Status & Wealth - Nobility

[Gudiomen]

Seems like a quirk in GCA calculations and order of sums. If a landed knight has Status 3, then that includes his wealth. Otherwise he'd be Status 4, and something better than a landed knight.

In GCA, just reduce Status by 1 after you add Very Wealthy, and the math will work.

[Kromm]

GCA isn't canonical. The Basic Set is. If a setting declares that you need Status 3 and Very Wealthy, say, to be a knight, then you want:

Status 3* [10]
Very Wealthy [30]

* Includes +1 Status for Wealth.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Phil C.

Not according to GCA. I give the landed knight Status 3, because that's what GURPS Banestorm says a landed knight has. Then I give him Very Wealthy -- which gives a +1. Their final, effective Status is 4 -- per GCA. So, while their base Status may be 3, their effective Status for the purposes of reaction rolls reads 4.

No, they don't have a "base status". They have status. See what happens when you buy the wealth first and THEN buy the status. What you should do is, being aware that being wealthy gives you five points off your status, only buy two levels.

[Phil C.]

Originally Posted by Agramer

You could make Mulktimillionare character(+2 to status) and buy status 1...for final Title Landed Knight(status 3) but who is very,very rich(beside land he has silver mine in his hills and charter from King that he can mine it OR Fleet of trading ships...or ...xy).

I'm still grappling with that logic.

Because if the multimillionaire (+2 to status) buy status 1 for a final title "landed knight" (status 3), then if his wealth is greatly reduced (famine, whatever) he may slip to +1 from wealth, making him Status 2, an unlanded knight. Which doesn't make any sense. If he suddenly has less wealth, there's no reason he has to necessarily lose his land and title.

I maintain that a Status effected by Wealth is someone's "effective Status", but does not necessarily reflect formal titles and such.

For example, a wealthy merchant might get a +1 to his Status, for an effective Status of 1 -- but that doesn't make him a squire, or even gentry. But a squire character may still have a natural Status of 1, independent of whether he is wealthy or not. A lesser noble (gentry) with a Status of 1, may come into such wealth that he receives +1 to Status, for an effective Status of 2 -- but he is not necessarily a knight. Just a wealthy lesser noble.

Using this same line of logic -- a landed knight (status 3), who is also Very Wealthy (+1) - has an effective Status of 4. If his land is raided, farms razed, treasury absconded, etc., his Wealth level may drop, leaving him at the very least -- Status 3 (because his inherit Status is based on a formal feudal class structure). Though he will suffer other problems if he cannot regain his previous level of Wealth and pay for his normal standard of living.

And maybe the only thing that increased Wealth bonus affects in terms of Status, is the reaction roll.

Thoughts? I'm not comitted to any of this, I'm just trying to work it out.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Phil C.

I'm still grappling with that logic.

Because if the multimillionaire (+2 to status) buy status 1 for a final title "landed knight" (status 3), then if his wealth is greatly reduced (famine, whatever) he may slip to +1 from wealth, making him Status 2, an unlanded knight.

No. His status will be unchanged as long as he continues to pay the maintenance cost on it.

[Kromm]

Ah, no . . . capital-W Wealth the advantage is in itself a measure of social connectedness, credit rating, and economic power. It doesn't go away just because you lose money in bad times. You still have the connections and the credit history; you just don't have the cash. Small-w wealth the real-world concept certainly varies, but on the other hand isn't anything but your bank balance.

A knight, lord, or ruler tends to have some of his Status owing to his track record as being the holder of land and commander of troops who, in the worst-case scenario, can loot or tax money to repay debts. This is what Wealth is about in such settings, and why it elevates Status.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Phil C.

I'm still grappling with that logic.

Because if the multimillionaire (+2 to status) buy status 1 for a final title "landed knight" (status 3), then if his wealth is greatly reduced (famine, whatever) he may slip to +1 from wealth, making him Status 2, an unlanded knight. Which doesn't make any sense. If he suddenly has less wealth, there's no reason he has to necessarily lose his land and title.

Wealth and Status can't be easily separated.

If a Landed Knight is Status 1 through birth +2 through Wealth and then they lose that Wealth (not just the cash...but the actual Weath...which means something pretty disastrous happened)...I could very easily see him losing his land--because the land isn't really his after all, it is granted to him by his liege to administer.

The way you craft the relationship between Status and Wealth says a lot about who that character is.

Knight A, Status 3 (1 from birth/work, +2 from Wealth), Wealth: Multimillionaire.
Knight B, Status 3 (2 from birth/work, +1 from Wealth), Wealth: Very Wealth
Knight C, Status 3 (3 from birth/work, 0 from Wealth), Wealth Comfortable

All three of these Landed Knights are Status 3, but they are all very different Status 3s.

Knight A, looks to be a commoner. A well educated perhaps commoner...but a commoner nonetheless. Further, it was rare for commoners to be Multimillionaires--so it looks like this commoner came into a huge amount of money...perhaps a dragon's hoard or a merchant empire. But the way I interpret those details is that this person *bought* their Status through their wealth. They basically went to the local Baron and said--here is a buttload of money, make me a Landed Knight. They most likely are continuously giving lots of gifts of money in the form of taxes to the Baron. I can also imagine that the nobility doesn't really respect Knight A, because he is a commoner by birth, and resent him having way more money than this status. So if something happens and he loses that money? The only thing that is keeping him in the club with the big boys? The Baron could very easily strip him of his holdings. He would still be a Knight, but unlanded...and probably the shame of losing all that Wealth would be enough to justify putting him back down to Status 1. No one is going to return his calls. People only liked him for his money, and now that his money is gone, so is all of his wealth.

Knight B is the traditional route. He was born into Status 2. So he was gentry, he became a squire and then a Knight. Then he went beyond that got more wealth which he used to get the holdings...now he's landed. If he lost his level of wealth...considering that his wealth is tied up in his holdings, he might just lose his holdings...and goes back to being an unlanded knight. Or his holdings are still there, but worthless and generating less income than they should...or they are occupied by Orcs, or whatever...so he's functionally Status 2. People probably still respect him and invite him to parties, depending on how that wealth is lost.

Knight C...well, this guy was born into Status 3, but has not enough money to sustain it. Looks to me like this person was the second son of a Count or some noble. Knight C may have earned his knighthood...or may have just gotten it as a favor to his father. And this Knight...well, clearly is not good with money. He's probably wracking up debt like no tomorrow. His credit is terrible, he owes everybody money. Maybe his holdings aren't even doing so well. He might overtax his subjects to fund his gambling habit...or undertax his subjects. Either way, he's not doing something proper...however he will probably not get called on it because he is of so high status by birth.

Knight A would probably resent Knight C's society connections and that he's accepted even though he is perhaps incompetent.
Knight C would probably resent all of Knight A's wealth, even though he's just a commoner.
Knight B would probably just be doing his thing. Though he may resent Knight C for being handed Knightship and Holdings just because he's the son of the Duke...even though he isn't qualified...and he may resent Knight A for being handed Knightship and Holdings just because he killed some dragon and made a whole lot of money one time.

The relationship between Status and Wealth and Connections and Reputation, and all that stuff allows you to make truly customizable characters.

I don't know if you watch Gossip Girl. But Nate has a lot of money and a lot of born status (he's a Van der Bilt). Jenny's dad marries a really rich lady...so now she has lots of wealth, and that has upped her status. But she doesn't have Savoir-Faire (High Society)...well she's learning it. She didn't yet know Dancing (Cotillion). She doesn't have the social Contacts. She has Reputation (From Brooklyn). Her position is very tenuous.

When Nate lost all of his money sometime in season 1 or 2, he was still a van der bilt and he was still welcome in the high society...if Jenny lost her money? High Society would drop her like a hot potato.

[Phil C.]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No. His status will be unchanged as long as he continues to pay the maintenance cost on it.

But even if he fails to pay the maintenance cost, he's still an unlanded knight -- status 2. Despite the fact he may be "Struggling."

[Kromm]

Not actually. If you fail to pay cost of living, your Status slips. See p. B265. In essence, if I'm Status 2 but can only afford to pay for Status 0, I'm treated as Status 0 because I'm not meeting my obligations. In the feudal case, this means I failed to pass suitable taxes up the chain and provide suitably equipped troops (or failed to show up, suitably equipped, as troops, if I'm a lone knight).

Raw Status independent of Wealth is pretty rare. Usually, Status and Wealth advance lockstep – you need equal levels of both – and usually, there's a modest discount on the price of Status if you have Wealth, out of recognition of this link. When you have someone who's highly regarded without being wealthy, you have Rank or Social Regard, not Status.

[Anaraxes]

He only becomes the status 2 unlanded knight if he actually does lose his wealth -- not just his cash in the bank (or treasury), as has been said, but also loses the position and connections that are part of that Wealth advantage. For a medieval knight, that is his land, in large part. Saying "he loses his Wealth but retains the land" is a contradiction. Conversely, saying that the landed knight of Status 3 loses his land and becomes an unlanded knight of Status 2 would seem to make perfect sense. (More sense than the Wealth advantage usually makes, actually.)