Wealth & Status

[Written In A Vacuum]

I've decided to use a background generator for my PC's which generates interesting and complicated lives for them (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Charact...ariant_Rule%29) which almost always works but can be tweaked as needed. In any case, the PCs then try to buy any advantages/disadvantages which make that life history work.

Our campaign will be set in the Banestorm setting and one of the characters is supposed to be the third son of a Baron (Status 4).

So my broader question is this:

In order to BE a landed Baron there is presumably both wealth and status. However, in a feudal system are you paying for the land and everything on it, or just the maintenance seeing as how the king could presumably take the land/castle/etc away.

Presumably the PC would be Status 3 and just a Lord or the like, but trying to figure out where to draw the character point line.

[Written In A Vacuum]

It would seem that this apparently well researched post answers some of the questions:

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=135395

So thank you for all the work you did and for sharing it.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Written In A Vacuum

In order to BE a landed Baron there is presumably both wealth and status. However, in a feudal system are you paying for the land and everything on it, or just the maintenance seeing as how the king could presumably take the land/castle/etc away.

Theoretically, all the land belonged to the king, as God's representative. The king let his vassals use the land in return for service and obligations.

In reality, fiefs quickly became inheritable by the eldest son. The king would rarely be powerful enough to forcibly take back a fief from someone who inherited it. Inheritance became a rubber stamp.

[gruundehn]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Theoretically, all the land belonged to the king, as God's representative. The king let his vassals use the land in return for service and obligations.

In reality, fiefs quickly became inheritable by the eldest son. The king would rarely be powerful enough to forcibly take back a fief from someone who inherited it. Inheritance became a rubber stamp.

That would be true for England but on the Continent the aristocracy traced their lineage and land holding to before the kingdom existed. Duke and Count were titles from the Roman Empire. So there the king had just the land that he inherited and rather than handing out land for service (military or otherwise) the king had only the prestige over the other aristocrats. In that Dukes and Counts granted fiefs (not always land) in return for service they were the functional equivalent of kings in many respects and often had more power than the king.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by gruundehn

That would be true for England but on the Continent the aristocracy traced their lineage and land holding to before the kingdom existed. Duke and Count were titles from the Roman Empire. So there the king had just the land that he inherited and rather than handing out land for service (military or otherwise) the king had only the prestige over the other aristocrats. In that Dukes and Counts granted fiefs (not always land) in return for service they were the functional equivalent of kings in many respects and often had more power than the king.

Most of the titles in English history, date from William who paid his men with feudal estates thus making sure that the Conquest was an imposition of cultures rather then a mere change of rulers. Thus they literally did proceed from the King and ritually speaking still do.