Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-07-2010, 11:36 AM   #1
Josef
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sweden
Default Status and privileges NOT covered by it

There are some very good old threads about how to handle Status, Wealth and Independent Income and what those advantages are supposed to represent (just do a search on the word Status in the thread title).

What my question concerns is the matter of privileges not necessarily covered by Status, as briefly mentioned on p.30, including such advantages as Claim To Hospitality, Legal Enforcement Powers and Legal Immunity. What can and can’t the player of a high-status character get away with without investing points in those advantages?
What are your experiences of this issue in your games? Has anyone had a PC similar to the second example below? Or been the GM for a group including one?

I’m a big fan of the “If you pay for it you get your points’ worth but no free lunches” way of determining what a character can and can’t do. A player cannot claim that buying nothing but Status enables his character to gain all sorts of benefits just because p.28 says that high Status carries various privileges depending on the game world. Here's my take on it...


Just about every Knight template I’ve come across features Status 2 and Wealthy but few or none of the other advantages mentioned above. It seems to me that such a knight would get respect (reaction bonus) but little else, able to get the attention and ear of other people of high rank without being dismissed because of lowly birth (and thus usually well worth the points) but unable to really boss his social inferiors around.

Let’s compare two cases – The Wandering Knight vs The Landed Knight.

The Wandering Knight:

A rather typical PC knight character would feature the mandatory advantages listed in the usual Knight template (Status 2, Wealthy) and a few other advantages, usually ones that give him an edge in combat. He has taken the “wandering lifestyle” option allowing him to spend all his wealth on equipment. A Cavalry Horse, a suit of chainmail armor, a shield and some basic adventuring gear have eaten up all $5K (assuming TL3 starting wealth), forcing him to spend a few points on Signature Gear to arm himself.

So this guy is probably a younger son, having left his home to search for fame and fortune. His older brothers will inherit everything and his father was unable to provide him with anything but a decent horse, an old suit of chainmail from the armory and his grandfather’s old sword. Unless he regularly slays rich monsters he will probably find himself lacking funds all too soon. Should he take a break from wandering the roads and get a job, probably as a “Household Knight” in the service of a local lord, he will be provided with a comfortable room in the lord’s castle, feed and stable for his horse, good wine and food, something nice to wear for the occasional banquets and the service of a servant or two; all the trappings of a Status 2 lifestyle, as his “wages” for his service, neatly covering his Cost Of Living. But none of those things are really his and should he quit his employment (probably because his mates showed up with an old treasure map) he will again be on the road with little but his personal gear, at least until he spends at least the equivalent of his wealth level on some form of more permanent housing (effectively negating the “wandering lifestyle” option).

This guy doesn’t bother knocking on the gate to the local manor or castle for food and lodging in the name of chivalry and courtesy between social equals; he expects to pay for that at the local inn like the rest of the (lower status) party. (He doesn’t have Claim To Hospitality.)

If he rides into a village in search of brigands he can’t commandeer the village elders to muster the town guard to help him root them out; their loyalty is to their village and local lord and not to this unknown knight, whom they will nevertheless treat with respect, not least due to the reaction bonus his Status provides. Should he slay a villager who is cooperating with the brigands he had better either produce clear evidence or claim self-defense, or he may well find himself forced to pay a fine to the local lord for depriving him of a tax-paying subject, regardless of how thankful everyone else is. (He doesn’t have Legal Enforcement Powers.)

Should the town guards take a dislike to him he can’t simply dismiss them, claiming that his noble status means that only a social equal can detain and accuse him; he’ll have to either resist or come along quietly. (He doesn’t have Legal Immunity.)

It may seem that this Wandering Knight dude isn’t much of a mover and shaker in his local pond but then he has spent only 25 points on Status and Wealthy (he gets one level of Status for free due to his wealth), which isn’t really enough to create a tyrant-style lord who can kill peasants for looking at him the wrong way and commandeer lodgings for free wherever he goes.

The Landed Knight:

This fellow has plenty of points invested in social advantages! He has Status 3, Very Wealthy, some Independent Income (representing taxes brought in by a bailiff) and all three of Claim To Hospitality, Legal Enforcement Powers and Legal Immunity at the 5-points level (or more). He has also invested points in buying his Warhorse as an Ally, appearing on 15 or less (it’s quite possible to create a truly formidable horse character with few points, so this shouldn’t be too expensive), freeing up money for better armor than his wandering colleague’s. He has a settled lifestyle, so he can spend only 20% of his wealth on gear, totaling $4K out of $20K. On the other hand he has a nice manor with servants and whatnot.

Yep, this is the wandering knight's older brother who inherited everything! Now this fellow really can behave like a tyrant if he feels like it! Or at least until someone brings along a social superior with even more points invested! (A medieval duke would be a clear example of someone who has the high points versions of both Legal Enforcement Powers and Legal Immunity; I have a rule of thumb houserule that if someone in a feudal setting has more points than you in these advantages you can’t legally take action against him and have very little chance to be listened to in any court; the only way you can legally get justice is to bring the matter to the attention of the noble’s feudal superiors and hope they take notice.)

He can do pretty much all of the above things that the Wandering Knight cannot; get a courteous reception and lodgings at the homes of most social equals (or even simply claim it from inferiors), dispense justice as he sees fit (how just that would be would probably depend on what disadvantages he has) and has little to fear in the way of legal action or complaints from inferiors (equals would probably settle things with trial-by-combat), things your average adventurer could not even dream of. But then he has spent something in the neighborhood of 60-80 points for the privilege!

Comments? Other takes on the subject?
Josef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 12:40 PM   #2
kdarc
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Default Re: Status and privileges NOT covered by it

Still new to handling Status, myself, but this makes me think. Very interesting.
kdarc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 02:48 PM   #3
Phantasm
 
Phantasm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: On the road again...
Default Re: Status and privileges NOT covered by it

This is why I always spend the points to give my Knights - especially the wandering knights - Claim to Hospitality. This represents, in my mind, family members, friends of the family, and other nobles who are willing to help him out with room and board for a few days.

Other than that, very well done dissertation on the difference between wandering and landed knights.
__________________
"Life ... is an Oreo cookie." - J'onn J'onzz, 1991

"But mom, I don't wanna go back in the dungeon!"

The GURPS Marvel Universe Reboot Project A-G, H-R, and S-Z, and its not-a-wiki-really web adaptation.
Ranoc, a Muskets-and-Magery Renaissance Fantasy Setting
Phantasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 10:00 PM   #4
Anaraxes
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default Re: Status and privileges NOT covered by it

If it's an Advantage listed for points, and a character buys Status without it, that character doesn't have the Advantage. Pretty simple, actually. If you can't imagine a character with some Status that doesn't have some other privilege in a particular setting, then that's simply a requirement of that setting. The GM can insist that all nobles of the land buy Legal Immunity -- or you just make a template or meta-trait for "noble" that has both.

The grey area is going to be all the little stuff not covered by an advantage. Being a celebrity gets you into the cool night club despite the line. But I'm not sure I'd call that Claim to Hospitality (Nightclubs).

Another way to have Status include some perks without ramping up the point cost is to remember that Status can also bring some negatives -- you're a target of the peasant revolutionaries, or the pesky gossip columnist is always prying into your affairs, or whatever. You could call these Enemies if they're an important part of a character or the plot. But if they're minor, you might balance out some little perks with some little anti-perks to give Status more flavor.
Anaraxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 11:31 PM   #5
gjc8
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Default Re: Status and privileges NOT covered by it

Yes, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josef View Post
I’m a big fan of the “If you pay for it you get your points’ worth but no free lunches” way of determining what a character can and can’t do. A player cannot claim that buying nothing but Status enables his character to gain all sorts of benefits just because p.28 says that high Status carries various privileges depending on the game world.
Yes, Status should not subsume the other advantages, but keep in mind that Status should convey a greater benefit than merely the reaction bonus, due to the situational nature of the bonus and the disadvantage of increased cost of living.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josef View Post
This guy doesn’t bother knocking on the gate to the local manor or castle for food and lodging in the name of chivalry and courtesy between social equals; he expects to pay for that at the local inn like the rest of the (lower status) party. (He doesn’t have Claim To Hospitality.)
I wouldn't say he doesn't bother. He probably won't get free lodgings, unless he happens to make a Very Good reaction roll and the local lord just happens to have a guest room available. But he may get something. A warm welcome, if nothing else; perhaps relevant local information, a chance to plead a favor, or simply a free meal as he meets the local aristocrat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josef View Post
Should he slay a villager who is cooperating with the brigands he had better either produce clear evidence or claim self-defense, or he may well find himself forced to pay a fine to the local lord for depriving him of a tax-paying subject, regardless of how thankful everyone else is. (He doesn’t have Legal Enforcement Powers.)
Yes, but he is in a far better position to claim self-defense than a Status 0 adventurer would be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josef View Post
Should the town guards take a dislike to him he can’t simply dismiss them, claiming that his noble status means that only a social equal can detain and accuse him; he’ll have to either resist or come along quietly. (He doesn’t have Legal Immunity.)
He doesn't have actual immunity, but he can expect and get better treatment than someone without his status. He can't simply dismiss the guards, but he is significantly less likely to get hassled simply because the local guards don't like out of towners. And if he's actually accused of something, he's likely to be treated with somewhat more courtesy, and have somewhat more priviledges as a prisoner (depending on the crime).

These benefits aren't unique to a medieval campaign. A status 2 person in a modern campaign is less likely to be hassled by the police for "suspicious behavior" or "furtive gestures", and if arrested will have an easier time getting bail or recognizance release.
gjc8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 12:11 AM   #6
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Status and privileges NOT covered by it

I think it's misleading to deny the wandering knight Claim to Hospitality. Remember Chaucer's list of the virtues of the Knight: "he lovéd chivalry,/Trothe and honour, fredome and courtesie." In that sentence, "fredome" does not mean political liberty (I mean, come on, this guy's an aristocrat in a society ruled by aristocrats); it means liberality, free spending. Part of liberality is that it's an essential virtue for a knight to give hospitality to other knights who show up. For a limited time, maybe, but if he just won't accept them as guests, he shames himself.

Bill Stoddard
whswhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 01:49 AM   #7
Michele
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Udine, Italy
Default Re: Status and privileges NOT covered by it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josef View Post
(He doesn’t have Claim To Hospitality.)

(He doesn’t have Legal Enforcement Powers.)

(He doesn’t have Legal Immunity.)

Comments? Other takes on the subject?
Yes, he lacks all of those specific advantages. But why shouldn't he bother trying to exploit his Status?

When it comes to hospitality, yes, he has no "right" to free lodging offered by the local high-Status guy. But they are both high Status. And there is the actual social environment to consider. In a low-TL society, the traveler is the carrier of news, and the local nobleman is _starved_ of news. While he might not consider being courteous with a Status 0 traveler and he might just interrogate him, with a Status 2 knight they might very easily come to an unspoken commercial transaction - news for a meal.

Or let's consider the town guards. Sure the knight has no Legal Immunity - but they are Status 0. Unless the GM has pre-decided that these specific guards resent Status, it's an in-built +2 reaction roll modifier. Chances are that the guards will be respectful. The knight cannot take immunity for granted (as if he would if he had the advantage), but he can - and will - try to make use of his Status.

And what about the LEP problem? Again, that depends on the actual social conventions of the game world. There are plenty of gameworlds where, regardless of the lack of this specific advantage, a "citizen's arrest" done by a Status 2 "citizen" is upheld by the competent authority, whereas exactly the same behavior by a Status 0 guy would come under much stricter scrutiny.

Remember, what Status exactly does is defined gameworld by gameworld.
__________________
Michele Armellini
GURPS Locations: St. George's Cathedral
Michele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 08:15 AM   #8
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Status and privileges NOT covered by it

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
I think it's misleading to deny the wandering knight Claim to Hospitality. Remember Chaucer's list of the virtues of the Knight: "he lovéd chivalry,/Trothe and honour, fredome and courtesie." In that sentence, "fredome" does not mean political liberty (I mean, come on, this guy's an aristocrat in a society ruled by aristocrats); it means liberality, free spending. Part of liberality is that it's an essential virtue for a knight to give hospitality to other knights who show up. For a limited time, maybe, but if he just won't accept them as guests, he shames himself.

Bill Stoddard
This is an argument for having realistic knights in a society based on chivalric ideals take Claim to Hospitality, not for having Status give the benefits of it for free.

Status is not an expensive Advantage. Aside from the bonus to reactions and incidental social benefits, most of which should not be more powerful than Perks on their own, it probably shouldn't give all the benefits that high social position granted in feudal societies.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 12:54 PM   #9
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: Status and privileges NOT covered by it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
This is an argument for having realistic knights in a society based on chivalric ideals take Claim to Hospitality, not for having Status give the benefits of it for free.

Status is not an expensive Advantage. Aside from the bonus to reactions and incidental social benefits, most of which should not be more powerful than Perks on their own, it probably shouldn't give all the benefits that high social position granted in feudal societies.
Status is overpriced. It doesn't affect far-away societies (let alone aliens), criminals, or even anybody at all if you lose your 'gadgets', and it lacks the built-in skill bonuses. And all you get for that is some stuff which the GM most likely won't allow to be used on the adventure (or will be useless without GM intervention). Sorry, I'll take Charisma, or even Appearance any day.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2010, 05:56 PM   #10
RobKamm
 
RobKamm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
Default Re: Status and privileges NOT covered by it

In my Njordlund Campaign I have ruled that Status provides a CtH on a 1 point per level basis. So, a Status 2 knight would be able to stay with family, etc. Yes, this means that I treat it as a one-point per level Advantage, not a 1/2/5/10 point one. Claim to Hospitality can still be purchased over and above this, and I don't discount it if the character already has Status, it just broadens the number of possible hosts the character can visit.

And don't forget that CtH also mentions that wealthy characters will be expected to bring gifts to their hosts. This is a really important factor. I use 5% of the monthly cost of living as a guideline. Sure, Sir Wanderlust the Poor can stop off at his cousin's manor, but since he isn't bringing a suitable host-gift he can't expect more than an exchange of pleasantries and news, maybe a meal if his timing is good, but for accomodations he'll be lucky to be allowed a bench in the Great Hall.

I haven't formalized or playtested it, but I'd probably give a bonus to the CtH roll for characters in the habit of making larger gifts; penalties for smaller gifts would also make sense. Maybe base the bonus/penalty on the previous gift's size.

And I really like the DF convention of a critical failure on the search roll indicating that someone else with CtH comes to the PC for help...
RobKamm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.