Wealth: Should it be three different traits?

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Rank (Social) is nonsensical. 'Society' doesn't have a chain of command.

Most don't. But it's conceivable that one might, as for example an ideal feudal society in which the social, land-granting, and government-military hierarchies were the same, and in which attending your lord on social occasions was mandatory. That is, where people socialised with and under the patronage of their neighbourhood peers and immediate land-granting superiors.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Most don't. But it's conceivable that one might, as for example an ideal feudal society in which the social, land-granting, and government-military hierarchies were the same. That is, where people socialised with and under the patronage of their neighbourhood peers and immediate land-granting superiors.

And that's a particularly extreme subset of the case of 10-point rank that also counts as Status.

[The Colonel]

Film afficianados might want to cite that bit in Pretty Woman as an example of needing status to go with your wealth - the Roberts character is unable to get served in a shop because, despite having the money to spend (technically sheet $ rather than wealth), she has an apparent status somewhere around -1 - 0 and isn't taken seriously, whereas the Gere character is clearly status 3. Expect that sort of problem a lot for wealth without status - not even getting the chance to show you have the money. And that is in a modern Western society which is relatively classless and meritocratic - in a more stratified society there may well be laws forbidding you to dress in a given manner if you haven't got the right status. In a feudal or semi-feudal society, there really is a rank structure, and whilst you may not formally be under the command of someone higher up, failure to defer to your "betters" can be distinctly dangerous.

Of course, reputation may also help - this is the "silicone valley millionaire" thing: has plenty of money, but not the status to go with it and so still dresses and acts like a beach bum. Luckily, in the immediate area he has a positive reputation as a wealthy genius and so gets treated with more respect than he would somewhere where no-one had ever heard of him.

Conversely, someone with status but minimal wealth can be assumed to act and talk in a manner that makes people assume they are a person of substance and authority, even if they actually aren't.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Mr. J is your client, which is not the same as your boss.

Sure. But that's not clarifying the distinction between employees (subordinates in a business hierarchy, a factor for Status per the earlier post) and underlings (subordinates in a government hierarchy, a factor of Rank). Clients aren't part of either command hierarchy, so Mr. J seems irrelevant to both.

Why are employees part of Status but underlings Rank? Can you not have Rank in a company? Are the vast number of US Federal employees that help pile up the pyramid for that Presidential Rank not employees? They're certainly not bound by military or ecclesiastical discipline, and don't seem much different from a corporate employee to me. Yet they're still commanded by the executive branch, and ultimately the President.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Sure. But that's not clarifying the distinction between employees (subordinates in a business hierarchy, a factor for Status per the earlier post) and underlings (subordinates in a government hierarchy, a factor of Rank). Clients aren't part of either command hierarchy, so Mr. J seems irrelevant to both.

Why are employees part of Status but underlings Rank? Can you not have Rank in a company? Are the vast number of US Federal employees that help pile up the pyramid for that Presidential Rank not employees? They're certainly not bound by military or ecclesiastical discipline, and don't seem much different from a corporate employee to me. Yet they're still commanded by the executive branch, and ultimately the President.

Perhaps I picked a confusing wording.
You can have a hired driver (Status) or you can be the boss in a company providing driver/taxi services (Rank). Depending on which you have, you have different type of influence over the driver.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

And that's a particularly extreme subset of the case of 10-point rank that also counts as Status.

Indeed. Not necessarily nonsense, though.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Why are employees part of Status but underlings Rank? Can you not have Rank in a company? .

Given that stuff like Merchant or Guild Rank is official, you certainly can.

I've argued before that all forms of authority are essentially the same advantage, but it needs to be one with a variable base cost. It's just not worth the same if mildly inconvenience your 100 underlings by making them fill out a report to justify not rearranging the files the way you told them to, vs. you can send them on suicide mission and have them shot if they don't go.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Most don't. But it's conceivable that one might, as for example an ideal feudal society in which the social, land-granting, and government-military hierarchies were the same, and in which attending your lord on social occasions was mandatory. That is, where people socialised with and under the patronage of their neighbourhood peers and immediate land-granting superiors.

I don't think a chain of command is actually the relevant distinction anyway. Lots of organizations have ranks without much of an actual chain of command (Masonic initiation levels are probably a good example these days). And even most military chains of command are separate from the rank structure - just because somebody has a higher rank doesn't mean he can give you a legal order. In those cases military rank serves pretty much exactly the same function as Status - it determines who owes who social courtesies and who would be in charge should they ever be tasked with the same thing.

[Agemegos]

I've said before, but it's worth noting again, that I don't find the reaction modifier for Status difference to be a very convincing mechanism for Status. Besides which, it makes high-Status NPCs behave rather oddly.

It seems to me from my limited experience of status that the chief practical effect of it is that it determines whom you can socialise with, which is to say whom you can get access to in private homes and third places, official social events etc. High status doesn't compel important people to do what you want: it lets you meet them at Almack's or the golf club or at Lady Hunt's card-party and there use your interpersonal skills on them. The advantage of being an Old Etonian (or an Old Sydneian, for that matter) is not so much that you can say to any social inferior "I went to Eton, be afraid and complaisant and romantically attracted!", but that you can say to some professor at Cambridge or some merchant banker in Hong Kong or some society doctor in South Kensington "Hullo Ian! I haven't seen you in years! How's Keith?"

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Indeed. Not necessarily nonsense, though.

That isn't Rank (Social) though. It's Rank (Feudal) or Rank (Military) or Rank (Administrative).

You might be able to invent a situation where Rank (Social) would be the right thing to hang on it, but it'd be very esoteric.