Revision as of 16:11, 24 January 2018

This is an archive of responses that have been recorded by staff on the Theme Questions board. Unless indicated otherwise, these are direct quotations from the bboard.

Arvani Culture

Calendars

Q: The game runs on a twelve month calendar right now. Do the months have names or are they just numbered?

A: I'm going to mirror rl names in the few cases it comes up. This is one of those cases where I very intentionally stay ambiguous because while renaming days of the week or months for a fantasy world is very cool, it also confuses the heck out of every new player and for a very minor touch raises the barrier of entry significantly. So I'll stay intentionally vague on the names for now unless I come up with a very seamless coded way to always remove ambiguity or clear up uncertainty about something characters would always 100 percent of the time know but their players often would not.

Godparents

Q: What, if any traditions are associated with the birth of childen, both in terms of casual society as well as within the Faith? Differing ones depending on which region one is from? What about the equivalent of godparents?

A: Hooboy. Let's start with godparents. The earliest form of the patronage-protege system evolved from the Arvani equivalent of godparents, and specifically the Oathlands.

In the Oathlands, the Faith dominates many aspects of their lives, and that includes births. When a child is born, a Witness to the Naming can be appointed by the parents, and they serve a very similar role to what many would think of as godparents. A Witness serves at least three distinct roles: political, religious and familial. Firstly in familial responsibility, they are an individual entrusted by the parents to care for the child if anything should ever happen to them, with the implicit high honor that the parents trust the Witness with what is must dear to them in life. If a higher born lord agrees to being a child's Witness, it can be expected even if the parents never suffer any misfortune that the child will at some point in their youth be taken as a ward in the higher house, so in many ways it can be a guarantee of social advancement. Secondly in political terms, the Witness acts as a trusted speaker in saying the child is who they are claimed to be- ie, to make sure that no one can be an imposter claimant to succession, and that their bloodline is exactly what they say it to be. A well respected, honorable witness can (and have) settled succession crises just by speaking for the child. Thirdly, and this is still very true in the Oathlands but much less so elsewhere, a Witness is supposed to take an interest in the spiritual development of the child, and help instruct them in the Faith. In the Oathlands, that is still strictly true. The Witness is there at the child's Naming (which typically happens at birth, but is not required to do so), helps teach the child for each of the Thirteen Lessons (a once per year separate ritual starting at age 5, where a child ritualistically speaks on divine virtues and recites their commitment to them, and the end signals the start of adulthood in the Oathlands), and often help be instructors in courtly behavior.

In other regions, that can differ wildly. One point of contention between the Oathlands and the Lyceum is they feel that the Lycene take upon Witnesses to the Naming is an inverse mockery of their customs. In the Lyceum, a child's Witness is not a religious instructor at all, but a pragmatic instructor that shares responsibility in teaching a child how to survive the Lyceum. By tradition in the Lyceum, godparents are referred to as 'the Best Liar' for the child, which almost certainly started as an insulting term given by the Oathlands but was adopted by the Lyceum out of spite. A Best Liar usually on a child's birthday recites thirteen statements to the child, and the child wins a gift for each one they guess correctly is true or a lie. This also has become a very popular birthday party game for the Lyceum in general, but the implicit message is that a child must be taught to be a convincing liar in order to survive in the Lyceum, and that implication horrifies the Oathlands.

Throughout the Northlands, and in many prodigal houses, the Witness is sometimes called a Speaker for the child, and instructs them in ways of shamanism. The term is thought to come from the notion that they would teach the child to pray properly to the spirits of the wilds, and how to speak to them without giving insult. Birthdays among prodigal houses vary wildly, but in the Northlands in particular having Naming Hunts is a frequent way to celebrate birthdays, though there can be a sharp divide between city living nobility (who sometimes favor more refined parties) and more rural northmen.

The Crownlands are in many ways the stewards of the Compact's history- a Witness for a child often teaches the child about house history, and the interplay between the houses, and helps instruct them so they can better balance the competiting goals and cultures of the Compact and be a more effective leader, if they were born to lead with a repeated emphasis on noblesse oblige. For others in the crownlands of more humble birth or further down the line of succession, a constant emphasis on history and solidarity is repeated in subtle ways, with many Grayson birthdays being storytelling contests of relating the best stories of the history of the Compact and near forgotten heroes.

For the Isles, Witnesses are sometimes called Salt Parents, and though none of the three houses would like the comparison, are close to an amalgam between Oathlands and Lycene beliefs. Their Witnesses walk a fine line in instilling pragmatic self-reliance (parents are horrified if they ever produce a self-pitying whiner), but not allowing that same fierce self-reliance into crossing into rebelliousness, with a repeated emphasis on discipline and rigid respect for authority. The Survivor's Game is a popular birthday game for children, in giving them complicated sets of instructions that encourage them to think for themselves, but they lose and are out of the game if they ever violate any of the complicated (and possibly conflicting) rules. Until recently, games for children in the Isles were extremely sharply gender defined- games of laws and rules were tended to be shown to women (who still make up an overwhelming majority of lawyers and judges in the Isles), and all combat play was shown to men. That's only now becoming less true.

Incarceration

Long term incarceration does not exist thematically under most normal circumstances. Typically, anyone accused of a crime is held until a trial for no more than a period of several weeks, with a date immediately set, but even then most highborn or notables who aren't deemed a flight risk would be paroled with terms set, and in some cases, assigned guards to guarantee compliance and return them for trial. For the guilty, extreme crimes are usually met with execution (by hanging is most common), or exile, or outlaw (as a variant of exile), with crimes below that being given heavy fines, public physical punishment (flogging for example), or forced labor but not confinement. Madness, where someone is deemed a constant threat to themselves and others, is one of the only case where long term confinement might commonly result, under care most often by the Knights Solace and Mercies if the ill has no family to care for them.

OOCly, long term incarceration is a modern punishment, and doesn't really fit theme, but even if it did I wouldn't have it in the game, because it's too easy to have characters effectively killed off for minor crimes as a result. This also means that any PC should not be confined for more than a couple weeks at most, and even then only if they have a set trial date going into it. Even then, most PCs should be paroled while waiting trial unless the character is a very clear, unambiguous risk.

Incest

Q: I can't believe this is a thing that has to be asked, but: What's the stance of the general populace on incest? I sincerely hope it mirrors general modern thought in that 1) eww and 2) EWW. What sort of repercussions are there for people who seem utterly intent on banging their siblings and/or cousins?

A: Taboo largely mirrors western modern (rather than medieval) sensibilities in EWW. That said, a simple (and expected) denial is usually enough to settle matters- a lord can't go around asking incredibly offensive questions, because the implied insult just by asking is so great it is destructive to their own prestige. "Hi so I hear you are having sex with your sibling" just isn't done. Nobles that had a consensual incestuous relationship and made it public would typically be denobled and live out their days as social pariahs.

Musical Instruments

Q: What instruments might be used here? (Lyre, Lute, dulcimer, recorder/flute, harpsicord, something else?)

A: Any instrument that saw common, widespread usuage in europe by the 13th or 14th centuries. So harpsichord would be a no, as that didn't see widespread usuage till later, but pipe organs and clavichords saw use during that period as relatives. So stringed instruments that are probably okay: Harps, lutes, rebecs, psaltery, chittarone, citterns, dulcimers, gittern, viol, vielle, mandolin, mandore, clavichord. While for woodwinds, I more would want to avoid culturally specific instruments, like bagpipes I'd find too close a direct analogue for a specific region that's distracting, but anything that saw widespread usuage in the middle ages by the 14th century is fine (so flutes are fine). For percussion, unless someone is trying to desc a modern drum set, probably not going to be anachronistic.

Patronage

Q: Petal is getting many offers of patronage. I realized that I don't know exactly what such means in this theme. I figure that asking will be better than making a guess. Can a crafter have a patron who is a noble not from the house they have fealty with? Could Petal have a patron who is not Redrain and still stay Redrain?

A: Yes, absolutely. In fact, it's as or even more common to have proteges outside one's fealty. While patronage has always existed in one form or another, the current traditions around it were largely started by Queen Alarice to encourage fostering bonds between higher nobles and lower ones or commoners, including cross fealty. Part of the idea is if one invests in the social development at court of an outstanding person, even in another fealty, it will reduce the possibility for conflict by strengthening the bonds between houses. For a lord, having a minor vassal become a protege of another lord in a different fealty would be considered a compliment, definitely not stealing someone away. This is particularly true for commoners, since even a baron for a minor holding almost certainly doesn't know all of the few thousand people in their demesne by name, and finding out a great lord essentially established a formalized friendship or teacher/student relationship with a vassal is an implicit compliment in their rule.

Q: Can a crafter have more than one patron or do they generally have one official patron only?

A: One official patron only. A patron can have multiple proteges, of individuals they sponsor either to see their social development at court, to give them a voice among their social betters because of the quality of their ideas or work, or as a teacher. For a protege, becoming more known socially and seeing them floruish at court is a reflection upon their patron (jutsified or not), so they are exclusive in that way. However, a protege could have proteges of their own. The king could be a patron of a marquessa, who is a patron for a baron, who is a patron for a commoner. There's no implicit relationship between a patron and their protege's proteges though, or between one patron's protege and other proteges.

Q: What is a crafter expected to provide their patron? I am thinking it might giving them priority on items they wish to have made assuming those items are within the crafter's ability to make? I think the patron is still charged for their orders? Supporting their patron as they can by crafting for their friends, events, allies and etc, but all within reason and for pay?

A: This is deliberately vague as specific relationships can have a great deal of variance. If a patron is sponsoring a crafter to make them more well known at court, and give them a voice there, then gifts of goods (ostensibly to show off their work) would be appropriate. However, a patron could be sponsoring a crafting because their work is so exceptional, and they just want to have first claim on their time. In that case, then not only would the crafter be charging, but the patron would likely be paying the protege a regular stipend as well. This would denote a degree of possible exclusivity and first claim on their time. For that reason, the Whisper House's whispers are all considered proteges of the crown itself, to prevent the extremely implicit bias that would make it difficult for them to be seen as impartial diplomats for hire.

Q: What does the Patron provide the crafter they sponsor? I am thinking they promote that crafter? Protect them as needed with their title, like dueling in the behalf if needed and etc? I am not sure if the patron gives the crafter a small salary or not?

A: An insult to a protege is an insult to their patron. They are specifically noting someone as their student or as someone they have a stake in. Threatening a protege is extremely dangerous, as many patrons will take it very personally, and it is extremely damaging to a patron's social clout if they ignore insults or threats to their protege because it,in effect, is saying their protection and friendship is meaningless. It's a much more personal relationship than fealty vows, and under fealty a lord takes the well being of their vassals seriously (or should, at least). Many nobles give proteges a stipend, while some proteges (particularly the more wealthy but isolated), pay upwards. Merchant princes in particular are ones known for essentially paying for protection.

Q: Are crafters expected to eventually chose a patron or is going patron-less long term considered okay?

A: It's fine to be patronless. But here's a place where it is important to remember that there are over ten million people in the Compact, and tens of million more in Arvum. A commoner is one person, and even if a dozen players playing nobles like their goods, that really shouldn't be taken as them being well known or important to the Compact as a whole or a guarantee of fame or renown. Be linked to one of the thousands of peers raises someone's stature, and it's really up to them whether that matters to them at all or not.

Q: What if the etiquette around changing patrons? Lets say Petal takes a patron and that patron stops playing much and loses interest in her work, is changing patrons possible or is it something that is set in stone once done?

A: There are never any vows of service between patrons and proteges, very specifically they are not, because it is seen as a friendship or teacher/student, sponsor/sponsoree type relationship. It is also considered extremely gauche to have any sort of contract, as these are (ostensibly) supposed to be friendships, and a specific circumstance where a powerful lord using their position to elevate a commoner is seen favorably rather than a potential abuse. If a protege leaves, or a patron desires to sever that relationship, it is generally seen as no fault, or that someone has been taught all they wished to be taught or reached a position at court where they stand on their own merits and an official recognition of that bond is no longer necessary. A polite, respectful mention of it in journals is considered fitting with social decorum. People being people, vaguebooking about just why someone was cut out to the amusement of the rest of the peerage isn't particularly uncommon, and reflects poorly on patron and protege alike. So the wise patron and protege keep acrimonious splits cordial and polite outwardly at least to not avoid looking foolish.

Personal Sigils

Q: Are personal sigils a thing? Is it something any noble can grab and start using, as long as it's relevant enough to their house sigil as to be recogniseable?

A: Someone can have a personal sigil, though they don't use the word 'sigil' to avoid confusion. Typically 'personal device' is most common, though emblem or heraldry are fine. It's a little bit uncommon for nobles to do so, since it is considered pretentious with the power held in the hands of the head of house. It is, however, useful for nobles who have significant interests that are separated from their house, such as a noble who is acting as a voice for their liege's house, who wishes to sign things with their own personal device to make it clear they are not in fact speaking as a plenipotentiary for their liege.

Poison

Q: I was wondering, what is the legality on all three facets of poison? Their creation, their sale on the market, and also practical use in a non-Academic and Academic manner?

A: It's not, by and large. There wouldn't be anything advertised or sold as a poison legally (if you have problems with rats, buy a cat), but there would be some that can be used as poisons that have other valid, legal uses, such as herbal medicines that in small doses are relaxants, and large doses are fatal, or different cosmetics that are seriously not good to ingest. It is pretty much going to be entirely the purview of apothecaries from a coded standpoint, but for practical purposes just about all poison mixtures will fall under +crime and be illegal, and it will not be possible to make or use poison legally.

Recognition and Disguises

Q: So, as a humble and completely legitimate businessperson I find no reason to ever need or wear a mask or disguise. However, it has occured to me that in a setting like this where every character is an object and has a link to a webpage about them, people play as if they always recognize people when they aren't wearing masks. My question then is, is this something IC where everyone, even commoners, studies the peerage so much and has seen pictures that they recognize people they've never met, even if they are in a non-mask-object disguise? What about nobles recognizing commoners? Is it at all possible to have the Aladdin Scenario where a noble poses as a commoner and nobody reacognizes them with their altered clothing and dress and because they are spending time with people that have never seen their face? What about the reverse where a commoner shows up and presents a bunch of wealth and claims to be some foreign noble nobody has seen before but maybe they have heard of them?

A: Now, I very intentionally say that it is reasonable for any character to presume they know everything public on the sheet for every other character for a lot of reasons, treating everything written there as a public reputation for a character and general knowledge. I view it as fine for characters to opt out of that and intentionally play ignorance if they want, since that can be fun, but I never want to be in a situation of policing cases where characters should not know something that is publically accessible to players since it creates all sorts of excruciating situations of handwaved meetings and ambiguity on what a character knows or not, and from a gamerunner standpoint it is a nightmare, so I'm almost always going to default to being a very open society where it's reasonable to know of something's existence.

That said, I view extensive disguises as the result of stories as fine. There's a few characters that have done just that, and changed/hidden their identities, and one that's been disguised for months in fact. As the result of RP, we're happy to change characters appearance if it is reasonable to do so, but we'll probably very slowly put in code to do that which is under player control to avoid abuse cases.

Tattoos

Q: How advanced is the art of tattoo in setting? And is it something that all of Arvum might have? Or is it typicaly a shav or northern thing?

A: Medieval and reniassance era methods, so basically the same as the world over in terms of technology before the modern era (no elaborate inking methods). It's largely associated with shavs- sinec Arvum is not ethnically distinct by and large, it's quite popular for isolated Abandoned tribes, houses and clans to ritually tattoo their house words or sigils and the like. It is equally uncommon for the Compact to do so, since it's associated with barbarism and generally looked down upon, but the biases there are slight rather than overwhelming (it's generally seen as crass). There's no taboo against it in the Northlands at all however, while even Abandoned in the Lyceum tend to not practice it so much.

Arx

Geography

Q: I'm sorry to ask again, because I know there have been several info channel discussions, but can we get a description of Arx and how the pieces of it connect to one another? What portions are exposed to what sort of approaches? ie: My understanding is that the Lower Boroughs is only exposed to a sea attack, because the rest of the city effectively cuts it off by land routes, so other portions of the city would have to fall before the Lowers could be attacked via land.

A: Correct, Arx is built ontop of a thousand foot elevation plateau, with the Lower Boroughs essentially built on the side of a gradual slope between the river and the rest of the city, and the mouth of the river meets cliff face without any practical means for a force to move along a shore from the eastern approach of Arx to the South. To enter the lower boroughs, they have to first get through the seawatch gate, or over the eastern walls, or cross the Gray River, which is massive and stronger currents than could be safely swum near the mouth even if one was uncumbered and could swim the thousands of feet across.

Guard Retinues

By tradition, no inquisitor, high ranking member of the faith or member of the iron guard exceeds a half dozen armed retainers in the form of confessors, templars/knights of solace, or iron guardsmen respectively. Nor do members of the King's Own usually field more than a half dozen (squad) independent of his majesty or the royal family typically. It's more a matter of traditional respect than practical enforcement as of course several different squads of guardsmen might descend upon the same disturbance, but the traditions there serve to help to de-escalate potential conflict from nobles feeling threatened, so a half dozen is more enough to deter without threatening a highlord.

Hall of Heroes

Q: Since I've been asked this ICly a few times and have given sort of hand-wavey answers... in the Hall of Heroes, are the memorials in the main hall the only ones where the bodies (if recoverable, anyway) are interred beneath the hall? Are the memorials of the other halls also interred beneath the hall where possible? Or given the size of the Arxian catacombs, is it likely -- if not necessarily known for certain -- that not only are the various heroes of the halls buried there if possible, but that there are far more heroes interred beneath the Hall than there are specifically-called-out statues? (The last is admittedly my assumption.)

A: The memorials I created in the hall of heroes should be taken as a -sampling- of those buried there, and definitely not an exhaustive list. I made a few nods to that in the descriptions but I think it is very easily missed. There are definitely hundreds if not thousands of individuals honored in the hall of heroes, though for a thousand plus years of history, that still makes it a pretty rare honor. It does lead to the rest of the catacombs, meaning there's not any issue with space, even if the tombs below are hallowed ground and not visited except in ceremonial or special occasions and off limits.

Q2: The statues seem to mostly end around the time of the elven war. Are people ever still buried in those catacombs in the modern day, even if they don't get statuary? For instance, is it possible that the more notable of those who fell opposing the Silent Army or similar threats might get interred there? (The Igniseri adventure twins, Baron Eos Saik, and so on.) And if not, is that something that -- with the return of the Queen, and the new awareness of said catacombs -- the NPC populace has opinions on?

A: Yes, in fact, while I enjoyed writing the history snippets there and spent a great deal of time on it, I also did intend for it to become a burial place for PCs that died in heroic fashions. To be so honored would require that they are nominated for the honor by the fallen's highlord (so crownsworn would be the crown), then confirmed by the Faith as it is on hallowed ground, typically with the consent of a majority of highlords and the crown. The honor is traditionally proposed as an item at a meeting of the Assembly of Peers. Despite that bar, it's usually not as difficult as it sounds, since most houses wouldn't want to needlessly provoke another by barring honoring their dead unless the individual is so hated in other houses their own vassals basically demand they do so.

All that said, it's still a relatively rare honor, and the vast majority of dead from noble houses are buried in tombs in their domains' strongholds.

Q: Who maintains the statuary in the Hall of Heroes, and who provides what we know about the statues there?

A: The Hall of Heroes is considered holy ground, and so templars guard its grounds, and disciples see to maintenance duty and Faith sponsored artisans. Being interred is more complicated process, and the traditions for it have changed throughout the Compact's long history. In current day, typically now the peers of the fealty nominate a hero to be interred below the Hall of Heroes during a meeting of the Assembly of Peers, requiring a simple majority of sitting peers. The highlord of the fealty seconds it (or he may start the nomination himself), and it passes a simple majority of the Voices of the Realm. Then, if it passes those three steps in the Assembly of Peers, the Faith of the Pantheon needs to grant consent for burial in the Hall, and godsworn artists typically create the memorial after after the rites are performed when they are interred.

Iron Guard vs Inquisition

Q: I'd like it if the distinction between the Iron Guard and Inquisition's duties can be clarified here so that it gets asked on a less daily basis. That is, the Enforcer vs. Investigative thing.

A:. The Iron Guard keep the peace, both as a military force under the command of a crown for Arx's immediate security, and maintaining law and order in the streets. They are the equivalent of beat cops to modern sensibilities. If they witness a crime, or a crime happens while they are around, they will pursue a criminal. If it is at all vague who is responsible, and there is not a clear indication of who the guilty is, then it goes to the Inquisition, and the Inquisition decides if it is worth their while to investigate.

For commoners to be arrested on suspicion, one of the protections is the equivalent of a grand jury if they have any kind of lawyer recognized by the Crown as representing them, in the classic medieval sense rather than the modern one. IE, that a lawyer makes certain that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial and make the accused go through the ordeal (which in the Inquisition, can have context of 'ordeal' as in 'trial by Ordeal', ie torture). Torturing or arbitrarily jailing someone or executing them when the accused has a crown representative can be seen as disregarding a crown mandate, which would in turn be treason, and can get someone executed themselves. That said, relatively few commoners keep a lawyer, which gives the Inquisition de facto power to arrest largely whoever they want whenever they want, since there's no one from the crown telling them otherwise, and there's been quite a few cases of powerful merchants' retained counsel suspiciously saying they had zero problems with the charges being brought up, or magistrates saying even the flimsiest charges could go forward.

It becomes far more complicated for nobles, as peers of the realm can only be tried by their peers- ie, to even arrest a noble, it typically falls to other nobles to do so, even assuming they are in the ward of the crown. In theory all iron guard or inquisition are crown representatives, in practice nobility in the institutions are prized simply because it gives them the authority as a peer to hold other peers suspected of breaking crown laws while in the ward of the compact or crown or boroughs (iron guard and inquisition have no authority whatsoever in the wards owned by the great houses).

tl;dr- iron guard only hunt for known criminals and do on the spot arrests, typically. Inquisition for all deeper investigations or turning up known suspects. Crown recognized lawyers are a thin protection for commoners. Only peers can arrest peers.

Tournament of Roses and Boons

Q: The Tournament of the Roses is known to grant 'Boons' to its winners from the current King/Queen, a favour to call in, or a wish of sort. What can or cannot these be used for, exactly? Are there any historical examples (such as the Niccolo/Carlotta situation) to give us ideas? Furthermore, can they be gifted to another person who can use it instead?

A: By tradition, it's 'any reasonable desire' and there is enormous societal pressure to meet those requests. Marriage matches are the most common boon, and heavily romanticised, traditionally between two lovers whose heads of houses have disagreed with the match- this has been particularly true for marriages where offspring was not possible, and heads of respective houses were concerned that adopted heirs would put the house's line in a dangerous position so refused to consider the match.

Rank is another one, and not just ennobling someone, but promotion for an individual and their house potentially as well. Granting someone their own peerage is a common reward, either by the crown setting aside land near Arx to establish a barony (virtually all the barons near Arx were started this way, giving them the nickname of Rose Barons). Crownsworn being ennoble are particulaly likely to become Rose Barons. For others already serving a great house that wish to have a peerage in the lands they grew up in, typically it is a grant from the Great House, sometimes with the crown helping to offset the cost to the highlord with a fair cost for a barony (at the high range, this has been close to a million silver, but most highlords do not wish to appear stingy or ungracious when the eyes of the Compact are upon them, particularly when creating a new vassal sworn to one of their counts).

Similarly, this applies to rank promotion as well. Heads of houses could request that their house be elevated, such as a barony to a county, with commiserate lands being granted. This is much rarer, and the highest this has been done is raising a marquis to a duke, with each of the ducal houses and the great house of that fealty giving a minor grant from neighboring lands to make the difference (no more than a five percent grant is considered reasonable, and this has typically been closer to two percent, with the newly elevated peer giving the rank and title, but expected to largely expand their demesne on their own).

Finally, title grants are common. This is usually requesting a specific honor, often effectively asking permission to inherit a title when it would be passed on. Being named the Sword of a house is extremely common, and many champions of houses politely retire from the stead to make way when a rose winner makes their desire to serve as a sword known. Similarly, Dayne Valardin, winning his first tournament at 19, requested to be named the next Lord Commander of the King's Own upon the retirement of the previous Lord Commander, and it was done six years later, passing over numerous senior knights who were initially resentful but quickly grew to respect the grant of the boon due to Dayne's competence.

Boons can be transferred in the sense that a winner can request a boon on another's behalf, but the winner traditionally has to be the one speaking the words before the crown either at the tournament or in open court or at the Assembly of Peers.

Crafts

Alaricite

Q: It seems as though when the game began there was a social stigma around the use of Alaricite weapons. As they only existed in the five great houses as weapons gifted from long ago, there has been a sort of reverence around the use of Alaricite swords. Now that there are crafters who can make them, are the stigmas changing? They have been proven to be most effective against the demons we now face, does that change the view around their use? And what would be the general populace'€™s view of someone acquiring such a weapon given the great cost it takes to produce them?

A: It is always acceptable to use heirloom weapons in time of war in true combat. What is considered improper is using any heirloom weapon for matters of personal honor, specifically duels or minor fights, since an heirloom weapon is considered representative of the honor of the house. Now for alaricite or diamondplate weapons that are not heirloom, it would largely be considered wasteful and socially frowned upon to use any such weapon for sport rather than serious matters of honor or war.

Q: Do human made Alaracite and Diamondplate weapons have special qualities? I have noticed that some of the ancestral ones, or the Nox'Alfar weapons, seem to have quite mystical descriptions. Is that unique to ones made by elves, is it something that happens over time, or does it just randomly get assigned when it is created depending on factors?

A: Maybe.

Commoner Heirloom Weapons

Q: Ok, so I have a question. Is there precedence for commoner families gaining diamondplate or alaracite weapons, then claiming them to be the family sword? Or is there anything that owning such a blade would do to a commoner family as far as social status goes, or would they just be seen as rich?

A: Commoner families are extremely informally recognized. Much like how commoner marriages are a matter of someone just saying they are wed, commoner families are largely just by whoever is recognized as being part of a family. They don't have heirloom weapons as such since they aren't recognized in the same way as noble houses, as having a distinct representation of their family honor and traditions. They certainly can have weapons that are heirlooms and passed down, but they wouldn't be treated with the same distinction as noble houses, in so much that Demonslayer is a represetation of the house honor of Redrain, there's not really an equivalent that would represent a commoner family in the sense of prestige and esteem in the peerage. It should be noted that the champions of a house are called the Sword of their -holding-, not their house. IE, the champion for Grayson is 'the Sword of Bastion', not 'the Sword of Grayson'. Commoners have no holdings, so they aren't fighting on behalf of a people and all under their protection, which is implicit in house champions. tl;dr, sure they can pass down weapons, but the societal significance is not there at all.

The Faith

Blessings

Q. What does it mean to bless a thing? Is there a system for it? I know a lot of the details may not be widely known until we discover it ICly, but what are the religiously understood effects of blessings?

My understanding is a full, godsworn knight of the Temple is as much priest as knight. I don't mean the men-at-arms, or the knights who receive their knighthood from houses but join the holy orders, but those knights who dedicate and are godsworn and knights. I've regularly played the 'priest' angle and sought to minister to people, but I might be off base in doing so. My question is thus: can godsworn knights 'bless' like lectors/priests can?

A. Blessings in the sense of godsworn members of the faith just blessing someone is common, and while there's a liturgy and very frequent phrases (picture each god or goddess having a stock set of a half dozen phrases essentially wishing someone well based on their sphere), they are just regular, every day phrases. Godsworn Templars like Preston could grant any of these blessings, there's not any doctrinal opposition to any member of the Faith doing so, though full ceremonial functions (like a marriage ceremony) would want someone with priestly training- which Templars or knights of solace can have, so it would depend whether they are considered invested (anyone over theology 2 could reasonably be so). There's no system currently for blessings since for these every day blessings there would be no mechanical effect at all- there's no magic behind it, it's no different than someone saying words. Currently, no action by any player could be considered reliable in having any divine, supernatural, primal or abyssal reactions- by its nature anything like that is capricious and unpredictable. Very specific rites to get the favor of the gods can be done, but they require enormous sacrifices in order to have a manifest effect, and this knowledge has been largely extinguished, but yeah a full magic system including divine providence will be Season 2, as it follows the storyarc of the game starting low magic/low fantasy and gradually transitioning to a high fantasy world.

Q: Is there a defined limit on what can be blessed within theme? Ex: Could a lantern be blessed by the shrine of Lagoma, or only the flame inside of it? Could you bless a field, or just that season's crop?

A: Anything appropriate to that god's sphere with a pretty wide interpretation. Really as long as it seems like it can be justified to the god.

Q: Do blessings have a generally accepted duration before they must be renewed? Does it vary? If so, are there any guidelines to be followed?

A: No apparent mechanical effects at all that anyone could be aware of. By church doctrine, items and places tend to be blessed every thirteen days ritually, or 13 months, or 13 seasons or 13 years depending on how ornate the rites are (like the sanctification of holy ground, for example, could be considered a blessing).

Q: Who can grant a blessing? Does it require a recognition, or is it simply anyone who can do the proper ritual? Do blessings from some people carry an expectation of being more meaningful, or are the blessed more egalitarian?

A: Godsworn with priestly training and investiture for any kind of ceremonial rites. Obviously any member of the faith can say, 'Lagoma bless you' or the like, and these are fairly common. Not that uncommon for disciples to see over harvest festivals or the like when seraphs aren't available.

Confession

Q: In IRL terms, there's this concept of the 'priest-penitent' privilege. That is, if a person seeks advice from a religious guide, what that person says and what that guide says is protected: on the one hand, legally (you can not compel the revelation of it), on the other hand, religiously (the church considers this privacy a sacred duty). The reason behind this privilege is basically... if you can't be truthful with your priest and ask their advice, how can you honestly be seek guidance from them to be righteous?

If a godsworn is approached for advice, if they are told a secret under the bond of secrecy, and if it does not directly lead to a threat against the life of another, is that the asking and advice considered by the religion of the Faith 'sealed'? Can the person asking expect their asking not be revealed, and would the Faith act negatively to its revelation?

I know PCs are... PCs. But I'm asking about the *religion*. Character A approaches a godsworn priest and confesses an act in the past, if that priest Character B tells someone... is there a) a consequence, and b) an understanding this is wrong?

Its been previously said that the scholars often accept 'confession's as black journals they do not reveal in a very similar sense to the catholic confessional, so the concept is in theme. But... these scholars only listen. The IRL purpose of the priest-penitent privilege is to protect people seeking advice. Counsel. Trusting their religious advisers so they can be spoken to truthfully.

As a godsworn this question is important to me. Is it assumed that if you go to your priest and talk to them its secret?

Of course I recognize an exception: if you go to a priest and say you will kill the king that's not protected. Existing lore has such an exception: black journals are only secret if you don't directly threaten the Great Archive. I don't expect a confessional to be secret if someone is saying anything like a threat to the life or safety of others.

A: It's protected more than you'd think. Even reporting killing the king would be absolutely prohibited, unless the death of the King would implicitly result in the destruction of the Great Archive or the worship of Vellichor. For confession, godsworn must safeguard the knowledge and counsel given, if it is presented in a religious setting of giving counsel of the Pantheon. In those circumstances, the oath to safeguard knowledge is paramount- and even vows to protect the Faith and Crown are secondary to it. If someone reported that the king would be assassinated, that godsworn person would be executed or forced to become a Silent Reflection, with their writing hand cut off and tongue out so they could never again reveal any secrets. A majority of Silent Reflections did not become that way because they attempted to take advantage of religious confidences for personal use, though that's the public implication- the majority of them becamse that because they conscience did not permit them to keep a potentially harmful secret, and they willingly betrayed their oath in order to save lives/stop the destruction of something vital, and willingly were excuted or became Silent Reflections as the penalty for obeying their conscience.

The only time it is ever permissable to reveal a confidence either in a black reflection or a similar confessional would be because the actions of the confessing party threatens the body of knowledge protected by Vellichor. Someone accused of breaking a confidence is always judged in secret by the Faith, and the only mitigating factor is ever did it threaten the body of knowledge protected by Vellichor- no other defense is permissible. A few extremely sympathetic individuals have 'escaped' after their trials and lived in exile, but that's about as far as the Faith has been willing to go.

Now mind you, someone just saying they murdered Bob is not a religious confession or confiding in a godsworn in a religious context. It has to be either for the purposes of a black journal, or in seeking religious guidance or instruction as to the will of the gods. Confessional situations have a great deal of ritual around them to make it very painfully clear to both parties involved, with the priest typically swearing it to secrecy before their talk and reiterating the punishments should he betray it.

Discipleships

Q: I was curious, can one be, for example, be both a full Scholar and Mirrormask, without being Godsworn, or is it one Disicpleship only per person?

A: Limited to one discipleship, someone would not be seen as being able to reasonably devote enough time to devote to membership. I'd say for practical purposes, I'd just say rank 4 or above in either org would count as being 'full' for most people, since then they'd be involved in the business of helping that discipleship function rather than a sometimes participant.

Favoritism

Q: Is it heretical or otherwise bad for a household to keep a shrine to the Pantheon that esteemed one God above the others? Point in case: can Grimhall have a shrine that puts Mangata on a higher altar, or on the central pedestal? Can we have a household priest/ess to maintain it?

A: Divine Patrons or Matrons aren't uncommon, and discipleships all highlight the god, but what is uncommon and would be considered heretical is any implication that a god is somehow better than the others. That really isn't done, as it's more about emphasizing that sphere that the god controls. "We spend our times talking about Mangata because we spend our lives on the sea" is fine and not unexpected, "Mangata is the best goddess" would strike others as heretical and weird. It should be noted that there's not specific priesthoods for the gods- while there's discipleships of lay people that venerate the worship of a specific deity, to honor rites that are about what that particular deity embodies, the godsworn priests are priests of the Pantheon. Archlectors who oversee the worship aren't really the head of a specific priestly order, they more are specialists who oversee anything that has something to do with that particular deity.

Funerary Practices

Q: Hi! So all I've found about funerary rites, so far, is the following: A less common aspect of her worship, but growing in popularity among the more superstitious commoners outside of the Lyceum, are funerals pyres with rites that avoid any mention at all of the Thirteenth, and pray to Lagoma to help their loved one have an easy transition to the other side. While the Lyceum specifically honors the Thirteenth in its darker funeral rites of Passing Beyond the Reflection, some of the north feels acutely uneasy with any mention of Tehom and turns to Lagoma to mourn their loved ones.

From channel chat, I know that a number of the Commons toss their dead into the Pit. There's also been talk of a graveyard expansion, outside the city, presumably for the commons. So my questions are:* How much does it cost to have a pyre? How much is it the materials vs paying a Godsworn to officiate? * How much does a burial cost? Does that require a Godsworn? * Are there group burials or cremations? * Is it customary for the dying to receive something akin to last rites? If so, is that something that could be administered by a Mercy of Lagoma who possesses the proper theological training?

A: Pyres by their nature are inexpensive, due to just collecting kindling. It isn't uncommon for the relatively inexpensive rite for pyres (single digit silver for kindling) or for burials to balloon in cost just by the nature of running a very large, grand funeral with a paid singers, food and so on, which for a funeral cal event would just be represented by the largesse rating.

Funeral and last rites are almost always presided over by a godsworn priest of the pantheon, but in the absence of one, it's not uncommon for laity to say words, and even informal burial rites are respected by the Faith and recognized as legitimate. Mercies of Lagoma would be likely to fulfill that role in the absence of godsworn priests.

Group burials or cremations would be rare but done as an expedient for large scale death.

Holidays

Q: On Tehom's world page, it's mentioned the 13th has but a single feast day every few years during a blood moon. When can we expect the next one, assuming one has already happened in recent IC memory? And are their usually signs devotees of the 13th follow in order to mark just such an occurrence?

A: The Eclipse of Mirrors has an irregular astrological schedule, which will just so happen to always fall on October 31st in the real world time by happy coincidence. For at least several days IC before that, it can be assumed that the entire Lyceum (and 13th devotees everywhere) are engaged in carnivale and revelry, with nonstop parties, which comes to a spectacular conclusion on October 31st, always lining up with halloween real time.

Judgment

Q: 1) Does there exist any sort of ... idea of confidentiality between a godsworn and someone seeking guidance? I don't know the answer and sidestepped the question with careful RP of not asking details.

A: The Faith is extreme on this. The preservation of knowledge is one of their core beliefs due to Vellichor, and some would argue is the primary mission of the Faith. Trust in the ability for the Faith to safeguard knowledge must be absolute. Someone wishing confession of some kind would have it recorded in their own Black Journals while a godsworn hears it, and it could never, ever be repeated anywhere else. Violation of that would cover the same consequences as revealing a black journal- tongue out, writing hand cut off, lifelong service until death as a Silent Reflection or execution if they prefer. Most godsworn would stop someone and ask, "Are you wishing honest counsel of a man, or do you wish to record your thoughts for Vellichor and speak your conscience?" The former lets them talk freely and not as a representative of the gods. The latter is incredibly dangerous. Inversely, every member of the Compact should tell the difference between speaking informally for guidance, and the ritualized confession or counsel as a representative of Vellichor, which every godsworn may do (not just the Scholars of Vellichor). In practice, unless someone is making it clear that it is a confession or seeking religious counsel, it wouldn't be treated as the latter, but priests that have abused them have absolutely been executed or made into Silent Reflections.

Q 2) What happens if someone excommunicates dies? I... winged this hard. My thought: the Faith is the conduit to redemption and salvation. But men, even the Most Holy, are men. Yet. If you are excommunicated it is for some grave sin-- and if you have are excommunicated when you die, you obviously didn't repent. Therefore, the Sentinel will judge you with this sin as unrepentant. The implication was clear but not said out loud: chances of mercy, super low, but... the Sentinel is the god and the Sentinel judges. But if being excommunicated automatically exiles you to the mirror-abyss err he was off base theologically.

A: More forgiving than people would think. Family members can seek reconcilation of the dead, and for them to be effectively forgiven and offered funeral rites after their death. In the specific example of the highlords, they were specifically told they were to seek atonement. In Esera's case, she was seeking atonement upon her death, despite the argument, so most of the Faith would likely assume she would have reconciled and be willing to hear a petition from the family to have her forgiven post death. 'Would this person have atoned had they lived, so are they likely seeking atonement with the Sentinel now' is the deciding question typically debated by the Dominus, legates and archlectors in a review of post death excommunication. However, burying someone still considered excommunication without the permission of the Faith would be considered heretical.

Q: 3) The person I was RP'n with mourned a recent excommunicated person who died and felt guilt, and he made a few points: 1) Sentinel judges, mourning is fine, its what you feel. 2) You aren't guilty to feel for someone, even a bad someone, who has passed. Especially if you *acknowledge* they were bad and guilty. Mourning isn't a sin, its human. Finally, 3) Its never a sin to pray for someone. It might do absolutely nothing but to speak up, the Sentinel already knows whatever you'll say, but praying itself -- even for a sinner, even for one excommunicated -- isn't *bad*.

A: This is fine.

Mercies of Lagoma

Q: What is Arx's Mercy structure/hierarchy? Based on a convo with Apostate a while ago, Arx has a Mother Mercy who oversees everything, with the equiv of Voices that help facilitate things within and outside of the org. This isn't documented anywhere, though, so confirmation is requested.

A: The Mother Mercy (or Father Mercy) tends to make at least one voice for every hundred mercies in the city of Arx, called a Hand of Mercy, and then there are senior mercies called a Touch of Mercy. Touches are further divided into seniority, which is related to length of service, as our mercies themselves. Outside of Arx and regionally, some other branches of the Mercies of Lagoma instead designate seniority by number of lives saved, or number of Acts of Mercy (wounded or sick aided, even in part), which can become disproportionately large numbers as each mercy working in a field hospital could count every person there among their Acts. Some mercies coming to Arx from the farflung reaches of the different five kingdoms would bring these practices with them, even if they wouldn't really be officially recognized by the Arx Mother of Mercy or Hands of Mercy.

Q: What are the expectations of membership? It's a discipleship, so the Faith has only so much pull. What is it like inside the org itself, though? I know that no one can be ordered/commanded per se, but it strikes me as plausible that the leadership still expects reasonable requests to be honored.

A: Discipleship varies a great deal. The Scholars of Vellichor, Templars and Knights of Solace are three organizations so tightly wound to the Faith that discipleship in them for most is a primary occupation, even if they aren't godsworn. The Mercies are a halfway point between the very informal ones where no one does that as a primary occupation, and has Devoted Mercies (ones who service in the Mercies of Lagoma is their principle occupation, many who become godsworn) and Aiding Mercies (ones who offer what service they can as laity, but have other jobs/duties/responsibilities outside of the discipleship, and only donate what time they can). While most of the higher ranks are Devoted Mercies, it's not uncommon for the Mother Mercy to be a high born noblewoman or man that is not godsworn, and is technically an Aiding Mercy. This isn't seen as a mark against them, since securing donations and support for the Mercies of Lagoma as a whole would be one of their core responsibilities, as well as being able to speak to the Archlectors or Dominus as a peer- it just tends to default to someone very high born, like Sophie for example, out of necessity. Now for expectations, at least in Arx they need lengthy training in healing before they touch a patient without assistance, since the Mercies care a great deal in making certain no one is ever hurt by an untrained Mercy. This typically comes from acting as an attendant to a full Mercy as they heal, observing and helping. As mercies constantly working with the sick tend to become ill themselves, most new mercies are tending for the mercies themselves under their first patients supervision.

Q: What are the social/political repercussions, if any, for not adhering to those expectations? Can the chapter head revoke Mercy status for that chapter?

A: Improperly caring for the sick, resulting in higher mortality, can in extreme cases be considered unlawful killings if their neglect resulted in the death of those seeking aid. This has led to chapters being barred, and in a handful of cases when a regional Mother Mercy went full cult leader, resulted in Templars breaking up chapters by force of arms with whatever local lord usually deciding he no stake in this. In at least a few cases, this has resulted in a small brushfire war effectively between the Faith and a mercy chapter that was backed by a local lord (due to embezzling donations).

Q: What happens when a Mercy from another chapter relocates to Arx? Places like Arx and Blancbier are said to have the highest standards for being considered a Mercy. Is there an assessment test? (I assume PCs will pass because PCs are awesome but I still wonder about the process.)

A: PCs would be assumed to pass, unless they wrote it specifically into their background that they wouldn't. They would be expected to conform to Arx (and Blancbier) standards of service and would be tested, and Devoted Mercies in Arx that are mercies for their full occupation are typically paid a much higher wage in Arx than in the provinces, while Aiding Mercies are always unpaid (so the Mother/Father Mercy is by traditionally normally unpaid, but they tend to have full control over donations to the Mercies).

Q: Are non-local Mercies who relocated to Arx expected to fall in line with Arx's chapter hierarchy? If they opt-out, is their Mercy status recognized within Arx? Is there such a thing as an independent Mercy in an area that has an established chapter or are they expected to "join the union"?

A: Anyone opting-out of working with the Mercies of Lagoma in Arx, or with the chapter of a specific region, is asked not to call themselves a Mercy until they leave the region. The reason for this is simple- there's a great deal of charlatanism and con artists who happily claim to be Mercies to attempt to sell useless herbs for healing and the like, trying to take advantage of the good name for Mercies. For this reason, Mercies are also strongly discouraged from working alone without a representative of the Faith, or unless their status with the organization is well known, to prevent the charlantanism that would happen. A well known Mercy is fine with acting alone, but newer ones almost never are.

Q: What are the training guidelines in Arx for characters who seek to become Mercies? For those with no prior medical/apothecary background, I figure it would be 2-3 years IC study, presumably, which would take maybe 1 RL year.

A Probably until they can pass tests, which would just be medicine skill checks. But the usual baseline would be having a medicine of 3 would be considered appropriate for a Mercy. They are pretty well trained.

Performing Rites

Q: I was curious about what all a Disciple is allowed to do as a non-Godsworn. As in, what rites and blessings if any can they do? Can they do anything for the deity they are in a discipleship of, or are /all/ rites and blessings for godsworn? Can a Disciple like, lead a sermon or teaching as long as there's no actual blessing/benediction done?

A: They are laymen where it comes to rites. They can give informal prayers in the same way any non-godsworn, disciple or no can, but cannot officially preside over church ceremonies except as assistants to godsworn.

Relationships and Children

Q: I know that godsworn can not marry. But, is that like the IRL Catholic vow of celebacy? I know in theory we have great birthcontrol, but I was also told before that 'orphans' showed up and got Knight... support, in a manner that is not entirely unusual. Ie, its not entirely uncommon for godsworn bastards to show up. I'm not asking this about Preston's birth itself, I note: I don't know and don't ever expect to know his birthright. Him being an anonymous orphan is cool. But i'm wondering on the law of 'attachment' in the Faith.

Are relationships frowned upon? Are the godsworn SUPPOSED to be celebate? I note: "supposed" is important to the context of this question, not what is normal.

I have a theory that this is all about the Laws of Limerance and its that marriage creates a bond that conflicts the godsworn: an oath that binds them to another interest. And so my thoery is as long as there's not an *oath* made before the gods, that's what matters. Yes, godsworn shouldn't have children. (Yet it happens and is nudged under the rug) but the actual law is no marriage.

Is my theory totally wrong? Am I misinterpreting this?

A: All godsworn take an oath that they will set aside any bond that could come between their devotion to the gods and the crown. This is understood that they will avoid forming any relationship that come between them and that service, though strict celibacy is not required. However, if a godsworn member does have children, it's understood that they now have an obligation that they cannot in any way reconcile with being godsworn, and are required to leave the faith to care for the child. Individuals that want to become godsworn are only permitted to do so if they have no one dependent upon them- they cannot take the vows if they have young children, or if they have anyone they provide primary care for. It is also not uncommon for godsworn to be released from their vows if the family they set aside require them, and both the family and the godsworn member asks- but they would not be permitted to return until and unless the situation again changes. Godsworn that have children in secret, and do not give up their vows to care for them would definitely be forced out of the Faith- it would be a betrayal of their obligations. As part of the ritual when they are sworn, any potential godsworn is asked in the ceremony if they have any others that depend upon them, or any others that could come between them and the gods, and asked to take a vow to never permit that to occur.

Sins

Just to explore this topic for people! How do the variety of sins rank according to the gods? Oathbreaking, kinslaying, worshipping other gods (shamanism), etc? What are considered major sins? Is envy and pride, for example, considered sins? Complete with an info log:

[Info] Gian: So, in the hierarchy of sins, breaking an oath before Limerance is worse than kinslaying, right?
[Info] Hellfrog: I mean, maybe according to the gods. Probably not from a perspective of "am I going to prison forever"
[Info] Aislin: I feel like breaking the oath will get you seen as dishonorable and like, you might have concern for your soul. I feel like kinslaying, depending on the circumstances, might get you, you know... actually /executed/.
[Info] Gian: Well, so would any murder, though.
[Info] Hellfrog: Right, Aislin.
[Info] Gian: Any extra special stigma for killing famiky?
[Info] Calliope: Depends on your family, right?
[Info] Cristoph admits that I have been going on the assumption that lying is generally viewed as super bad, from a religion point of view. Given the quasi Zoroastrianism influence.
[Info] Hellfrog: Not legally.
[Info] Hellfrog: Socially? Sure.
[Info] Hellfrog: Lying, but more the breaking of your word, of your oath.
[Info] Gian: Cool. Just checking, thanks.
[Info] Cristoph nods. I figure that lies are sort of a mild version of that though, with actual oath breaking SUPER BAD above that?
[Info] Sylvie throws onto board for future preservation! :)
[Info] Sylvie: I don't think lying is considered a sin. Lyceum lies all the time (taken with a grain of salt, please), but doesn't oathbreak.
[Info] Sylvie: Or if it is-- I have been playing wrong.
[Info] Cristoph: Lyceum take on the faith is not the same as Oathlands take on the faith though neccessarily.
[Info] Sylvie: Yeah.
[Info] Orazio: Lying would seem to be an offence to the Sentinel, being that he's the god of Truth and all.
[Info] Hellfrog: lying is a sin, but lying is a sin in almost all religions, right? It's not the sort of sin that gets you kicked out of your faith or your tongue ripped out.
[Info] Cristoph has been working on the assumption that telling a lie, for a genuinely religious and orthodox person, is definitely the kind of thing you think 'Gah, I need to actually repent and make amends for this or else I endanger my soul a fair bit'.
[Info] Sylvie: idk, is lying a sin in all religions. I am horrible at religions.
[Info] Calliope was just thinking the same thing Sylvie.
[Info] Orazio: Yeah. Just because something's a sin doesn't mean there's a lot of a punishment that you're going to face secularly, and even talking to a priest might get you, "You should try and do better," not "Burn in the Abyss!"

Shop Owners

Q: It's come up a few times on channel: can godsworn own/run shops and businesses?

A: Yes, but with restrictions. Becoming godsworn does stop the newly sworn from receiving inheritance from a family or passing on an inheritance, and specifically prohibited from owning property, but there's not a hard requirement for a vow of poverty (though a large percentage of godsworn -do- take one, particularly in the Oathlands). This, however, does not give godsworn as much freedom as that would seem to imply, since ultimately most assets they collect are more seen to belong to the church, and it is merely in their holding. In practice, very few leaders of the Faith are in a rush to discourage godsworn from generating finances by snatching it away, anymore than most house leaders would seize assets of family members who are holding things 'for the house' which is a result of their own personal pursuits. The crown would ultimately be the only source of appeal there, such as a godsworn member leaving the faith, and the faith attempting to hold onto their possessions, with typically the crown supporting the faith over an individual in such a dispute, since more than one person has started a small business for the faith, then tried to leave it so they could grant inheritance to former family, and been blocked by the crown from doing just that.

Titles

Q: How do titles interact with the Faith? If a knight is anointed to be a priest, does the Sir drop in deference to Brother? Do they become interchangeable, or can they be combined? Do knights need to be, in essence, re-knighted by the Faith? Does it depend if you're taking vows to be a priest vs a sworn Templar or Knight of Solace? (Are the vows different in those instances?)

A: It depends on the title. Titles that are related to a family are dropped, as becoming godsworn would no longer apply. Lord, Lady, Princess, etc would be lost because those titles represent being a noble in standing with their family, which is given up when taking the vows (though keeping the surname is not unusual). While on the other hand, becoming a knight or titles related to military service or some other kind of trade or craft are often kept, as long as the service can be applicable to the faith. Knighthood then, is recognized by the faith, and the Templars and Knights of Solace actively try to recruit knights into their ranks, though they do distinguish between being dubbed by a secular lord or by the Faith- knights of the Faith are usually termed as 'annointed knights', as the ceremony for being made a knight in the service of the faith involves ceremonial oils for each of the gods, and a vow of service to each god. Knights that become templars or knights of templars typically are annointed later, usually when they become godsworn.

Fealty

Creating and Elevating Houses

Q: I wonder what power the various levels of nobility have to elevate and deligate the vassels beneath them? Can Margot as a noble give a vacant barony to a loyal servant or does she only have sway over those directly beneath her - the March lords (as crusader kings would lead me to believe) or would that only be the power of the royal houses?

A: They have a lot of sway in creating a new house... if they are willing to section off lands personally owned by their own house to do so, and permanently grant it to a newly created house to have complete dominion over it. So it's extremely uncommon for them to do so, since it is a major sign of trust and is explicitly weakening the higher house in order to create a new demesne for a vassal.

Now for replacing vassals, it does happen, but the families of vassals tend to be large, and it's rare for a liege to get involved in succession and interfere unless the vassals ask the liege to do so to help resolve a succession crisis. This can lead to bloody wars, and it is very rare for a liege to interfere more than one step removed (ie, Tyde would have a lot of influence over the marches under their control, helping nudge who might be the next marquis, but would have little in a count sworn to those marches). Highlords and the crown rarely get involved for fear of cheapening their prestige and authority in distant matters, and the amount of clout they have varies quite a bit. Someone like Donrai was a tyrant, and most minor vassals would have feared to go against what he said, for his obvious willingness to enforce even trivial matters with force of arms. While Grayson vassals can expect a great deal more latitude, and tend to have a lot more respect and loyalty rather than just fear for the Princess of bastion.

Q: Also how fluid is the line between wealthy/high ranking commoners and the nobility? Is it generally looked down? Are they thought of as less than the 'pure blooded' nobles? Or is it a thing that happens and everyone expects it?

A: Extremely wealthy commoner families are still considered below the nobility, and an important distinction here is it is very, very rare for a commoner family to own land rather than to be effectively just leasing it. A core way for commoner families to become ennobled is to be granted land by essentially buying it, and acquire a peerage, but it's considered unseemly and a big show of weakness for a noble family to be effectively selling off their land to raise money, and trading their long term prosperity for short term benefit. Marrying commoners is similarly a sign of weakness or a lack of control over the family. It does happen, but it's frowned upon. (And when Dominion comes in, a core ruling benefit will be the marriage alliances one has, and ones to commoner will be a tool essentially cast aside).

Cross-Fealty Organizations

Q: This has come up recently for Tobias. What's the history/policy of organizations not specifically bound to one Realm being allowed to set up shop? Let's go with my specific example: Tobias has been offered to setup a chapter house/outpost for the Crimson Blades in another Compact settlement under the Thrax Realm. Is there any law or policy that prevents me from simply negotiating with the Lord of the city and setting up that way?

A: Organizations inside Arx and outside of Arx are treated vastly different, due to the practice of complete regional autonomy granted to any lord within their demesne. If a sellsword captain wished to negotiate a contract with a lord, there needs to be no higher approval to do that, though a liege could look in askance if his vassal seems to be raising an army for no reason at all, and a few bloody and unnecessary wars have broken out when a liege demanded a vassal cease army building believing it to be a prelude to rebellion, and the very argument led to its own violence.

That said, one important thing that's very easy to forget is the lack of freedom of travel for armed groups. If someone was traveling from Arx to Farhaven in the North, there are a handful of roads considered own by the crown granting safe passage, between each major holding, but that is considered the right of individuals to travel, not for military units, which have to have the consent of every single demense in between point A and point B to cross peacefully, or be considered armed invaders. This makes army movement typically painfully slow, as say, troops coming from Tor to Pridehall have to be granted safe passage through dozens of domains, with every single independent lord free to place any demands from a tax on travellers to barring their entry at all under force of arms. Army moevents then are exceedingly complicated in Arvum, as there's many cases when some force is unwittingly technically trespassing by moving through land that a local barony hasn't surveyed in a generation, is held by shavs, but still technically owned.

This in turns means almost all negotiations are conducted in Arx, since it is painfully difficult to travel to independent holdings to have sellsword negotiations, and most sellsword companies have at least cordial relationships with most ducal powers and have routes specifically plotted through friendly lords willing to grant free and safe passage.

In Arx itself, every sellsword company has to be registered with the crown (typically meaning the Iron Guard), and is granted a charter, and are limited to no more than a hundred swords in the city at once, and in the streets they are subject to the same retainer laws as noble houses. They are, officially, considered crown servants as well as whoever they might be selling their swords to, and coutn against the armed retainer limits for both.

Land Ownership

Q1: What exactly /are/ the laws on land ownership? If a house owns land in one fealty, then changes membership to another fealty, do they get to just take that chunk of land with them to the new fealty, or do all the lands revert to their former liege to redistribute?

A: Land ownership is a misnomer, in the feudal system of Arvum. Everyone will think in those terms, but it really is more in the keeping of the liege above, all the way up the chain to the crown who very technically owns all land of Arvum. Very technically, in a way that even the peers don't really think in those terms, much less the crown, as there is a very deep seated respect for others' demesnes and it goes way beyond the pale to ever seize anything without an extremely well justified war or other event. But this does mean that respect for those land is based on traditional respect and not something truly binding, so it would be unheard of for land to pass to another fealty unless they sit on the border, since how can that possibly be defended? If a minor barony sworn to Redrain decided they wanted to be a vassal to Fidante, that's great, but they are surrounded then by tens of thousands of soldiers that have no reason at all to tolerate that, except for their good nature, and most lords are just not going to trust to the non-existant benevolence and permissiveness of their lieges for anything smacking of disloyalty. So while it has happened, those tiny islands usually last no more than a generation at best before the reality of holdouts are swallowed up again- and in fact quite a few Abandoned houses come from this, where they rebelled against their liege, are largely cut off from the rest of the Compact, and just eventually become an isolated island to themselves no longer recognized by anyone that is slowly picked apart over the years and fractures. A few rare cases have resulted in one house swearing to a new fealty and being granted new lands and a new peerage, while surrendering their own to their previous lord, as a result of extremely high level negotiations usually with the highlords and the crown in attendence to keep it from devolving into a really messy war. But yeah, anyone wanting to switch fealty has no good way of holding onto their own lands, so it is very, very, very rarely done except for border lands, which is why marches tend to be so significant.

Q2: What's the status of land ownership when it comes to commoners? It's been previously held that some notable families have land -- vinyards, lumber yards, etc. -- within their fealty. Is that land some they own outright akin to noble houses (and thus under the rules of whatever the answer to Q1 is), or is it land they hold in trust from the house whose territory it's in?

A: Commoners are in even more precarious spot. In terms of vows of fealty, commoners are granted freedom of movement as one of the reforms of Queen Alarice the Great to prevent serfdom from being much like slavery and allow commoners the right to leave the lands of their lords. This, however, doesn't address possessions at all. All commoner land that's 'owned' is really leased at the tolerance of their liege, and while commoners can have sellswords, they can't take vows of fealty themselves, meaning that their ability to defend any land is extremely questionable, particularly since it is very unlikely that all the lands between whatever new fealty they proclaim and their own lord's lands will just happen to allow armies of mercenaries free passage to set up in some vineyard somewhere to defend the claim. Typically in these cases, commoners would bargain with their old lords for a fair market value for the land they 'owned' before switching fealty, relying on the lord not wanting to look tyrannical or cheap and hurt their trade with other merchants to be fair. But that is purely about perception, and the ability to petition to higher authority here is extremely limited. Lieges of lords in question VERY RARELY intervene in such matters, and even more so the crown, since there is basically no incentive whatsoever to piss off a powerful vassal in order to placate a commoner that means nothing to them, and risk a war over some damned vineyard that is sitting on a vassal's land. So the odds of a merchant family keeping lands in a previous fealty's demesne is extremely slim, without some kind of contract that makes it worth the while to the old lord- there is not much hope of appeal here unless other powerful lords lean on both parties to seek neutral arbitration in court of Arx, in which case it almost always will just be some agreement about the sale of the land for something deemed fair, since most lords wouldn't want to risk alienating all other merchants by something as heavy handed as seizing it. On the other hand, if they are pissed off enough, that would be precisely what happens.

Lieges and Vassals

Q: These have obviously been called into question with recent in character events, but what are the actual obligations of a vassal noble to their liege in this setting? A lot of people seem to be working on the assumptions of absolute obedience but I have to imagine that is only one extreme of a very broad spectrum of relationships and 'contracts'.

There seems to be a 10 percent income tax as standard and there is obviously some kind of military obligation as well but how far does that go? Are the armed forces of a noble expected to be entirely at their liege's disposal? Or is a landed noble's obligation to provide X number of troops for a set period a year? A month? A season?

A: Taxes up to this point were automated, but Tehom recently added in a shown Tax percentage in bank payments rather than an auto deduction. That's consider a vassal's responsibility. As to military forces, it would be 'a reasonable percentage of their force that still accounts for the security of their holdings'. In practice, that's not less than twenty five percent for the full duration of any armed conflict, but the liege was wide latitude in forgiving that.

Q: I imagine things vary but is there a general standard and if things are nebulous is there a customary obligation? Additionally what are a liege lord's customary obligations if a vassal goes above and beyond these expectations? For example if a vassal is fielding more troops than their feudal contact specifies and brings them when banners are called, or remains in the field longer than is expected, does that generally mean their liege owes them a vague favour? Are they expected to start paying those soldier's wages to compensate their vassal if somebody turns up with a double sized army or fights for their liege all year?

A: Responsibility would solely be on the vassal to support it, though lieges and vassals have a wide latitude to debate what's reasonable.

Q: Also is scrutage a thing? To expand if, a vassal is unable or unwilling to send troops to their liege, is instead providing their overlord with money (to hire mercenaries or pay other nobles to up their contribution) an option, or indeed can a liege lord ask for money instead of troops? Or possibly is this kind of thing abstracted into the taxes already levied? Obviously those are options which could be personally discussed but are there in character assumptions of what is and is not acceptable?

A: Short answer, yes. These are very fluid- a vassal could make a reasonable offer to show their support, and a liege could accept it, and it is up to the two of them to determine what's reasonable. It would be extremely unusual for a liege to declare a vassal in disobedience- most lieges just are not powerful enough (unless they are a known tyrant, like Donrai was) to enforce their will uniformly and risk pissing off their other vassals. The most extreme step would be a liege, with the consent of the high lord of the kingdom and possibly the crown, to declare a vassal as outlaw (outside the law) and make them Abandoned. There's a number of Abandoned houses that fit that category, that live in such a defensible location that no one has ever bothered to try to conquer them or been successful at it.

Q: Weird array of taxes.

A: God no, let's keep it simple.

Q: A quick question on how citizens view their loyalty, in general. Would the average citizen see their primary loyalty as being to the lord directly above them, their highlord, or the compact? Would individual citizens of a duchy/county/barony etc. also swear fealty to their high lord, or just to their duke/count/baron/etc? If a citizen's direct lord decided to rebel against their high lord and/or the compact, would citizens generally go with their lord, or generally remain loyal to the compact/high lord?

A: Always their direct lord. Oaths of fealty are made directly to an individual or individuals (godsworn swear to the crown and the gods), but a commoner vassal of a duke is sworn to the duke, who is then sworn to a highlord, who is sworn to the crown. It would be expected in cases of conflict to always side with their direct lord. This doesn't mean that conflicts exist or some might break that, particularly if their direct lord is egregiously in the wrong, but if a lord rebels against their highlord, it can usually be expected that all or a majority of their vassals will stand with them. Similarly the autonomy that a duke practices from a highlord is roughly equivalent to the autonomy practiced by a marquis to the duke.

Renouncing Fealty

Q: What is involved in renouncing fealty?

A: Technically, everyone needs their lord's permission to be released from their oath. -Technically-. The reality is that is so pro forma it becomes rarely sought, particularly from those going crownsworn, since most lords just do not have the time to care about the son of random farmer Bob wanting to leave the barony and seek fame and fortune in Arx, for the very trivial it probably wouldn't even be mentioned for risk of irritating the lord's servants by wasting their time in informing them. But more prominent individuals are different. Going crownsworn is almost impossible to object to, since that is essentially one vassal leaving a lord's service to directly serve the crown, and very few lords would wish to risk irritating the crown by seeming they object to that, particularly about a commoner vassal.

The real times disputes happen is when one servant, like a wealthy merchant, has a dispute with their lord and wishes to leave their service and serve another. If the first lord (out of spite, for example) refuses to grant them leave, then the merchant could risk being seen as an oathbreaker which would vary based on their grievances on how they are perceived, and whoever takes their new service could be seen as giving a slight to their old lord. Very, very few lords -want- to keep a hostile vassal in their service, so refusing to grant such is pretty rare, and the only times this becomes violent tends to be during wartime, such as individuals effectively wishing to dessert as sworn swords, particularly if they'd seek service with their enemy. One of the reforms by Queen Alarice the Great was a crown law that forbade lords from refusing free travel of their vassals without just cause, to undermine serfdom that was slavery in all but name- this does lead to an extremely high amount of serfs who just 'go for a trip' from a hostile lord that they think might refuse to grant them leave of their service or retaliate if they ask, go to Arx, and then become crownsworn there once they are out of reach. This is a large reason for the immense population of the capital as well, to be under the auspices of the crown and away from minor lords who are despotic in their own domains, and many of those crownsworn then seek service among the lords they meet in Arx.

Taxes

Q: What would the typical percentage or rate of gross/net income be from a vassal house to a liege house?

A: By tradition, the Rule of Thirteens. They can't pay less than 1/13th of their gross income without being considered an oath breaker, with most typically offering ten percent. Similarly, if a lord calls their banners for war, vassals are obligated to answer the banners for at least thirteen time thirteen days (169 days of service). Lieges by tradition explicitly offer their bannermen the option to return home and tend to their house business after 13 months on a campaign, though many specifically refuse the offer to show their loyalty and stay until a campaign is finished.

Health and Medicine

Birth Control

Q: Can birth control be used by men and women, or just women?

A: Birth control comes in the form of Limerance's Libertia, a plant that grows abundantly in almost every region and climate currently known to Arvum. Its leaves can be brewed into a nice tea, taken as a powder, chewed, etc. Limerance's Libertia is accepted at all levels of society, fully embraced in the culture of Arvum, and equally effective for both men and women. It prevents pregnancy with 100% certainty, whether one or both partners take it. Because conception of a child requires both consenting partners to forego birth control, unwanted pregnancies are very rare -- not entirely unheard of, but a bit of an anomaly in a world where pregnancy can be prevented with such certainty.

Drugs

Q: Are there ways to get Haze and Dust into the city that aren't through the LB crime network, or should it basically assumed that if people are doing drugs they're coming in through the smugglers and lowlifes in my neighborhood?

A: Primarily lower boroughs, but not necessarily the criminal network down there- Arx is the busiest port in the world, and that's an awful lot of smuggling even outside of the criminal families. There's a good amount of land based trade with some contraband coming in from caravans passing through seawatch gate. The majority of illegal smuggling is just any trade with Abandoned, it is unlawful to trade to anyone that refuses to recognize the authority of the crown. Abandoned just happen to live in a lot of poppy fields to boot.

Q: Just how bad is it to be a Dusthead or a Hazer in modern Arx? Socially, what are the ramifications for users? If you get caught using, is it a major scandal? I mentally associate like ... Dust = coke, Haze = pot, just in terms of ramifications, but even that seems incomplete. How high can you get?

A: It's pretty frowned upon if someone doesn't have it under control. Treated with a similar amount of disdain as a prodigal. Would it get a noble kicked out of their family? Maybe not, but it's often treated with a bit more disapproval than someone being a drunk. The Inquisition doesn't tend to lock up users, since use alone is not a crime, just the smuggling aspect, and then it would mostly be about whoever they can extort for profits, really. The Iron Guard would treat someone pretty much the same as a drunk, probably ignore them unless they are a problem. As for how high, in extreme cases dust causes hallucinations. Dust is an opiate, and Haze more like pot.

Q: How addictive is Haze?

3) It's not really, as a pot analogue.

Q: Does it make sense to cut Dust with Haze and what would that do if you did it? How do these drugs interact? SHOULD SOMEONE STORYREQUEST AND FIND OUT?

A: Drugs, and there will likely be a lot more, probably have a lot of interactions but how they interact would be based on quality, quantity, type, etc. In general most likely better highs, but for specifics yeah storyrequest.

Q: What is the minimum legal age for drug use in Arvum, 18, 21? Or does it vary by region, such as Redrain or Thrax lands starting earlier due to the ahrsher environment/culture where Grayson and valardin lands are later due to the more reserved culture?

A:It can always be assumed the legal age for everything is 18, however most would see drinking or use of lower grade narcotics as more the call of whoever is responsible for the children.

Old Age

Q: How old do people typically live in Arx? Does it differ between nobles and commoners and others in a notable way? When people do kick the bucket and a war isn't on, what are the typical things blamed for death?

A: "He died of a bad belly." Medical knowledge is a rough analogue to Galen and Hippocrates, so there's definitely no germ theory. The life expectancy of a commoner is probably in his 50s, and with many nobles living well into their 70s, mostly from differences in diet. There's usually not much attribution to demons or evil magic or the like, that sort of superstition is foreign to the mindsets of Arvani, but without germ theory then death by disease is typically talked about in terms of humors, and most organ collapses are described in very genreal terms. 'His heart gave out' is a pretty rough guess for a heart attack that might be more accurate than not. One core component missing- high child mortality rates. The herbal treatments in Arvum are potent to the point where they lack any real word analogue at all- which makes average life expectancy sky high by comparison to the middle ages, since the average dropped to squat when you average in that a large percentage of the population died immediately.

Honor Duels

Q: "Are there hard and fast rules in Arx for the specifics of Dueling? i.e. Does the challenged get to set the circumstances of the duel such as the weapons to be used, if armor is allowed, etc. Also, who must declare their champion first?"

A: It's traditional for the challenged party to pick the terms for any kind of honor duel and the particulars of the engagement, and then that would go back to the accusing party whether they want to withdraw the challenge or accusation. Similarly, if it's accusing someone of a crime, the challenged party is the one that decides if they want to settle trial by combat, they could just insist on a trial in their fealty or by a crown representative as the judge. The defender would declare their champion first typically, but that's just traditional politeness rather than a requirement. Politeness tends to be everything, since it's a matter of saving face after all as the point behind most duels.

Further, what should be remembered here is these are duels of honor to save public face. The population of Arx would be extremely unforgiving of someone trying to appear to honor it on the surface while trying set terms or conditions that would make it impossible. In other words, trying to arrange on a date that would be impossible would make someone look extremely bad, and so would trying to insist on conditions that would be humiliating for the participants involved. "We shall fight without armor to first blood" is appropriate, saying, "We will fight naked in an insult contest declaring how much we suck with each swing" would not be, and even proposing the latter would cause opprobrium. In short, honor duels are always dignified, since they are about defending the honor of those involved- never farcical.

The King's Own

Q: What are the King's Own?

A: The King's Own are the royal guard of the 'Crownbearer' of the day. At present that is King Alaric Grayson IV. They are famed to be among the best knights in all of Arvum and are reputed to have the greatest score of accomplishments across all military organizations across the continent. The knights therein typically hail from noble families, but it is not unheard of for some particularly talented commoner(s) who attain knighthood to be invited into the One Hundred by either the King/Queen or the Lord Commander.

Q: Where do the King's Own call home?

A: Crownguard Tower within Guardian Square of the Ward of the Crown. It is a formidable place that due to the Thraxian Treason of 713 AR, is almost as famous as the King's Own itself. It has a storied history and has been witness to many, many acts of heroism throughout known history. Their duties naturally extend to the palace, where they function as the main source of security(sometimes backed by the Iron Guard) for the palace and the royal occupant(s) within.

Q: Who do the King's Own owe their loyalty and allegiance?

A: The King or Queen of the time. The King's Own swear themselves in an oath of loyalty to only the Crownbearer. This does not mean that the King's Own are unable to have acquaintances, friends, contact their families which they (theoretically) give up, or even a lover or lovers. They must remain loyal solely to the Crown. Naturally the King's Own will report to others as a matter of professional courtesy, such as the Ministry of Defense or the Regent/Voice of the day. As much to cooperate with those beyond the king/queen as to limit the burden of their constant attentions being hefted onto the Crown. There is a chain of command, but the King's Own are very fluid among it, and if they feel an order poses some manner of risk to their liege, they may very well summarily ignore it. When it is all said and done however, the King's Own, the Lord Commander in particular, reports to one entity within Arx: The King or Queen.

Q: What happens if the Sovereign is in a coma? What do the King's Own do then?

A: They ensure the safety of the Crown. Historically this has been a fairly mundane role of babysitting a potato. There is currently an IC movement within the King's Own to grant them some forward momentum as far as becoming involved with matters beyond guarding an individual that doesn't get out much and is the Arx Staring Contest Champion for at least the past years. It is my belief that the King's Own has plenty of NPCs that are able and willing to protect the King At Rest. As a result the PCs should be more protagonist than background flavor. The King's Own are very professional, but they take their duties very seriously, so their becoming more proactive in matters related to the safety of the Crown is not beyond the realm of reason. It is something which I hope to bring to the forefront for the King's Own, that they are more than a static background piece and are the most loyal protectors of the Crown; sometimes protection means more than standing in one place and watching a spud grow.

Q: What are the legal boundaries the King's Own are restricted by/to, both within and beyond the palace?

A: Due to their reputation as the defenders of the Crown and being among the greatest knights across Arvum, their word alone often does carry with it some measure of weight. While they may not have full authority within the Ward of the Compact or the Ward of the Crown, they are at least regarded with respect and their opinion on a matter can carry some weight or generally influence the common citizenry. The King's Own largely have autonomy as far as their jurisdiction and power within and surrounding the palace is concerned. Were a scuffle to break out within the palace, the King's Own could toss that individual or individuals into the palace dungeons until one or all parties involved learn to 'use their words' or those same parties could be handed over to the Iron Guard. The palace, it's safety, and the king/queen that resides within it are the priority of the King's Own, so their word is often the first and last pertaining to it. Beyond the palace that same authority is often encapsulated when in the presence of the king/queen; for example if the King's Own order someone to step back at the Judgement Green, it's at that individual's own risk that one would ignore the order and attempt to come closer.

Q: Is becoming a knight of the King's Own a lifelong obligation?

A: Short answer? Yes. Long answer? The situations vary along a sliding scale of how dishonorable, if at all, it would appear to be. Have a love-child with a random lover and thus must request leave from the sworn vow in order to see to this newly birthed child? Clearly you hadn't taken your vow seriously and that is highly dishonorable. You've performed feats of valor and just don't have the energy to continue? It may not be dishonorable and would likely result in a dismissal from the vow, even if just a tiny bit reluctantly. You simply want out because you want out? No wise employer would maintain a bodyguard that doesn't want to protect them with their life. It is likely a highly dishonorable means of getting out of the King's Own, but just as likely not a foreign concept. As stated before the situations and reasoning are varied, with the level of their reception depending on the precise reasoning behind the knight's choice to request their leave.

The Lyceum

Succession/Conclaves

Good question recently in light of recent events. Was asked that if conclaves aren't voting, then how does the Lyceum really differ thematically from other great houses.

A: Okay so the whole, 'dictate terms when people are defeated' is actually very different from other great houses, in that it has an implicit understanding that civil wars won't usually result in the utter destruction of another city-state or the annihilation of another house. And that's a very very important concept, in that most wars of rebellion are usually by necessity fought to the utter extinguishing of any line in order to prevent future conflicts. Like the Tyde rebellion, it ends with a house attainted and destroyed and it lands absorbed. That doesn't happen in the Lyceum at all. City-states just don't change hands, but the recognition of where they stand is more malleable. It's a very important distinction since otherwise people would assume that in order to take the great house position one would have to wipe out velenosa utterly, and I think it is very very very very important to avoid that, and instead I -do- think there will be crippling wars that can put someone in a position where they would be effectively defenseless and have no choice but to surrender it, while if it happened to Grayson and its army was wiped out, it would be unthinkable for Bisland to go, 'well that sucks for you, we're now the great house'. That just wouldn't happen thematically, while in the Lyceum it very clearly would.

Nobility

Crowns Et Al.

Q: What are the thematic norms and/or laws regarding the wearing of laurels, crowns, diadems, coronets, circlets, etc? Is only the king allowed such ornamentation? Can High Lords wear them? What about all landed titles or all nobles? Are certain features limited to certain ranks? Only the monarch is allowed to have arches or is the only one allowed to have previous stones in their headwear for instance.

A: There's no laws regarding them, or sumptuary laws in general, as I don't believe those quite thematically fit. There would, however, be quite a bit of unspoken societal conventions on what would be appropriate. The king/queen of the compact definitely have an heirloom crown (since the time of the crownbreaker wars, since the crown of alarice was lost in the chaos and the crown of King Alarius was shattered), and each of the 5 great houses have an heirloom crown, which I might design eventually, but circlets or tiaras or the like would probably be seen a fine for the upper echelons of nobility, where it might be seen as ostentatious or putting on airs for lower rank nobility. We might do something with this with +fashion eventually.

Heirloom Weapons

Q: Do houses ever change their heirloom weapons? For example might a house adopt an alaracite sword that was used in some great victory to be their new heirloom weapon, replacing a rubicund or diamondplate weapon the glory of which might have faded with the years?

A: It happens from weapons being lost, for example. What happens if this leads to multiples? The older one is never, ever retained as a personal weapon. Not ever. That would be immensely disrespectful to the legacy of the house, so in effect, any older one is permanently retired and still only used in matters of house honor or war. Heirlooms besides weapons are often given that distinction, used only in ceremonial or highly respectful traditions and never for personal use, when they are replaced or made redundant.

Marriage

Q) While the theme doc says that marriage is more informal and common law amongst commoners, it's a more formal practice amongst nobility. Is there a formal ceremony involved in this? Is it religious or contractual? Do these ceremonies differ from faction to faction?

A) Vastly more formal. Commoners have freedom to marry whoever, whenever they want in regards to other commoners. Nobles very much do not if they want to stay nobles. Any match has to be approved both by their own head of house, and further any match has to be approved by the Faith and formally recognized in a marriage ceremony to be seen as valid, and for children from the bond to be considered legitimate. This means that the Faith essentially does have veto power over noble marriages (see Fawkuhl's proclamation about marriages not being performed for a time), and with some legates massive bribery to block or approve marriages was not uncommon. Religious and contractual both, and ceremonies do have regional variance, but all blessed by the Faith. Even shamanistic houses still have to have faith approval to be considered valid by the rest of the Compact.

Q: I understand from the news files that marriage among the nobility is basically a business/political contract (and one taken very seriously), and love generally has little to do with. However, I'm curious about what cultural role love plays in noble marriages, if any. Is it a case where it's a polite fiction that marriages are love (even if they generally aren't) and people are expected to pretend they're in love with their spouse? Will protestations of love help sell an unpopular match? Or is there scorn for letting such a think as fickle emotion compromise the very serious duty of contracts between houses? Or something in between--it's nice if you love the person you're marrying, but no one considers it a requirement?

A: Generally speaking, culturally Limerance is more the god of fidelity than of love, and that's an important distinction, in so much that duty and obligation weighs much more heavily than romantic ideals. This is a large part why culturally and religiously noble marriages are treated differently, since they have different bonds of fidelity and obligation between families as well as individuals, meaning that in many ways the expectation for spouses to keep their word to one another has a greater weight culturally than the expectation of any love between them. Since ultimately, honoring those vows about fidelity is much more significant than any nice-but-not-required romantic love, which unfortunately does result in a lot of unhappy marriages. Commoners, on the other hand, have no expectation of creating an alliance or bringing families together, even in the cases of powerful merchant houses or the like, so it's much more casual and love there is expected.

Q: Hi. I'd asked on Info channel about the existence of (gender/sex neutral) dowries and whether they would be paid to the house gaining a new member or to the house losing a member. Hellfrog said that dowries really didn't exist. My understanding is that trade pacts and agreements for military support (please don't kill any Archdukes named Ferdinand) were more along the lines of what to expect when allying two houses via the bonds of marriage. What are reasonable requests/arrangements along these lines when negotiating marital contracts?

Q: In conjunction with Sophie's question, what do noble marriage contracts typically look like? Would there be great differences between a contract between a non-landed and landed noble contract? What about a High Lord contract vs. other noble contracts? Additionally, I know the theme files talk about non-monogamy clauses if agreed upon by the marriage, but are there non-non-monogamy clauses if the parties intend to be monogamous (or is that just understood, if there is NOT a non-monogamy clause)?

A: Marriage pacts will mirror the interests of the houses, and 'reasonable' can be a tricky term there. By ancient tradition, titleholders aren't allowed to marry, and one of the two must abdicate and give up their claims on their birth family's holdings. For primary line marriages that stand in a direct line for inheritance (children, nieces, nephews, siblings and cousins of the titleholder), this usually represents a tremendous concession, so it tends to be the house that is 'gaining' the noble that in turn will pay for the costs of the marriage and ensuing celebration (which for great houses, could run into the hundreds of thousands of silver easily, and such marriage celebrations are usually a display of strength and grandeur). For someone that's not a claimant, that tends to be much less of a factor, and they tend to be a dryer negotiation with the two houses discussing what military obligations they should have to one another, often with a contract specifying how many sworn swords they may offer in the event of being threatened, and 'with all our power' being a common phrase to mean that if one house is threatened, they are all in. Trade agreements tend to be sweeping changes that might last generations, like the abolition of tariffs, tax incentives for their own merchants doing business in X, military agreements on who might watch over what caravans and where, and an awful lot of extremely dry details I don't want to go into great length about since very, very, very few players would enjoy discussing them. This will be very relevant when Dominion is in, but not so much now, as trade will very much be A Thing, and those will have a not insignificant relevance on the prosperity of houses, and directing trade towards an ally might make another house salty when they see their incomes drop by someone else being favored. And that's largely the tricky thing with anytime it's very abstracted and handwaved, in the current state, in that it is easy to say what people gain, but very very difficult to show the ramifications of it in what might produce unintentional consequences on others, in a way that makes the choices more difficult rather than pro forma.

As for contracts themselves, who is marrying into which house is common, and also if any of the children are being raised as wards of the other family- and would in effect be members of the other house. It can be assumed marriages allow lovers (but never children by them, with safe, extremely reliable contraception being a thing thematically), ONLY somewhere between the way RL noble marriages worked for men, and the way 'modern' marraiges 'allow' them. FOr example, if you cheat on your spouse you are probably not going to be stoned to death or immediately divorced, but they certainly don't have to like it. More, it is just accepted that discreet dalliances are bound to happen in loveless unions -- unless otherwise specified with phrases like 'And none shall come between us in our hearts' or other similar flowery phrases that mean they must be monogamous. Breaking those is an extremely big deal, since if someone does break a marriage vow, the injured party and/or the Faith of the Pantheon is free to declare the marriage pact null and void, completely invalidating any of those trade agreements, military alliances, etc. More common is the guilty party being dennobled, the guilty party's family making some kind of concession, and the pact continues on. Of course, more often than not, 'guilt' is a matter of debate, and this leads to wars if they refuse arbitration by the Crown or Faith. It should be noted that marriage contracts stipulations about monogamy must be equal- it must be closed and monogamous for both parties by contract, or assumed to be handled privately in the case of lovers for both parties, if no such thing is stipulated. Often marriage contracts will specifically outline what would follow if they divorce, to try to avoid that kind of messiness, as the Arxian equivalent of a prenuptial agreement. These are uncommon, as most families would distrust it and see it as casting doubt on the fidelity of the other party, which is a pretty big insult- remember that while the culture is extremely sexually permissive and progression, what replaces most of the hardline beliefs is a deep religious conviction around -fidelity-, so keeping word is a really, really, really big deal. Someone that's declared faithless in effect doesn't have a claim to the loyalty of all those sworn to them, which is what Fawkuhl tried to do unsuccessfully with the highlords he excommunicated.

Divorce

Q: I am not sure if I accidentally missed anything about this topic listed but I am curious. Is divorce something common theme wise? What happens if someone who was a commoner marries a lord, becoming a lady or vise versa when they do divorce? Does the title stay? Do they lost the title do to the divorce? What if an heir was already born for the marriage before the divorce is request? How does the church look upon divorce?

A: For commoners, it's as simple as saying they are no longer married, and that's that. For nobles, it's a much different matter.

Nobles marrying commoners is exceedingly uncommon, because it is looked down upon as a house intentionally permitting someone to selfishly pursue their own desires at the cost to the house, and not improving their standing among the peerage- and more importantly, not creating the kind of bonds that could prevent war and bring the Compact closer together. A commoner and noble marrying is uncommon, and divorce typically is much easier in that specific case than between two nobles, though it has significant consequences. It is entirely the discretion of the head of household if the commoner would then stay with the family and remain ennobled, or if they would be removed from the family and denobled, and the latter is significantly more common. Further, for the noble, this has a lot of ramifications for their reputation and here is a related point of theme that needs to be emphasized- Arvum's very strong feelings about fidelity.

The sexual mores and taboos are missing, but fidelity is much more strongly emphasized, in that the entire worth of someone and how trustworthy they are is entirely based on how well they honor their vows and keep their word. If a noble marries, and then divorces, they are pretty much proclaiming to the world and the entire Compact that no, they cannot see their obligations through, even when it was a love match and they did something selfishly at the expense of their house. It would be difficult for them to be taken seriously again, so they would have to point to a lot of circumstances around it, and even then, most nobles would probably dismiss them out of hand as someone trustworhty. And that's for a very light case, someone that very clearly breaks a vow or acts in an extremely visibly dishonorable way is largely socially dead in terms of how other peers would look at them.

Now, for noble upon noble divorce, that would largely be asking, 'How do houses break their most significant, meaningful alliances that they stake their house prestige upon?' Well, they can, sure. It hurts them in ways that are pretty profound, that wouldn't be apparent. When Dominion is live, things like house income will be heavily tied to their prestige, because it is, in effect, consumer confidence and how confident investors feel in working with a house based on their reputation. If a house breaks one of its most meaningful pacts, it is likely shattered. So sure, divorces can happen, and breaking up alliances, but it has significant macro effects, and largely that'll be more about removing carrots when social systems come into play.

Same-Sex Marriage

Q: Since different questions on this topic have come up at various times, I feel like it might be worth putting down answers in a lasting location. How common or rare is same-sex marriage allowed to happen in the nobility? From the gender helpfile, it sounds like it would be less common, as most nobles are going to face pressure to marry in a babymaking-compatible manner despite their sexuality or gender identity. But it's also been indicated that noble same-sex marriage isn't completely unheard of, so what situations would it be more commonly allowed in? More likely for nobles farther away from the line of inheritance? Special boons for particular service? In the cases of same-sex marriage in the nobility, how are children handled in the line of inheritance? Are any children produced by one of the pair automatically considered bastards with the chance to be legitimized? Do some couples make specific arrangements in their marital contracts? What would the "automatic" assumption/status of a child born to one of them be, and what would the potential be by way of arrangement?

And, as an addendum, in real life it was not uncommon to nominate a successor rather than explicitly having them be of your blood. Is that option one that nobles pursue with any frequency here? Would a same-sex marriage with a chosen heir be the accepted compromise.

A: Any love matches are rare, the closer someone is to direct inheritance of the noble holding the rarer it is. This includes any match that cannot result in natural born offspring between the two partners for any reason, noble-commoner, abdication to marry someone of far lower station, same sex marriages, known sterility. As far as nobility is concerned, it's a contract between two houses that result in children to solidify their bonds, with a tremendous amount of emphasis on natural born, legitimate children between two of them as guarantees of the ties between the houses. Homophobia isn't particular thematic, but callous indifference to people's actual desires often is, with many just expecting nobles to marry and then have lovers outside the marriage with varying degrees of openess or discretion.

Marrying someone that cannot result in children and/or is not about solidifying an alliance for the family is seen by different groups in different ways. It's seen as a selfish abrogation of duty by traditionalists, reckless or foolish by moderates, understandable and sympathetic by progressives, and romanticized and beloved by the commons. Generally speaking, it's expected of someone going into a love match to give up claims on inheritance for nobility, as they are putting aside duty for their heart. But not always.

Heads of house can choose heirs and appoint a successor not directly over their body, and it has happened. Legitimized bastards, adoptees, children further down the line because of issues with the first born. These are rare, however, because of concerns of it being challenged after the death, which is not at all rare, and even open minded and progressive peers of the realm are extremely concerned about non-standard succession because of the risk of being drawn into a potential succession crises. On the other hand, this really only applies to peers directly in the line of succession. A distant cousin is still going to be a noble, but they don't truly have heirs, since it is extremely unlikely they'll ever have their own direct domain to pass down. The social pushback they receive is considerably less, but there's still the standard disapproval of the peerage for ennobling anyone through adoption.

Tl;dr, it really only matters a lot for heirs expected to inherit domains, and it's usually taken as a given they'll pass it over if they marry for love. If they don't, could expect fights. Otherwise, there is societal disapproval depending on the circumstances, sometimes severe enough that nobility renounce their family and go commoner, but usually not so bad.

Peerage

Q: I have some questions about who is considered a "peer" in Arvum. Setting aside those who are obviously peers by right of rule, are those who hold the courtesy title of "Lord" or "Lady" considered peers? What of those who hold the courtesy titles of "Prince" or "Princess"?

A: The term 'peer of the realm' applies to any recognized noble still in good standing with their house. Social rank in this way has a formal usuage (it's not just an ooc construct, nobles could talk about outranking someone in a societal sense), with the family of a titleholder being considered typically a level below the title holder, save barony-level families which are the same. To distinguish between a peer that's a titleholder, there's quite a few different distinctions. 'Head of House', 'Ruling lord', '<title> of <holding>' such as the Princess of Bastion would mean the highlord of House Grayson, while 'A princess of House Grayson' would be a non-titleholder in standard usuage. So while a titleholder always outranks their families, the noble family are still considered peers of the realms, and it's not just a term to denote the holder of a peerage/domain.

Respect

Q: In a hierarchy the notion is that those who are below will pay respect at least at a minimum to those above, I am wondering what happens when this does not happen?

My instinct is that it's both a violation of the social norms and as such taboo but also a violation of one's oaths to their direct Leige?

1. Who is responsible when someone down the social chain disrespects their betters overtly? The head of their house? Who ever they're directly sworn to or themselves?

2. What are the consequences social, religious and otherwise for such behavior?

3. To what degree are nobles expected to uniformly enforce the social demands of the hierarchy? Is this a 'I should be calling in the muscle to beat someone down' thing? I can't imagine we would use champions (a social construct) when one party is already in violation of the social norm?

A: It depends.

Generally speaking, bad behavior (crass, rude, offensive, disrespectful) flows either way on social rank, without much of a sense of les majeste. A noble trying to berate a worker would probably be seen as in the wrong and rude, and a noble trying to correct usuage of a title is more likely to be seen as petty and pedantic than the offending party to be in the wrong, unless the other party was intentionally misusing it to try to insult them. Respect for anyone in the society is based on their own merit, in terms of their accomplishments, and then respect for the families or the institutions they represent. Nobility try not to lean too heavily on the prestige of their family names, because it cheapens it, though similarly most commoners show a deference to family members of powerful houses due to what they represent.

1.: Heads of house usually feel responsible for family members reflecting badly on the family (and this will come up when social systems are active), but still the opprobrium is focused on the individual, with just tangential effects on those affiliated with them.

2. Ultimately, any interaction with npcs will be colored by someone's reputation. All of them. Like, say, spending resources. Or gaining them. Or any interaction with any house at all. In the meantime, it depends on the severity- someone that's considered an asshole probably isn't invited to all the reindeer games.

3.Merit matters more than status. Nobles should not feel they are responsible for enforcing social mores or the final arbiters of dignified behavior. Generally speaking, the nobles feel correcting trifles as beneath them, and wouldn't respond to something that's not an intentional provocation.

Salaries

Q: I've had discussed weekly salaries with a few Heads of Houses for people at various levels of fealty within the House (as opposed to landed vassals). Are there recommended guidelines for how much these salary/allowances should be? Ranging from members of the noble family to their knights and servants? As well as how one might adjust at the different levels of nobility? Is there a difference between what you'd be a sworn servant vs. a Crownsworn servant? Thank you!

A: Any family member or house servant (rank 4 and up) should really have an allowance or salary. The, 'just ask me for money' would and should be seen as extremely tight fisted, overly controlling, and greedy, though of course ICly some leaders are tight fisted, overly controlling and greedy.

As a general rule, I'd say that no less than half of the net income after paying for their armies and domain upkeep should be used for automatic allowances and salaries, usually divided evenly with a double share for head of house and voices and a halfshare for house servants (rank 4). It should be noted that inactive family are not paid during chron- in fact, someone that hasn't logged in for 14 days is automatically cut out from it, whether they are formally marked as inactive or not.

But yeah seriously please do not do the, 'Yeah just come and see me for money', that kind of tight control can be very RP squelching unless someone does like legitimately rp with people every day about what they need and ask.

Succession

Q) With the succession crisis emits side by side, is the suggestion that legitimacy in any noble house matters more to holding leadership than the bloodline of that specific house does? I.e., would Mason (born noble, not Grayson but married in) or Harlan (born noble, not Grayson) have an acceptable claim if all parties agreed peacefully to it? Does a claim by a full-blooded noble supersede that of a legitimized bastard in the public eye? I.e., would Laric (born noble, Grayson) have a better claim to leadership in the public eye than Dawn (legitimized bastard, Grayson) if there was contention over the matter?

A) The will of the last titleholder in terms of declaring an heir is probably the single largest factor, and going against that is largely seen as illegitimate, though whether anyone does anything about it depends upon the ramifications of it going unchallenged. For example, if Dawn had declared she sought the crown, it was clear from her not being legitimized by either Alaric III or Alaric IV that she wasn't considered as an heir, despite being a highlord. It would have made most vassals acutely uncomfortable, barring any other factors. With that in mind, without a declared heir, then most would look at the standard line of succession, which would probably give Laric a better claim, though it's very muddled with the absence of any declared heir. Blood tends to have priority in direct lines, with someone serving as a leader being recognition of the esteem they were held in as a leader by the last titleholder. IE, someone arguing, 'I served the old highlord and house in X and Y ways, and he said he favored me but never got around to actually making me heir over Z person not as respected' would almost certainly win a great amount of support. Claims all have a degree of validity if they can be argued based on what likely was the will of the last title holder, past that and it is by and large considered usurping.

Q: How does someone marrying outside his or her House affect inheritance?

Suppose, for instance, that the second-eldest Baker House member in Valardin gets married off to the Charlie House in Redrain. Then the duke of Baker and eldest Baker House son get hit by a cart and die. Does the second-eldest inherit? Or is he out of the line of succession because of the marriage?

Put differently, does marriage out of a House alone put someone out of the line of succession? Or is succession effects of marriage something (if it happens at all) that is separately negotiated with the marriage?

A: Here's a case where the traditional autonomy granted to heads of houses is a headache for the Compact as a whole.

Traditionally, a line of succession is what the head of house specifically wills it to be, with an heir being declared, and some defining it three or four places down (and some changing it based on whim, with a few intentionally playing heirs off one another). This, of course, can create ambiguous situations that lead to potentially violent conflicts, and then it typically falls to that head of house's liege to make the call, or the highlord of the region, and that leads to traditional lines of succession.

Typically, one that marries out is considered lower in the line than anyone with equal proximity. Typically primogeniture goes in order of- eldest to youngest direct children, eldest to youngest grandchildren (and in theory, straight down in direct line, with a couple cases of great-grand children inheriting), then up to nephews/nieces, then at second cousins it would be considered equal proximity including up generations (brothers/sisters, uncles, etc). Marrying out puts someone traditionally at the bottom of the same proximity, so if someone had 4 kids, the ones married out would be treated as the youngest. Children -> Grandchildren -> First Cousins of Children -> everyone else. The vagueness after nieces/nephews is intentional, as the some elements of arguing by merit creeped in with that many potential claimants.

Succession by Combat

It's not actually a thing. Players that did that were largely just making it up or drawing from inference. There's not any traditional challenges for positions or the like, except in the context if some people have extremely legitimate grievances and clear cut disputed claims, which would provide a solid foundation for a lively round of civil war and they instead settle it with a duel. But to get to that point, someone's claims have to be really, really solid, and not just 'I want that.' If wishes were fishes we'd all live in an apocalyptic blood soaked sea of Leviathan.

Swords

Q: Is being a Sword of a Family only limited to Duchies? Can someone be called the Sword of their family without a heirloom weapon or is that a must?

A: The diamondplate and alaricite heirloom weapons dating back to the Elven War (or even the Reckoning) are found along upon the duchies and great houses, but almost every house has a Sword of their holding, a champion who will fight specifically for their house in matters of house honor. Most lower houses tend to have heirloom weapons of rubicund or steel with lengthy histories, they just weren't part of the gifts from the Nox'alfar from ages past.

Voices

There's a misconception about voices and I've tried to make it clear, but I should mention this. A voice is not a trusted advisor or a respected, senior member of a house or organization alone. They are a plenipotentiary. What that means is they are entrusted with the full power of the leader of an organization to make decisions on their behalf, and while it's expected they'd know their mind and know what they want, this means that they are quite typically ruling in their name. This is a thematic necessity and a bedrock part of theme, as that is also a strong reason why all the leaders tend to be in Arx, and still have control over their domains, it can be assumed they have a trusted voice acting in their stead, who is fully capable of making decisions, up to and including making peace or war, negotiating vital long term deals, executing treasonous flunkies, working out marriage alliances, and so on. In other words, someone who says, 'NO I CANNOT TALK TO A VOICE, IT MUST BE THE HIGHLORD' is basically always wrong unless the subject is, 'Your voice is a traitor and is trying to stage a coup'. This is an extremely important part of theme, but more than that, it is an ooc necessity- I cannot and will not put all the responsibility on a single player character, since that is a quick way to overwhelm a player and burn them out on one hand, or on the other hand, put someone that is too controlling in a position to squelch all RP in a faction. So yeah, leaders make sure your voices have extremely wide latitude, and pretty much never do the, 'YOU MADE A DECISION WITHOUT ME, HORROR' reaction because that is wrong until and unless that decision directly damages a leader's position, and anyone else you should see approaching a voice as identical to approaching the leader of a faction.

Q: Is there any perceived favoritism if someone from a vassal house is named Voice of the lead house? I.E. if person from Duchal House A is named Voice to a Great House, do Duchal House B & C (or a member of the Great House family) have reasonable rights to be offended? Is there any reasonable perception that this Duchal House is then "favored" more so than the others?

A: Not offended, they wouldn't have grounds for that really. Being made Voice is such a high honor that it would be presumptuous for anyone to take offense for not receiving it, unless for example if a leader told them they were going to name them a voice and then changed their mind with predictable resentment to follow. Voices tend to be named to individuals based on their individual merits and recognition of complete trust, and are most commonly heirs and spouses, or deep friendships... which is the most common reason for voices from other houses. It is considered poor form to gripe about a liege's choice of voices since that puts someone in the position of typically attacking their heir, spouse or most trusted friends. It's seldom wise. Resentment over the implicit influence of someone from a rival house might wield as a result is, of course, very common.

Q: Can a person be a Voice of their house, as well as the House above them? So, can someone be a Voice to their Barony, and a Voice to the Duchal House above them as well?

A: Sure, if they can balance any potential conflicts or competiting obligations, they can. An honorable person that is ever put in a position of mutually exclusive vows would resign, but vassals tend to not be put in positions where speaking for their own house and their liege would be a conflict that often, as they generally have similar regional goals.

Q: We are well aware that a Voice acts with the full authority of the leader, and can make decisions without consultation. What occurs when a Voice makes a decision, or commits an action, that is perceived to be against the wishes of the leader?

A: Lose the position due to loss of confidence, apologize and do better, denobled due to undermining their authority, executed for treason, etc. All varies basde on circumstances. It could be anything from a gentle chiding and a private apologize to a civil war. There's a pretty wide scope in between those.

Q: In a follow up.. because I've been wondering. Can a Voice be the Voice of a House while in another feality? To me it seems like it is a thing that divides loyalties.

A: Yes and very obviously yes.

Shamanism

Dreamcatchers

Q: So. I was wondering if in any shaman traditions if they would have something similar to a dreamcatcher.

A: Sure, that's fine. The general rule is for anything specifically cultural and identifiable by name, you can have it, just not the name. A kusarigama could exist, but it's a chain and sickle, and referred to as a chain and a sickle. A dreamcatcher has another name. That's fine, it fits the Northlands.

Shav'arvani/The Abandoned

Q: What is the general Shav culture and life like? Is it equivilant to historical barbarian tribes like Gauls or Mongols? Or is it a post apocalyptic fight for daily survival? Further are there any vestiges of former cultures such as what we recently saw with the Shave of House Marin, or is that a unique case?

A: Shav/Abandoned culture is kind of a misnomer, as there's definitely no single unified one. There are thousands of different tribes of Abandoned and hundreds of different cultures, though there's some main strands.

There's Abandoned that were never, at any point, members of the Compact or parts of noble houses. These are mostly found in the Northlands, as in days before the Reckoning the Northlands were almost entirely barbarian raiders against the more developed southern lands, particularly against House Valardin. The Reckoning saw most of the tribes unite under Queen Valeria, but perhaps seventy percent of the tribes fell under demonic control during the Reckoning, and have the largest porportion of extremely barbaric and savage shav tribes. Most of the more extreme practices, like human sacrifice, ritualized cannibalism, demon worship and so on are found in Northlands shavs, though it's not even close to homogeneous. Abandoned tribes are vastly more likely to be fighting each other than raiding the Compact, and there's cases when dozen of tribes, clans and former houses ally against one another and have fairly significant wars that the Compact barely hears about.

Secondly, there's the former houses that were lost during the Reckoning. The term 'Abandoned' largely comes from them, as the vast majority of the nobles and their domains stood and fought against the demonic invasion rather than flee for the safety of Arx, attempting to defend their holdings. Most of the tribal identities come as bastardizations of their old house identities, and some stayed relatively intact a thousand years later. Keep in mind, during the re-conquest of Arvum after the Reckoning, many of the Abandoned were pushed off the same ancestral land they defended and given to other branches of the same family that did come to Arx, or other noble houses, so there's some thousand year old grudges over stolen land, or betrayal by family.

Then there's the other phases of societal collapse. The next several hundred years after the Reckoning were constant warfare and generations of trying to regain control over pats of Arvum, as essentially nothing was under significant Compact control -but- Arx, Sanctum, Farhaven, Maelstrom, Bastion and the Lycene city-states. Details about this are particularly vague, as all history was lost, but Arvum was just starting to come into parity between Abandoned and Compact control by the time of the Elven War, which was another genocidal conflict that saw humanity nearly wiped out, and virtually all holdings of man falling, save much of the same fortresses that withstood the Reckoning. And this, in turn, produced another wave of Abandoned houses that developed independent of the Compact for another 500 years. And then following that, the Crownbreaker wars a couple hundred years ago tore the Compact apart again, and saw another wave of collapse, and surge of Abandoned.

So in short, there have been at least three periods of effective collapse of civilization, and all of them have produced independent Abandoned houses, and all have their own cultures, traditions. Some are post apocalyptic fights for survival, some hundreds of miles away in isolation past hard land that hasn't been visited in centuries and completely forgotten, are probably pretty well developed. With millions of square miles, a lack of reliable maps, and dangerous exploration, there's a lot out there that the Compact is at best only dimly aware of.

Thralldom

Creating Thralls

Q: So I recieved a question ICly about reforming thralldom that raised a couple of other questions for me. 1) Who can impose thralldom? 2) are thralls ever taken in war from the compact, or just from the shavs?

A: Any noble of Thrax (land owner) or member of the court system of Thrax, as it's essentially a declaration of debt. Commoners often do so and then just have it recognized later by judicial consent to formalize something that was informal. Thralls are from the rest of the Compact are, in effect, war hostages. It is done exceedingly rarely and only in times of war, as it's the same as ransoming prisoners of war. The overwhelming majority of thralls are Abandoned, who essentially have a war debt for being outside the Compact, and those found guilty of petty crimes in Thrax domains.

War

Navies

Q: Ok, this might have been asked before, I'm not sure. I do know of the Leviathan, the Thrax Fleet, but what other Houses have a fleet and what are their general numbers, as well as does Arx have a fleet, say the Iron Guard having ship patrols at all or a navy at all meant to protect its waters, or does it source that to elseplace?

A: Yes, any domain that's not entirely landlocked can have a fleet and any that are landlocked have more land units in equivalent measure to make up for it. Numbers will defined in dominion when it's live but basically basically a couple cogs from a barony to a hundredish ships for Arx or Maelstrom in the rough scale, with longships/galleys/drommonds.

Pensions

Q: How much will it cost to provide pensions to the families of those lost at the Battle of Arx?

A: Approximately 10,000 dead at the battle of Arx, though this is spread through the different fealties. The question depends upon how generous the pension is. Say 10 silver a month would be solid, and if someone is cover that for 10 years, that's 1200 per dead soldier. Approximately 10,000 dead from the Compact at present, but pretty spread. So looking at around 12,000,000 to set all the families of the wardead for life, with any resources being able to count towards 500 of that. Which sounds like a lot, but I don't think any houses couldn't cover it out of immediately available funds for their own losses.

War Crimes and Atrocities

Q: While obviously this is a dangerous and violent world to be living in, I'm curious to know what sort of conventions -- if any -- are considered 'beyond the pale'. I recall hearing that burning people alive is equated with 'shav barbarism' -- with flaying, mutilation, the gruesome killing of children/elderly/non-combatants, infecting people with plague to kill indirectly by the thousands, etc, how would the NPCs react to that? What are the expectations of members of the Compact in how they conduct war with one another and with the Abandoned? Where's the line where people begin to go, 'whoa, that is like, demonically and/or seriously evil'?

A: Wanton sadism is a big one, that most would find morally repugnant. Torture ostensibly to get information (even though it doesn't really work, and the Inquisition uses it as an excuse to get the confessions they want) would be given a pass, but torture to 'punish' an enemy would be seen as the sign of cruelty. Generally most will be given a pass if it falls under military necessity, but only up to a point- Donrai Thrax for example was extremely brutal, and he was feared, but he was disliked in both the mourning isles and without, and it was largely only tolerated because he kept his brutality to the Mourning Isles and the rest of the Compact never had to deal with it, so it was largely seen as the Isles' problem and not theirs. Wanton destruction and a clear disregard to chivalric combat -does- offend Gloria however, and most of the Faith would say so. There's a clear chivalric ideal in how to conduct warfare virtuously, and this is why thematically Thrax has so few knights particularly in religious orders- brutality just is not considered honorable combat, and someone that flays men and women to make an example to rebellious factions is just not held up as a paragon of knightly virtue and the Faith would refuse to annoint anyone that participated in that. Similarly, most objections would come in the context of just what would be considered dishonorable, and make anyone participating in it extremely suspect. They won't pick a fight with someone that is sending smallpox blankets to shavs, since shavs are the enemy, but they sure as hell wouldn't trust anyone seen as that far from chivalric ideals, and quite a few nobles would refuse to have anything to do with them.

tl;dr, most people would feel profoundly uneasy and distrustful of anyone participating in barbarism against an enemy, and clear cut sadism would draw reactions and condemnations if it can't be justified. Even justifiable atrocities would make most honorable peers acutely uneasy, and they would want to have very little to do with them, even if the mad dog is essentially on 'their side', but on the other hand very few peers would be willing to go to bat for shavs, who are seen as the boogeymen of the Compact, and there will always be a significant percentage of the Compact who will be unsympathetic towards any plight of shavs as a result.

Whispers

I got some questions via mail about Whisper theme and wanted to share the answers. I'm going to cross post on the "theme questions' board, so that non Whispers have the chance to read, as well!

1. How does taking Patrons work for Whispers? Specifically, common vs noble Whispers?

A: This depends on how you mean patron. If you mean patron as in 'client', as in someone patronized your business and had you host a party, then there is no difference. If you mean a patron as in the patron/protege prestige sharing relationship between nobles and commoners, simply: the Crown is the patron of all the Whispers. In their infinite Grayson generosity, they do not restrict whispers from working with whomever they choose and spreading their awesomeness around, but the crown is the only patron. That's because the Whispers are prestigious, themselves, and it wouldn't make sense for them to be 'protege' to like, a Count. Or a Baron. Even if they are personally from a commoner background. We're reworking prestige to be a more meaningful social stat, and we will set it up so orgs can patronize people, and then back this theme up with code.

2. Is it ok for a Whisper to sell vouchers for his or her time and skills?

A: Sure, that's fine. It's like getting a voucher for an hour of pilates or a therapist or something. Seems fine!

3. Is it unbecoming for a Whisper, a master of SOCIAL AWESOME, to challenge someone to a duel over an insult?

A: Here's the thing. Whispers are masters of diplomacy, /entertainment/, morale, information, etc. Noble duels over slights are a source of great entertainment to the common people, and so it's great if a Whisper is doing that. It's not declaring a blood feud, that WOULd be a little tacky for a Whisper. But a duel to first blood (or wound) over an insult? that's just good entertainment. It's not unbecoming at all to challenge duels over insults. it is the done thing, culturally.

Divorce and Whispers

Q: Relating to the questions of divorce because Mailys got married. What about with Whispers? A lot of them are commoners and I understand they have to leave the Whisper House. Would marrying them be treated like they are commoner or noble? Since being a Whisper is on par with being a landless noble or something. Would they be accepted back as Whispers if they divorced? OR would they be considered too much of a scandal to be considered a 'useful' Whisper? (I couldn't think of another term besides useful) Since being a Whisper is suppose to be very prestigious and provide connections wouldn't marrying them be more of a political move than, say, marrying the Baker's kid?

A:For any marriage match, there's several different factors involved. The most important are what other house the marriage match for a noble is tying themselves to- in the case of any commoner, even a highly respected courtier, accomplished common-born general, or someone famous and well regarded, the answer would still be none, since they have no noble house to tie it into. Some from that perspective, many nobles would always seem any marriage to any commoner as an abrogation of their duty as a noble to further their house's ties and make them raise in esteem among peers through solid ties. This will be heavily represented in Dominion, by any noble marriages between noble houses being strongly mutually beneficial to both, based on how strong the marriage itself is. That won't exist in any noble to commoner marriage, even if the commoner brings something else to the table- strong contacts, a merchant prince's wealth, secret links to a demon lord wanting to consume existence, whatever. Those would be the ephemereals that could justify it and mitigate societal fallout, but it would still be seen as questionable in marrying a knight vassal or a whisper, however respected.

As for Whispers being accepted back into the house after divorce- doubtful, since much like godsworn or crownsworn in the sense of the king's own, they are supposed to have a complete lack of ties that could divide their loyalties, even if that can be overlooked. But someone that left the whispers once and then trying to come back would carry that baggage that would make it suspect that they could maintain that same neutrality. I don't that strong of an opinion about it though, would be HF's call and her area of expertise thematically.

The World

Constellations

Q: Are there any stars and constellations in the night sky that the people of Avrum have identified such as a North Star or Constellations associated with the gods?

A: Quite a few, though astrology was originally populary in the Compact and has faded from memory since the Elven War, constellations are still commonly known. There's the Wolf's Guide, which is the equivalent of the Northstar, and at least once constellation named for each god or goddess as rough analogues.

Moons

Q: How many moons do we have, what do they look like, and are there any related stories behind them at all at current?

A: One. Rough analogue to earth. There's the blood moon at complicated intervals that creates the Eclipse of Mirrors and allows for the Mirrors Masquerade, and some other astrological events I'll probably define later. See 'help tehom' and the lyceum section of the hall of heroes.

Progresses and Land

Q: While understanding that the high majority of RP is and should be set in the city of Arx, occasion will sometimes call for nobles to return to their homes in their territories - to reassure their vassals, to introduce new members of the Household, to assess damage in war or during a catastrophe, etc. If for some reason we want to take our characters on a progress through our demesne, how do we do it? Do we go off-grid? Do we rp outside the gates?

A: The short answer is that letting people do scenes in distant domains is one of the goals of the coded GMing mechanics and dynamic rooms, to allow for that usecase without making the grid diminished in importance or impacting organic RP. And that in the meantime, it's pure handwaving.

Now the long answer is that I haven't wanted to police travel time for character travel very much because it is a logistical nightmare from a continuity standpoint, and mostly I've been trying to prevent people from doing things that would be mutually exclusive while keeping things broadly in the same continuity. When systems come in, we'll almost certainly be grading travel based on Action Point usuage, taking AP relative for the travel distance, and not permitting travel again until it can be met, which will allow for characters to RP and handwave a offgrid travel while keeping them from doing it again that could create continuity errors. I would see that as the best compromise in not forcing characters to be effectively away from the game for extended periods (weeks would be likely since we're doing 2:1 right now), but making sure it is accounted for in the sense they can't do multiple things at once. But yeah in the meantime, characters can handwave it in private RP, and I'll just be accounting for it in storyrequestions and crisis actions that would offscreen wise take someone off grid.