[Fantasy] Interaction between Religious and Military Rank in a Militant Order?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

If they are in the same hierarchy, then you would use Military Rank, and the priests would have Courtesy Ranks since they don't exercise strategic or field command. Presumably, the leader would have the highest rank.

If they each have their own leader, then you there really isn't an interaction except in a functional sense. Did you have some specific questions? If you are thinking of the Knights Templar, or something along those lines, they had their own internal hierarchy.

Uh, no, the idea is not to reduce one of the two verticals to a 'courtesy' rank. The point is to make two of them entwined in such a way that none of the two can have full control. Maybe there are examples of caste systems like that (where castes stand side by side, not one above the other)? Or maybe like when the navy, army, airforce are separate, and neither is subordinate to the other? Sure, clerics don't get to command warrior units, but they get to do other stuff, like setting long-term goals, or managing mages and prophets (Intelligence Analysis, mage units), some administrative stuff etc.

In fact, I wonder if that should be considered cramming too much into Religious Rank (which, AFAIK, doesn't give that many privileges in most settings).

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Uh, no, the idea is not to reduce one of the two verticals to a 'courtesy' rank. The point is to make two of them entwined in such a way that none of the two can have full control.

Like Infantry Rank, Armour Rank, Artillery Rank, and Engineers Rank in an army?

Why not make it all one rank system and put the clerks and the soldiers in different divisions with separate chains of command?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Brett

Like Infantry Rank, Armour Rank, Artillery Rank, and Engineers Rank in an army?

Why not make it all one rank system and put the clerks and the soldiers in different divisions with separate chains of command?

Perhaps. I but I though that the army (well, modern ones, anyway) do not have cases where one unit outranks another in issue A, but vice-versa in issue B. I'm going for a 'separation of power' kind of feel - like in the political system, where law-making, judging and execution of laws are performed by separate branches, and while a judge cannot make a law, he can condemn a deputate if he breaks some law; while a deputate can pass new laws (well, propose and vote for them, anyway) but not execute them; while a militiant can perform arrests but neither judge arrestants nor make laws. That sort of feel, but with two branches.

[Dinadon]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Perhaps. I but I though that the army (well, modern ones, anyway) do not have cases where one unit outranks another in issue A, but vice-versa in issue B.

It's more that each person in the army has only one direct superior that they take orders from. If the person giving the orders happens be to higher up the chain (and thus on a direct line) then you have to take their orders. If they're on a different chain, you don't have to take their orders unless your command as told you to do so.

Thus the commander of a tank squadron won't be able to order an infantry platoon to support him if it is counter to their current order, even if that order was given by someone of lower rank.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Dinadon

It's more that each person in the army has only one direct superior that they take orders from. If the person giving the orders happens be to higher up the chain (and thus on a direct line) then you have to take their orders. If they're on a different chain, you don't have to take their orders unless your command as told you to do so.

Thus the commander of a tank squadron won't be able to order an infantry platoon to support him if it is counter to their current order, even if that order was given by someone of lower rank.

Well, what about some administrative fellow ordering soldiers to shuffle some equipment? Or managing the military budget?

Or the post-medieval/swashbuckling-era ship hierarchy, where everybody listens to the captain during combat, but to the quartermaster outside combat?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Perhaps. I but I though that the army (well, modern ones, anyway) do not have cases where one unit outranks another in issue A, but vice-versa in issue B.

AFAIK, that impression is incorrect.

A General of the Air Force could probably do all sorts of things to make the life of an Army Captain difficult, but he couldn't take over his company with an order. To do that, he'd need the connivance of his Army superiors.

The Sergeant-Major of the Army can have immense influence on the lives of all sorts of junior officers, but he can never give these men orders.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has the highest position of any member of the US armed forces, but he can't give orders to combatant commanders. In fact, if he should find himself in their area of operations, he couldn't order any soldier about (although prudence and political necessity would probably make them all pretty cooperative).

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Perhaps. I but I though that the army (well, modern ones, anyway) do not have cases where one unit outranks another in issue A, but vice-versa in issue B. I'm going for a 'separation of power' kind of feel - like in the political system, where law-making, judging and execution of laws are performed by separate branches, and while a judge cannot make a law, he can condemn a deputate if he breaks some law; while a deputate can pass new laws (well, propose and vote for them, anyway) but not execute them; while a militiant can perform arrests but neither judge arrestants nor make laws. That sort of feel, but with two branches.

The separation of powers is a separation, not a complicated overlap. It's not the case that a traffic-court magistrate outranks the Speaker of the House of Representatives in judicial matters and vice-versa in legislative ones. The Speaker has no authority at all in a traffic court, and the magistrate has none in the chamber of the house.

So you need two branches, like the infantry and the cavalry. You don't need two rank systems.

Think of an army with cavalry and infantry. It is not the case that cavalry officers outrank infantry officers in cavalry matters and vice-versa in infantry matters. Cavalry officers outrank cavalry troopers, and infantry officers are not involved in cavalry operations. Infantry officers outrank infantrymen, and cavalry officers are not involved in infantry operations.

You don't need to outrank someone for your job to be none of his business.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Uh, no, the idea is not to reduce one of the two verticals to a 'courtesy' rank. The point is to make two of them entwined in such a way that none of the two can have full control.

In that case, we are back with my other suggestion. Once group has Military Rank, the other has Religious Rank. What remains is deciding whether there is a supreme leader with both, or whether the top religious official simply reports to the military leader administratively (or vice versa).

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Brett

So you need two branches, like the infantry and the cavalry. You don't need to rank systems.

And what about archaic cases where somebody has several different ranks in different branches? (I don't remember, but I suspect Wellington was some sort of example.)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

In that case, we are back with my other suggestion. Once group has Military Rank, the other has Religious Rank. What remains is deciding whether there is a supreme leader with both, or whether the top religious official simply reports to the military leader administratively (or vice versa).

What about limiting secondary rank to some number? Or setting it to a fixed maximum sum? E.g. a fighter-cleric can only be (at most) either RR4, or RR 4 + MR 2, or RR3+MR3, or RR2+MR4. IIRC nWoD's ranks of some 'races' work that way. How complex/interesting can it get before it becomes silly and unworkable?