleplay progresses, or be completely dull for suggestions by other characters just to preserve your concept of being one to serve someone else.

And lastly:
Making new characters who PRODUCE NEW ITEMS does in no way help the economy. It only makes things worse as there are more items produced, more money being cashed in by NPC traders and no money leaving the game at all.

It's only an idea for getting cheap labour so buildings can be build faster,
so what will you do once the map is full of buildings? Economy will completely break down once that happens and this is only a way to speed up this process.

Btw: This isn't realy a technical proposal, perhaps it could be moved to the general board?

[Dantagon Marescot]

I have to say, I still think making merchant/trader characters would help the money problem. I don't mean make a new crafter, I mean make a purely rped character (who maybe has some fighting skills for defence), who purely buys and sells items to people in different towns. This would help spread money and items by people who don't usually interact. Not only that, but it would make for interesting rp.

@Faladron

I have to agree that it is difficult to play a chief character. There are so many people who want to be on top or really don't care about respecting the hierarchy ig. It is very unlikely for people to play peasants, though I think it is a good idea. You can still have fun and really that is all that matters.

[Faladron]

Thing is... the average character / newer player / every person with common sense will not sell for example wood for 2 copper pieces when he sees that a piece of armor or a bow sell for several silverpieces.

Of course he will think "Hey I can do that too!" and start to practice a craft on his own.

There are a lot of things that have to be done /reworked before anyone will see a point (in game wise, characterwise) other than being oocly influenced by a call to more slaves to play a "simple work" character over a longer time than the time it takes for a new player to realize he can earn more money AND have the pleasure of building cool stuff when he smiths the ores he mined himself rather than selling them for a penny.

[AlexRose]

Yes, but supply and demand. There's lots of demand for wood etc. but barely any for bows. People will realise they can't sell their stock and sell other things.

[HolyKnight]

I never said you haven't played a peasant hehe. Just said if you do not like it do not play them . I think as a community we should test out new ideas to see how they work. This is after all is a game in progress . I think there should be advantages to playing a servant/peasant...the master or overseer should provide food and clothing (obviously not finer wares but the basics) and if the peasant is serving a Chief/King then they should have a place to live even if it is like a barracks or shelter with other peasants. With something like this other peasants and servants could rp bickering about their master's treatment etc..

[Juniper Onyx]

Well, let's see.
Once upon a time there was a dwarven kingdom, called Silverbrand. .......And then came a dwarf called Chester Copperpot. He was a dwarf of the new language and quite eager to change something. But instead of joining and helping Silverbrand he decided to found a new settlement and proclaiming himself chief...

So Juniper Onyx increased the number of chiefs in Illarion and now he want to tell us, that we need more indians. Sorry, I don't buy it.

I see nothing helpful with your post. It is fueled by mistrust and some unreasonable hatred of my intent. I already 'politely' emailed you why English Dwarves had trouble entering Silverbrand. Not to mention that the internal board you speak of is written almost entirely in German. Goldburg (Location and initial start) was in "Cooperation" with Silverbrand, not against it. It was supported and is still supported by your King. My first post 'recruiting' dwarves was biased against Silverbrand, but once a GM explained to me how much Thorwald really does to help dwarves, I changed my opinion. I've done what Thorwald is doing, and I can empathize. After that, my intent was to help his efforts to help dwarves, German or English. As far as I am concerned, they are one and the same. The only reason I am chief is that someone has to start things going, I don't plan to stay chief. Chester's not a 'King' is he? Our charter provides for elections. Think about it. You can buy what you want, but let's not discuss this anymore. I am sure everyone else is tired of these posts about "Goldburg" vs "Magda Tiefenerz".

Thing is... the average character / newer player / every person with common sense will not sell for example wood for 2 copper pieces when he sees that a piece of armor or a bow sell for several silverpieces.

Of course he will think "Hey I can do that too!" and start to practice a craft on his own.

You missed the point of the idea, sorry. The secondary character is not 'ambitious'. Actually a peasant wouldn't have that outlook and "Independent" thought we take for granted, it's so 20th century! Most peasants grew up and learned the trade or task of their families. It was very "caste" oriented. A Farmer will teach his children farming, not smithing. As the children grow up and begin working for a local Lord, they will do what they know, or are expected to do. Peasants would know their 'place' in the world. They wouldn't dare rise above it, they often had families to support.

Playing a Peasant character like this is intended to 'serve' the game, not create slaves. There are too many people who think, "Oh, my character can cook, Mine, Smith, Carpenter.....oh yeah and fight and cast magic too!" C'mon, peasant characters should only be limited to 2-3 skills at most. They don't have to be farmers, but can be (Middle Class) craftsmen, butchers, cooks, Tailors, etc instead, whatever you are comfortable and enjoy doing. They are intended to collect and provide the 'basic' things like food, logs, bricks, stones, arrows, etc that many 'Main' characters consider a waste of time once they get to a higher level of skills. Peasants/Middle Class should be 'one' profession and stay there. Multi-skill with your Main character.

We need simple 'peasants'. It is voluntary, altruistic and a noble cause I think. If you think a peasant should 'Make money", I ask you to don't play one. Yes, they can make enough to live, but for this to work and actually 'help' the game, I believe one should play it to 'enhance' a settlement. You shouldn't expect any compensation for this. ((The GM's and Dev's don't and look how much work they give us!))

If you have fun with RP, I say great, but the idea is to help. As many 'leaders' know, it's hard to even 'buy' the building materials you need because 'everyone' else is collecting, not selling. The only option many have had, was to collect everything themselves, which is counter-productive as I explained earlier.

I like Eli's view that the Lord should 'support' the peasant with a room, food, even clothing for their work. This may help pull 'some' money away, which was the point of the other topic that started this.

Good posts however, I like the discussions. If this idea doesn't work, I guess I'll start scripting NPC peasants (I will, but it will take time from those who depend on Chester). I don't know what else we can do to 'balance' these "Chief"-Heavy Settlements and Guilds. Maybe I am naive to think that players could solve this ourselves, but it's always worth a try. I'm optimistic. There's lots of good players out there that can see the bigger picture.

PS: A Peasant character isn't intended for New players. They will eventually multi-skill their first character anyway, so why make them peasants? I think a 'peasant' character should only be played by those who are having fun with a Main character already.

[Gro'bul]

Great idea Juniper, one of the best in a long time I'd say. I always have basically played a hard working merchant/peasant. I just think it creates alot of good vibe in the game people working together rather than skilling up their fighting skills to compete against others players.

[Korm Kormsen]

A Peasant character isn't intended for New players. They will eventually multi-skill their first character anyway, so why make them peasants? I think a 'peasant' character should only be played by those who are having fun with a Main character already.

i agree.
beside my two mainchars for more than a year i got a lumberjack(yellow) whose only two other skills above blue (carpentry and fishing) are are dark green.
and a miner, that can fish, make bricks and smith just a little.
i think, that is about that, you had in mind.

but, i think, not every experienced player is able, to play such chars. there are experienced players, who have to evolve every char they touch, into something special.
(i am thinking there, among others, about a certain lad, who joined nordmark and quickly evolved a lot of skills. just to join a second guild and to perish silently, when the PO spotted a new idea...)

[Elsi]

You missed the point of the idea, sorry. The secondary character is not 'ambitious'. Actually a peasant wouldn't have that outlook and "Independent" thought we take for granted, it's so 20th century! Most peasants grew up and learned the trade or task of their families. It was very "caste" oriented. A Farmer will teach his children farming, not smithing. As the children grow up and begin working for a local Lord, they will do what they know, or are expected to do. Peasants would know their 'place' in the world. They wouldn't dare rise above it, they often had families to support.

There is no way, in-game, to reproduce the social pressures and environment which would make peasants or serfs have the peasant outlook, so please don't draft plans which rely on players following it.

If the peasantry system is going to work, there has to be some in-game mechanic to enforce it, and that means a *social* mechanic, not a systemic one. There have to be role-play opportunities which are really only open to characters who have been in the caste and contributed.

It can be done, but it's going to take a lot of time and work, and effort, and these characters would be just as fleshed out (rp wise) as the amount of time devoted to them. In other words, a 'peasant' character would be just as 'real' as any other character given the same time.

Ambitions would be different, but not absent. They just wouldn't involve the accumulation of 'real property'. Social standing within the peasant community comes immediately to mind.

(actually, there could be a mechanic which would almost immediately create a peasant class... any character who couldn't use a depot would be immediately dependant on others... this would, almost certainly, be a huge problem to program though)

[Korm Kormsen]

any character who couldn't use a depot would be immediately dependant on others...

... and would be either worthless, or a pain in the a.. for others.
imagine a peasant lumberjack, who depends on others to store lumber....

[Elsi]

any character who couldn't use a depot would be immediately dependant on others...

... and would be either worthless, or a pain in the a.. for others.
imagine a peasant lumberjack, who depends on others to store lumber....

Yup. Even if there were a game mechanic to create a peasant class, there would have to be a whole set of player conventions and systems to support it.

[Faladron]

Another thing:

Once you do come up with that, there will be a hell of a lot of characters that consider it unjust for your baron / lord / whatever to have peasants and will try to "free" them as in the process of roleplay.

(I remember a quest, years before, where a circus came to Trollsbane and showed exotic creatures. Instead of being amazed and cheer for the sight, people openly said "Hey, that's cruel to animals, let them free!", which is SOOO 20th century in my eyes).

EXACTLY the same will happen when trying to apply concepts like this.
People with the blade-skills and "openmindedness" (of the 20th century of course, or perhaps they back themselves up with a Salkamaerian Background) will come and try to crush your system.

People generally love to crush systems (The how many election (after struggle and civil war) in Trollsbane do we have right now?
How come nobody is able to be the accepted leader for once?).

So that's the next problem for your plans of roleplay, others will try to change it according to thier characters background and believes and in the end it will all be a big ctrl click mess.

[Vern Kron]

You all will rp into a current time at some popint. How many of you refer to HOURS? There is a difference here, which most players will see.
The elections were happening during the roman empire, before the Middle ages, in Rome. They had an oligarchy, and basically formed many, many, different goverments that are used to this very day. There is also a trade off of what people want to see IG, and what if fun or not. Also the cruelty of animals thing was around way before the Middle Ages as well, it is a part of Ahimsa, the practice of not killing or harming other living creatures so they can reach Nirvana, in the Bhudist (sp?) religion.

[AlexRose]

Yes, but our characters aren't Roman Buddhists .

[Azuros]

I find it quite annoying when told how my character should feel about a social situation because it's "modern". Quite frankly, I doubt that people's feelings about animal cruelty, human rights, and other social issues did -not- just spark out of nothing. People always had a natural sympathy, but their times put pressure on them to keep those views private.

[Juniper Onyx]

I find it quite annoying when told how my character should feel about a social situation because it's "modern". Quite frankly, I doubt that people's feelings about animal cruelty, human rights, and other social issues did -not- just spark out of nothing. People always had a natural sympathy, but their times put pressure on them to keep those views private.

Well, in my opinion, go ahead and be annoyed.

Read your History.

In my opinion, Human rights, animal cruelty and those "inventions" may certainly have been "empathized" , but not crap was ever done for them until the 18th century. It's when the public consciousness developed a "I can make a difference" attitude, that these things began to be addressed. Before that, nothing, nada, nichts, etc. Prove me wrong, please.

Honestly, I am not singling out any single character. We all have our '20th century' ideas. We can't help it. I am just concerned that this same philosophy would be counter-productive to playing a true 'peasant'. All I'm asking is that we as players realize our own biases and prejudices. Our Characters often tend to be a reflection of our inner selves.

[Faladron]

Juniper, I agree.

Not to sound offensive but your "constitution" for Briar (by Dusty, may he eat the tasty pies in whichever heaven he is now) could have been written around 1776 aswell (guess you know what I mean ).

But simply, many characters have an attitude like that.
And I do not want to go around and point my finger at them as that'd be exactly the thing that makes Azuros feel offended.

I just pointed out that it's there, there's no way to change it and it WILL sooner or later get into the way of this idea.

[Azuros]

No they did not do anything about it, you're absolutely right about that. But that does not mean they did not wish for it. To claim that the peasants had no ambitions or desires to get out of their social shell is simply erroneous, after all. Those in higher status just drove the peasants to their place through fear, and plenty of it. That, however, seems impossible to change IG, as it's all roleplay, not technical.

[Elsi]

Playing historically accurate peasants wouldn't be a lot of fun for many people. However, we're talking about a peasantry in a fantasy world, which might be workable... or it *might* lead to peasant revolts... either option would be very much 'in genre' of fantasy literature and fantasy movies. Suggesting that it's a failure of people to play in genre if they happen to feel that a 'freedom fighter' plotline suits them would be a bit silly.

The way to avoid that would be to have enough people playing peasants who, in character, treated their would-be liberators as outcasts to make it unworkable. Could this happen? Certainly, if playing peasants turns out to be fun. If you want to play a noble who would benefit from a viable serfdom, then you (the player) needs to come up with a way to make playing loyal serfs or peasants more fun than playing rebellious ones... because the in game social network will always favor what's most fun at the moment.

[Juniper Onyx]

Juniper, I agree.

Not to sound offensive but your "constitution" for Briar (by Dusty, may he eat the tasty pies in whichever heaven he is now) could have been written around 1776 aswell (guess you know what I mean ).

ROFL!!!!!

I was wondering when someone noticed! Yes, Dusty's constitution was inspired by a Movie I was watching called "1776" with William Daniels, which I still love! At the time, Trollsbane and Silverbrand both were rumored to take over, and Dusty simply stepped in and 'Declared' independance.

The Mayor/Alderman form of Government was inspired from Tolkien in his descriptions of Hobbiton. Even Samwise Gamji became the Mayor of Hobbiton. The 'kindly' west, with it's peaceful ways, would naturally form a less 'restrictive' government.

Greenbriar represents both these ideals.

In Hindsight, there was a lot of "Modern" ideas behind it, but at the time, I didn't really notice. Now that the whole Island seems to be 'democratic' (except Silverbrand, who has the only 'real' King!) these modern ideas actaully hamper the atmosphere. The example of the "Freak" Show sounded similar to what happened with the "Slave" Auction not too long ago. Many characters did "Modern" things and then hid behind the excuse, "They're Salkmarian" or such. Well, this isn't Salkamar, so that's just a cop-out as far as I am concerned.

Where, in History, did one or a few characters totally ruin everyone else's lives? Hmm.....Nero, Caligula, Torquemada, Napoleon, Hitler, Ceaucesceau, Tito, Saddam Hussein (and especially his sons!), and on and on. The world is never short of Tyrants and troublemakers, but at least in the World, they are a small minority. In Illarion.....well you know. Seems people get bored easily.

Perhaps playing peasants is too much to expect. I understand everyone just plays to have fun. So we'll need to find another way to populate these settlements I guess.