Nobles and Children, from Ask the Staff

[Hoodwink]

Bastards are the children of a noble and a commoner. The child of a noble and a noble, whether the two are married or not, is a noble. This is the case whether in Allanak or Tuluk. The child will typically go to the mother's House, if the two are unmarried, unless other arrangements are made, and politics play a large part in how any such arrangement would be made.

This is one of those inconsistant areas of the game.  I know of at least two immortals who have clearly indicated in the past that only married nobles produce "noble" offspring.  Sometimes, what is a standard one day becomes defunct the next sadly.  This can be rather frustrating.  In the same vein, I knew of an immortal who once said that nobles can (and typically do) marry more than one spouse, only to have his words contradicted by a different immortal some time later.

[Dalmeth]

That's life, deal.  If someone argues with it, bring that post up again, or one of those old comments you spoke of.  Proof is a fun tool.

[Hoodwink]

I was making a statement/observation, not a trolling whine.

The inability to offer constructive criticism on this discussion board is one of the reasons I rarely post.

[Desertman]

A couple of years back I tried to make a bastard noble and I was told under no circumstances would this ever be played. I wasnt told it dosent exist perhaps with NPCS or VNPCS's....I was just told it would never be played by a pc. I wasnt even told why. I wonder if this policy will ever change? Hrrrmmm.

[Dalmeth]

In all seriousness, these things are fluid, not concrete.  You don't want a definitive answer from the staff, you've had plenty.  What you want someone in the staff to gather everyone else together and beat them until they see things one way.  That's what that whole nouns thread is about.

[Desertman]

Beat the others into submissions? lol

As entertaining as that might be to watch..... :twisted:

Actually what I think he wants is for some system to be put into place (if one isnt in place already) where the staff gets together ever so often, brings up issues the staff members disagree on, and they put it to a vote to once and for all become concrete on these issues...Instead of leaving the players who look to them for definitive answers in a state of limbo on these issues.

Or maybe he does just want to see a royal rumble....I wonder who would win....I do wonder.  :?:

[EvilRoeSlade]

A couple of years back I tried to make a bastard noble and I was told under no circumstances would this ever be played. I wasnt told it dosent exist perhaps with NPCS or VNPCS's....I was just told it would never be played by a pc. I wasnt even told why. I wonder if this policy will ever change? Hrrrmmm.

I have played a bastard noble and have seen others in game.  If a staff member tells you something like this, just ask a different one.

[ale six]

The game is evolving and changing, and as it does so do certain details. If I'm not mistaken, a few years ago it was acceptable for nobles to marry commoners, and PCs would do so. Maybe this is what caused stricter definitions on what circumstances would be needed for children to be born as nobility?

Theories aside, from what I've seen in my time playing, nobility believe they are better than commoners by simple virtue of their breeding. If the blood is all it takes to make a noble, then it follows that any child with pure noble blood would be considered a noble by sheer virtue of the fact that it has no "common" blood in its veins, no matter the circumstances of its parents' arrangement when it was born. The Valika Senator could have an affair under the table with a junior lady in House Jal, and if both parents acknowledged the child, the kid would be a noble. Getting both parents to acknowledge the child in that case might be tricky, though.


edited to add: I also think Dalmeth's replies were a bit harsh for what was warranted.

[ale six]

A couple of years back I tried to make a bastard noble and I was told under no circumstances would this ever be played. I wasnt told it dosent exist perhaps with NPCS or VNPCS's....I was just told it would never be played by a pc. I wasnt even told why. I wonder if this policy will ever change? Hrrrmmm.

Were you special apping a bastard noble into the service of a noble house, or just trying to create a character who had a noble parent?

Bastard nobles definitely do exist and have been played as PCs - maybe there was something else in your background that caused the rejection.

[Naiona]

A bastard application in Tuluk would most likely be turned down, since the Chosen do not openly consort with commoners in an intimate fashion - ever.  

It is a different story in Allanak, where common concubines are fashionable and not unusual.  Even so, some noble houses might not care for the spawn of such a union and could hide their true heritage.  It depends on the house.

(And yes, I was lurking - despite hiatus)

[LoD]

This is one of those inconsistant areas of the game.  I know of at least two immortals who have clearly indicated in the past that only married nobles produce "noble" offspring.  Sometimes, what is a standard one day becomes defunct the next sadly.  This can be rather frustrating.  In the same vein, I knew of an immortal who once said that nobles can (and typically do) marry more than one spouse, only to have his words contradicted by a different immortal some time later.

Armageddon has been, is, and ever shall be a work in progress.  You have legitimite concerns about the apparent change in policy or standard between Immortals.  We players should be able to expect a fair level of consistency in how policy is dictated by the Imms.  However, we should temper that expectation with the understanding that the gameworld changes over time.  Not only by the way players push boundaries, but also in how the current Administration choose to take the direction of the game.

And just as decisions/policies can be changed by an Imm's decisions, so too can they be implemented as social changes.  Perhaps social law once said that offspring born outside the bonds of noble wedlock were not considered noble, when new views and customs have since changed that pespective.  If that were the case, each Imm's comments would have been perfectly accurate at the time of the telling.

In a less snarky way, I agree with the first reply.  If you are experiencing some glaring issues in the consistency in how the rule are being maintained by the Imm Staff, be sure to have some proof.  I would also add that such comments are best directed to the mud account rather than brought to the GDB if you truly desire an answer.

I highly doubt the Imms have ever made an active attempt to mislead or frustrate the playerbase through negligent policy standardization.  Halaster's wanton death and destruction cleverly decided as an HRPT, yes, but not that.

-LoD

[Dalmeth]

Actually what I think he wants is for some system to be put into place (if one isnt in place already) where the staff gets together ever so often, brings up issues the staff members disagree on, and they put it to a vote to once and for all become concrete on these issues...Instead of leaving the players who look to them for definitive answers in a state of limbo on these issues.

I was being metaphorical, but you're suggestion isn't too far from it.  If they ever even could get all the staff members into one place, either geographically or electronically, they'd spend hours arguing until their eyes are about to bleed and give up in frustration.  Then there's the fact the staff isn't omniscient and can't get every little detail in one meeting.

So what really needs to happen is someone in the staff with authority needs to go on a crusade to enforce one viewpoint.  Frankly, I'd prefer they put their efforts elsewhere.

EDIT :  For the most part, LoD's above post sums up my opinions with more elegance than I could muster today.

[Dalmeth]

The issue of the original poster is not playing noble bastards, but the definition of what a noble bastard is.  Outside the game, a bastard is a child born to unmarried parents.

What Nusku said was that the marital status of the child of two nobles has no bearing on whether or not they are noble or the perception of their nobility.  I'm not even going to mention some other stuff I thought of since it's just going to derail this thing.

Essentially, Hoodwink recieved the impression from another staff member that the marital status of a child's two noble parents affected their status as nobility.

[Hoodwink]

The issue of the original poster is not playing noble bastards, but the definition of what a noble bastard is. Outside the game, a bastard is a child born to unmarried parents.

What Nusku said was that the marital status of the child of two nobles has no bearing on whether or not they are noble or the perception of their nobility. I'm not even going to mention some other stuff I thought of since it's just going to derail this thing.

Essentially, Hoodwink recieved the impression from another staff member that the marital status of a child's two noble parents affected their status as nobility.

Precisely what Dalmeth said.

My inquiry here is only about the offspring of unwedded nobles.  Some immortals have said they are still bastards (since, by the very definition of the word 'bastard', they were born out of wedlock), Nusku says they are still noble.  This begs the question, what's the point of noble marriages to begin with?  Are they merely to solidify ties between two noble houses?  If what Nusku proposes is true -- and I'm certainly not pointing fingers at anyone, claiming they are wrong -- then this means the ArmageddonMUD definition of the term bastard is completely and utterly different from the real world definition (which is fine in its own right, I'd just like to have it verified).  In short, this assumes that the word bastard in Arm simply means 'half-blood' whereas being born out of wedlock has no different impact than having been born of two married nobles.  In my opinion, there should be more advantages to noble marriages than simply "strengthening ties between houses" (especially since inner-house marriages exist: in these instances, there would be no purpose unless to ensure their offspring are "noble" and not "bastard").  Noble births coming only from married nobles is a very good reason for noble marriages to exist, if you ask me.

If I stand corrected, I stand corrected.  Please just explain to me the reasoning and logic.  As it is, I see little reason behind noble marriages at all if true "bastard" (born out of wedlock) nobles are still noble. Again, if your reasoning is "to strengthen house relations", then I ask what the purpose of inner house marriages is.  There must be a reason, I just want to know what it is.

[Marauder Moe]

[Disclaimer: the following is my personal opinions/observations/conclusions from my time playing Armageddon]

"Bastard" means someone with one noble parent and one common parent.  Yes, this definition differs from the real-world one.  Why would that be a problem, though?

The offspring of two non-married nobles would be a noble.  I think most of the time, though, upon discovery of the lady's pregnancy the two Houses, assuming the two lovers are from different houses, would draw up a quick contract to decide which house gets the child.  Essentially, the two would get married.

That's all noble (or merchant house) marriage is anyway: a contract involving the creation of children.

[Hoodwink]

"Bastard" means someone with one noble parent and one common parent. Yes, this definition differs from the real-world one. Why would that be a problem, though?

Who said that's a problem?  There are plenty of real world words used differently in ArmageddonMUD.  I just want to see it verified.  I'm not arguing one way or the other, I just want answers.  I'm not mad.  I'm not irate.  I'm not yelling or screaming hysterically.  I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this.

However, you are contradicting yourself.  On one hand, you're saying that the definition means noble-common offspring (as opposed to unwedded noble-noble offspring).  On the other hand you're saying .. well .. here, I'll quote you:

That's all noble (or merchant house) marriage is anyway: a contract involving the creation of children.

And to that I say, why have marriages at all if the offspring is the same whether married or not?  It nullifies the reason behind marriages completely unless (and here's the big "unless" which I'm waiting for someone to answer) there is a reason for noble marriages BESIDES children and continuing the line of descendants.

[Marauder Moe]

I didn't think you were mad or anything.  Just seemed to me that you might be saying that having a term in Arm that differs from its real-life meaning would be a problem.  You don't mean that, so point settled.


Anyway, I said a marriage is a contract involving children; not that it's a contract ONLY involving children.

First off, you need some way to decide which House gets the child.  That decision may not always (or even often) be given to the parents.  Second, other things may be involved.  One house may get the child, in exchange the other house may get money, goods, or some other services.  They may say one house get's all male offspring produced and another gets all female, for the duration of the couples' lives.  The contract may end after only one child.  Also, it's possible that one of the parents can change houses in a marriage contract.

I don't see where I'm contradicting myself.  This topic has two issues: noble-noble couplings and noble-commoner couplings.  The child of a noble and a commoner is always a bastard.  The child of a noble and a noble is always a noble.  That doesn't mean a child produced by two married nobles is the same as a child produced by two un-married nobles.  There are still details to work out if there is no previous contract (see above description of noble marriages).

Oh, also I should mention that nobles do not marry commoners, if it hasn't been mentioned already.

[grog]

Think of it as a contract involving the ownership of children.

[Hoodwink]

Ok, ok, I see what you mean, Marauder Moe.  Points taken.

I'm still partial to the idea of unwedded noble offspring being bastard, and not only because a pair of previous noble clan imms had told me this (and it's since been changed).  But evidently, this is no longer the case so I must humbly concede.

[spawnloser]

Having played a noble that got married in game, I'd like to mention something:

Sure, the marriage could involve more than children...but the contracts are all about the children.  Who is marrying whom, who is marrying into which House, how many children are required of the marriage, how are those children distributed between the houses...

That is all that the families care about, propogation of their family and getting the best deal out of it.

[ale six]

I like the idea of unwedded nobles still producing noble children because it seems more befitting the idea of nobles being simply better because of their bloodline.

If it takes a legal contract to make a child born of two noble parents a noble, then paperwork defines nobility, and not blood. I don't like the idea of there being two Sath/Sath children, one a noble and one not, because one has a document that says so and the other doesn't.

I haven't seen nor read anything to indicate that nobility is not inherent, so whenever this changed, it must have changed a while ago.

As for marriages: well, not all nobility may want to have children, and they may not want to have them with who their family wants them to have children with. A legal marriage in effect FORCES two nobles to make babies together.

This could be good for houses of lower prestige managing to secure a contract with higher houses... if Sath can manage to get a few Borsails to marry down, they not only get the benefit of the "better bred" children with lineage of an Upper House, they may also get improved relations with Borsail. On the other hand, few Borsails would want to marry all the way down to Sath, and so they're not likely to do this unless forced by a marriage.

Intra-house marriages could be done for a number of reasons... allying two opposing branches of a House together, forcing two nobles to get busy making kids when they might be too busy plotting otherwise, or maybe because one of the nobles managed to convince his senior into marrying him off to a hawt cousin he otherwise wouldn't have a chance with.

I agree with spawnloser that the contracts themselves are all -about- the children, but I think more often than not, they're -motivated- by other factors beyond just making babies.

[Delirium]

I just want to add that, from my understanding, marriage contracts can involve far more than children, though children are always a prime subject and motivating factor.  The kids are the glue, the politics are the filling.

[Morfeus]

I think there is some difference North vs. South. In South, I would believe it might be possible for the House to claim the child is a bastard (and I also heard from southern clan-IMM it technically could happen, no matter a father is a noble). However, such thing seems to be impossible in North, because North does not have any bastard nobles.

IMO, this things might often me different in each case.

[ale six]

More likely, Morfeus, in the south if a noble Lady didn't want to admit that she'd been having an affair with another noble, she just wouldn't recognise him as the father. She can always say the kid was born from her pleasure slave or her concubine or her guard captain. Likewise, a Lord could always deny having been with the Lady if she tries to claim the kid is his... in which case the child may or may not be considered a bastard too. I suppose that a child would only be safely considered a noble if both of its noble parents acknowledged it - but this would be true regardless of if they were married or not.

(edit: And if the House(s) didn't like the idea of the nobles acknowledging the child, they can always be 'encouraged' not to.)

In the north, obviously, a Lady wouldn't ever try to claim her kid was sired by a commoner unless she liked the idea of being a pariah the rest of her life.

[marko]

Just wanted to chime in about marriage contracts - many times nobles get married for the marriage contract that has _nothing_ to do with children.

Children are not the end-all of a marriage contract.  

Bastards - I would like to see a unified position from the staff about what consitutes a bastard child.

I always assumed a bastard child was any child born with some (or all) noble blood that was not publically acknowledged.

So, if Lord Slap went out and did the deed with Lady Tickle and, for whatever reason, Lady Tickle gave birth but that child was not acknowledged (maybe it was a crazy and sordid affair between a Valika and a Sath!) then that child would be considered a bastard.  

If this is not the case and that any child with 100% noble blood is a noble and therefore must be recognized then that's cool too.  I would love to see the matter stated as a matter of policy.

Bastard children in the North do not exist because the noble caste does not have sexual relations with the common caste.  The collorary of that would be that every child born to nobility is part of the noble caste.  There is no question of that.