Quote:
Originally Posted by the_matrix_walker
The effective status for a headquarters is in no way connected to your actual wealth or social Status.
|
So you see this as a separate charge, just for the base ("HQ Status"?) And this "status" has none of the benefits of regular Status? Certainly a candidate for renaming.
Quote:
|
In modern societies it's typically very hard to disentangle the two.
|
No so hard. Mother Teresa, the Dali Lama. Barack Obama (who is personally wealthy, but nowhere near wealthy enough to maintain the lifestyle or influence of US President, nor did his personal wealth jump from the election). On the flip side, Warren Buffet (who until recently had very little Status, perhaps a Reputation among investors; even now, it might just be positive rep for tax advocates). Some middle class families own vacation homes; others do not, without also differing by a point of Status.
I agree there's correlation, but there's not an absolute match between the lifestyle that you live, your social influence, and your income, compared to say, feudal England. The Windsors are wealthy, yes -- but William the Conqueror owned literally everything in England before he started handing bits out. The Windsors are a long way from that kind of wealth.
If there are two separate Advantages at all, then there has to be some meaning for mismatched values of Status and Wealth, with either higher. Otherwise, it's just one Advantage.
Having extra property for use as a base seems to me more like a function of Wealth to me than Status. Maybe Superhero Status requires having a base. You just don't take that masked vigilante as seriously as the guy that operates out of the Fortress of Solitude or the top floor of the Baxter Building. But is that Status, or just Rep? Then, the Xavier Institute shows Wealth, but not Status -- mutants are disliked in that setting; politicians get elected by promising to crack down on them, not by being one.