Talk:Game NPCs

Lords of the Realm

I have to disagree with the section on "lords of the realm." These are small realms we're talking of, and historically beneath the level of "knights" and "nobles" (player characters) there were no 'lords,' only vassals. Shire reeves, sherrifs, haywards, all those folks were essentially glorified serfs, very much bonded to the land and in thrall to the actual lords. I think it also diminishes the importance of player characters nobility to assume that there are vast amounts of nobles in the realm. Thoughts? - House Olik

Just think about it, there on average what? 30-40 Player Characters in every realm. Now compare that to your realms population. Of course there are going to be many, many more people involved with the running of the realm and maintaining everything etc. The difference with Player Characters is that it can be assumed their Family heritage elevates them into their status as some of the most powerful lords and nobles of the land. If anything this all just reinforces youre importance in the realm as a player character.--Revan September 10, 2005 20:15 (CEST)

Funny that you used the word thrall. Rather a mixing of terms;) But if you think about it, and look at the system closely, everyone is beholden and very much in servatude to someone else. Even Kings to the church and the duchies. Not even the Papalcy was safe from the system because more than one army marched on the Vatican when they were unhappy with the Pope.

And I would disagree that it was that linar about whom had favor and whom didn't. I believe our modern socieity not only romantizes it, but organizes it in a more clearly understandable, a way that it was not meant to be understood in a time where so few people even had a rudimentry education, and that includes the nobility. Honestly the time of BattleMaster is before the type of cataloging and charting that you speak of even existed.

That being said... BM has to be cleaner and dirtier in the way that it works, because it is a game and that it emphasizes the battle aspect. The Hierarchy is clear as day. It is separated into two vague caste first Player Character over NPC, and then into a heirarchy. That is the only real place it gets muddled which is far different then the actual system where it could get muddled on a Kings whimsie, and often was. --Eric S P 11 September 2005 00:05 (CEST)

I don't disagree that there are more folks (NPCs) involved in running the realm... but there is a social hiearchy and a political one. Politically, the general may run the army (for example) but he is not a Lord because of it. Socially, the player characters are unequalled, and if they arent why cant I swear fealty to one of these unnamed anonymous lords? Cuz they don't exist, no?

Hierarchy

If you take number 2 as the definition of BM Hierarchy that is how you you get NPC Lords that are out ranked by PC Knights and Nobles

hierarchy

/hiraarki/

 • noun (pl. hierarchies) 1 a ranking system ordered according to status or authority. 2 an arrangement according to relative importance or inclusiveness. 3 (the hierarchy) the clergy of the Catholic Church or of an episcopal Church. 4 Theology the traditional system of orders of angels and other heavenly beings.

 — DERIVATIVES hierarchic adjective hierarchical adjective hierarchize (also hierarchise) verb.

 — ORIGIN Greek hierarkhia, from hierarkhes ‘sacred ruler’.