Adventurer's Guild [AGSA] Adventurer's Guild Sky Archipelago - OOC Room

[The_Everdistant_Utopia]

So something like Grogar The Arrogant could be used to mock him? Considering his attitude.

C'mon, let's be sarcastic and call him Duke Grogar the Sensible!

 

[Way]

I don't know.. Unless something happens with Duke Grogar that affects the entire Sky Archipelago then nothing I guess? Unless that's not what your question meant.

About his character, I mean. it's interesting that everyone is thinking of ways to ridicule him for being pretty overtly stirring the chamberpot, so I wonder what they had in mind for developing his character.

Just a note, this is probably the first major shared NPC we have so far xD

 

[BouncyCactus]

Oh, Oh, Grogar the Tasteful....I somehow got an image of gold-plated-everything-mansion! Or, Grogar the Golden Bull(ock)

 

[fyrre]

About his character, I mean. it's interesting that everyone is thinking of ways to ridicule him for being pretty overtly stirring the chamberpot, so I wonder what they had in mind for developing his character.

Just a note, this is probably the first major shared NPC we have so far xD

Oh! Cocky, arrogant, likes to say a lot of words he thinks is wise when in reality they're actually bullshit. But maybe can be smart when needed? A bit of a belly, balding for someone who's not yet old and drinks a lot of wine.

 

[The_Everdistant_Utopia]

Hm.... ambitious but somewhat incompetent leader. A little power hungry, blinded by power and riches, but also quite cunning when he needed to, but also lack the foresight. Appearance wise, little fat and bald maybe?

I see.... I am not very familiar with these western title, as in some case, Chinese and to an extend feudal southeastern asian country bestow title to people as a way to show favor or to appease certain people. So, landless nobles were a thing, although they weren't high in the power scale. Scholars and advisors too, sometime will have a title of their own, but no lands at all, in order to show the favor by the king or emperor.

I'm not much acquainted with eastern governing styles, if I'm gonna be honest~ Feudalism is quite simple as it was basically a chain of fealty and can be boiled down to landlordception.

All land technically belonging to the monarch, but lent to nobles in fealty contracts for them to administer in their stead. Then those nobles that 'rented' the king's land in exchange for loyalty and a cut of the taxes would in turn divide their land and lend it to other nobles in exchange for contracts of fealty and taxes. And the cycle goes on.

Nobility in an European sense is basically being a landlord renting out property to other landlords that rent out their property to another layer of landlords. At the end of the chain were the peasants, who exchanged servitude for renting out their houses' land.

 

[BouncyCactus]

I'm not much acquainted with eastern governing styles, if I'm gonna be honest~ Feudalism is quite simple as it was basically a chain of fealty and can be boiled down to landlordception.

All land technically belonging to the monarch, but lent to nobles in fealty contracts for them to administer in their stead. Then those nobles that 'rented' the king's land in exchange for loyalty and a cut of the taxes would in turn divide their land and lend it to other nobles in exchange for contracts of fealty and taxes. And the cycle goes on.

Nobility in an European sense is basically being a landlord renting out property to other landlords that rent out their property to another layer of landlords. At the end of the chain were the peasants, who exchanged servitude for renting out their houses' land.

Huh? This is the first time I heard that land is rented to the nobility by the monarch, but that made sense.... Interesting. I'm not really familiar with feudal histories either, so this is a learning thing for me too. I am much more acquainted with the 1900s naval military histories, lol. Very niche, very specific, I know, but I am trying to learn more about the feudal and ancient history.

 

[fyrre]

I'm not much acquainted with eastern governing styles, if I'm gonna be honest~ Feudalism is quite simple as it was basically a chain of fealty and can be boiled down to landlordception.

All land technically belonging to the monarch, but lent to nobles in fealty contracts for them to administer in their stead. Then those nobles that 'rented' the king's land in exchange for loyalty and a cut of the taxes would in turn divide their land and lend it to other nobles in exchange for contracts of fealty and taxes. And the cycle goes on.

Nobility in an European sense is basically being a landlord renting out property to other landlords that rent out their property to another layer of landlords. At the end of the chain were the peasants, who exchanged servitude for renting out their houses' land.

So what about nobility that owned the land for generations? Would it still be counted as property that belonged to the monarch?

 

[The_Everdistant_Utopia]

Huh? This is the first time I heard that land is rented to the nobility by the monarch, but that made sense.... Interesting. I'm not really familiar with feudal histories either, so this is a learning thing for me too. I am much more acquainted with the 1900s naval military histories, lol. Very niche, very specific, I know, but I am trying to learn more about the feudal and ancient history.

It was kind of the only way to administer larger territories at some point, given the difficulty in a single person taking care of an entire kingdom.

Hmmm... I think the word 'rent' is kind of a not that accurate word, but it's the best I could think of.

Because, say I am to become Ascalio, Count (of) Simar. That would mean I would own the island of Simar, I would be responsible for justice in the island of Simar and I would be in charge of collecting taxes in Simar in the Queen's stead.

I would probably be under some other noble, perhaps a Duke. I would have to then pay a cut of the taxes I collected to that duke because I am 'renting' some of his land in a contract. And in turn that Duke would have to pay a cut of his taxes (which may include some of the taxes I had to pay to him) to the Queen.

By 'rent' I mean taxes and loyalty (and military service when necessary)~

 

[fyrre]

C'mon, let's be sarcastic and call him Duke Grogar the Sensible!

A title like that would inflate his ego more if it's canon that he wouldn't be able to get the mocking undertones of that title!

 

[The_Everdistant_Utopia]

So what about nobility that owned the land for generations? Would it still be counted as property that belonged to the monarch?

Yep. Basically.

The entirety of Britain was the personal property of the King, granted by God to them, and nobles only held it in a 'rented' sense technically, but in practice this was only as far as the King could enforce.

For example, if I couldn't possibly oppose the King (and his loyalists) militarily, then they had every right to strip me from any land I had because I was just holding on that land for them even if my family spent centuries on that land.

 

[fyrre]

It was kind of the only way to administer larger territories at some point, given the difficulty in a single person taking care of an entire kingdom.

Hmmm... I think the word 'rent' is kind of a not that accurate word, but it's the best I could think of.

Because, say I am to become Ascalio, Count (of) Simar. That would mean I would own the island of Simar, I would be responsible for justice in the island of Simar and I would be in charge of collecting taxes in Simar in the Queen's stead.

I would probably be under some other noble, perhaps a Duke. I would have to then pay a cut of the taxes I collected to that duke because I am 'renting' some of his land in a contract. And in turn that Duke would have to pay a cut of his taxes (which may include some of the taxes I had to pay to him) to the Queen.

By 'rent' I mean taxes and loyalty (and military service when necessary)~

That's simple and understandable. Thanks for breaking it down in such an understanding way!

 

[BouncyCactus]

So what about nobility that owned the land for generations? Would it still be counted as property that belonged to the monarch?

It was kind of the only way to administer larger territories at some point, given the difficulty in a single person taking care of an entire kingdom.

Hmmm... I think the word 'rent' is kind of a not that accurate word, but it's the best I could think of.

Because, say I am to become Ascalio, Count (of) Simar. That would mean I would own the island of Simar, I would be responsible for justice in the island of Simar and I would be in charge of collecting taxes in Simar in the Queen's stead.

I would probably be under some other noble, perhaps a Duke. I would have to then pay a cut of the taxes I collected to that duke because I am 'renting' some of his land in a contract. And in turn that Duke would have to pay a cut of his taxes (which may include some of the taxes I had to pay to him) to the Queen.

By 'rent' I mean taxes and loyalty (and military service when necessary)~

So, maybe a better description would be hereditary governor? Like, the crown bestow the noble the power to govern the land under the king/queen name with the power to enforced and create laws to do so? Or, that was the origin of it, until it turned into a power struggle between the sovereign and the powerful vassals that could overthrow the king if given the chance???

 

[Reborn_Cat]

Hoh, I have a question. What do you all have in mind for Duke Grogar?

I'm not going to make any moves on the duke till something major happens, but can I suggest a possible rebellion from the duke. It would fit him to think he deserves to rule rather than some unknown queen.

 

[The_Everdistant_Utopia]

So, maybe a better description would be hereditary governor? Like, the crown bestow the noble the power to govern the land under the king/queen name with the power to enforced and create laws to do so? Or, that was the origin of it, until it turned into a power struggle between the sovereign and the powerful vassals that could overthrow the king if given the chance???

Yeah, a better way to see it is Hereditary Governor. But also Hereditary General, since if you were a noble you were supposed to respond to calls to war by your king and were expected to be conscripting, equipping and feeding people from your personal estate to follow you to war.

The crown basically bestowed the power to govern and collect taxes by proxy, in exchange for a cut of those taxes of course. Nobles were basically able to put in place and enforce any law they wanted in their personal estates as long as it didn't conflicted with a law of someone above you in the food chain.

It was born from a combination of tribal chiefs awarding land to great commanders under them and the leftovers of the Roman administration (fun fact, the fact that peasants couldn't move (as in change homes, you were still allowed to travel) from the land they were born was actually a leftover of the Roman Empire that in its last legs implemented a law making moving homes illegal to prevent losing manpower in the provinces).

Power Struggles are actually a consequence of this system, since while land was on the hands of the king, the people who administrated the land (nobles) were the ones with military power. And while kings had direct vassals (most likely dukes), their vassals had vassals and those vassals were, while indirectly subordinate to the king, closer to their overlord Duke than the king most of the times.

 

[Way]

Hm.... ambitious but somewhat incompetent leader. A little power hungry, blinded by power and riches, but also quite cunning when he needed to, but also lack the foresight. Appearance wise, little fat and bald maybe?

That sounds about right- although being so aggressive probably isn't the brightest of ideas, being able to muscle through an expedition implies a good knowledge of how to leverage power.

Though, I like to imagine that while controversial in general, he is also a very charismatic figure, which is what allows him to lead the Warhawk faction. Boisterous and recklessness may be a weakness for some, but strength for others. Spin it negatively, and you get a leader that is all talk and no substance. Spin it the right way and you get a leader that leads the charge head-on. The kind of person that you would drink with, but only if they promised under a geas to not get political.

So while he might be full of shit, he will eat his own shit to demonstrate that he is serious about his shit.

That was a mouthful, but I like 'villain' characters that are actually complex enough for you to understand why their faction would root for them other than "profits and idiocy"

Oh! Cocky, arrogant, likes to say a lot of words he thinks is wise when in reality they're actually bullshit. But maybe can be smart when needed? A bit of a belly, balding for someone who's not yet old and drinks a lot of wine.

It's kinda funny how everyone imagines him to be bald and beer-bellied like a generic villain duke when I actually have the image of a large, thick but musclebound military leader that has pretty good military achievements but is it a bit too overblown with ambition and confidence for even his considerably large breaches.

 

[fyrre]

That sounds about right- although being so aggressive probably isn't the brightest of ideas, being able to muscle through an expedition implies a good knowledge of how to leverage power.

Though, I like to imagine that while controversial in general, he is also a very charismatic figure, which is what allows him to lead the Warhawk faction. Boisterous and recklessness may be a weakness for some, but strength for others. Spin it negatively, and you get a leader that is all talk and no substance. Spin it the right way and you get a leader that leads the charge head-on. The kind of person that you would drink with, but only if they promised under a geas to not get political.

So while he might be full of shit, he will eat his own shit to demonstrate that he is serious about his shit.

That was a mouthful, but I like 'villain' characters that are actually complex enough for you to understand why their faction would root for them other than "profits and idiocy"

It's kinda funny how everyone imagines him to be bald and beer-bellied like a generic villain duke when I actually have the image of a large, thick but musclebound military leader that has pretty good military achievements but is it a bit too overblown with ambition and confidence for even his considerably large breaches.

Alright, I do admit I had the piggy villain duke image in my head but honestly, your version of Duke Grogar sounds better and more realistic.

Your version of him sounds like, a yeah maybe you don't like him but you have to admit he's good at what he does and sometimes an enjoyable figure to hang around with type of guy. I like it!

 

[BouncyCactus]

And while kings had direct vassals (most likely dukes), their vassals had vassals and those vassals were, while indirectly subordinate to the king, closer to their overlord Duke than the king most of the times.

Ah, the classic case of Fuck you Senate, Caesar is better (im looking at you, Legio X....)

It's kinda funny how everyone imagines him to be bald and beer-bellied like a generic villain duke when I actually have the image of a large, thick but musclebound military leader that has pretty good military achievements but is it a bit too overblown with ambition and confidence for even his considerably large breaches.

With the name Grogar, I cant imagine him being muscly tho. That name doesnt command respect and power. I think he is more of a armchair leader tho. Not on the field, but has a vast military experience, past his prime and due to his lavish life, isn't in the best of shape. He got good, and I mean really good commanders and fighters under him. Maybe not my initial image of him, but I would developed him as a duke how gor over his head about his power and all, due to his lately lavish life style and 20 years of relative peace. Maybe after some failure or opposition, he will slowly returned to his former glory, but just a little too late for a complete victories.

Your version of him sounds like, a yeah maybe you don't like him but you have to admit he's good at what he does and sometimes an enjoyable figure to hang around with type of guy. I like it!

He would throw mad parties tho....That how he got people on his side!

 

[Reborn_Cat]

Alright, I do admit I had the piggy villain duke image in my head but honestly, your version of Duke Grogar sounds better and more realistic.

Your version of him sounds like, a yeah maybe you don't like him but you have to admit he's good at what he does and sometimes an enjoyable figure to hang around with type of guy. I like it!

Well my version of the duke was this middle-aged guy with a beard who fills his house with a bunch animal heads he claims to have hunted them when he really just buys them of the adventurers guild, and the guild blackmails him with this knowledge even though it's an open secret and he thinks that no one knows.

 

[BouncyCactus]

Also, I am enjoying this so much, developing the duke character, so much more than writing my novels, lol.... The next few chapters may see a dip in quality

 

[The_Everdistant_Utopia]

Ah, the classic case of Fuck you Senate, Caesar is better (im looking at you, Legio X....)

Pretty much~?