Multiple patrons?

[Cuusardo]

Bards, however, may have more than one patron without such stigma and often do.

When did this happen?

[Morfeus]

Umm, does not that mean "more than one patron during their life" - like they could change the patron without being doomed?

[Naiona]

Speaking for myself and not for staff:

I personally see absolutely no reason why anyone at all (including assassins, hunters, thieves or artisans) could not have multiple patrons in Tuluk.  Artists in real life have always relied upon multiple patrons to get by.  Partisans are not employees and part of what makes Tuluk different from Allanak is the patronage system.  It is not meant to create another type of employee but rather a system where independant artisans of all types may find assistance from those with money and power.

Of course, having a very wealthy or powerful patron would negate the need to have multiple sources of support - and it would be silly for a low ranked artisan of any type to be seeking multiple sources of support when they have High Templar MuckyMuck or Senior Lady Fluffypants taking care of their needs.

Another thing I could see happening would be silent patronage - where thieves, assassins or others do favors for the powerful people who support them without any public recognition of their status.

[marko]

The original reasoning behind a partisan having one patron was that it would be seen as spreading oneself thin (and therefore not doing as best that they can) by having multiple patrons.

I have always seen the patronage relationship to be a loose but formal agreement between two parties.  A patron could have multiple partisans and a partisan would have one patron.  That partisan could and often would still work for others, take on contracts, comissions, etc etc but they would still have one patron.

I can see multiple patrons over the course of a lifetime (especially if the patron dies or stores) but I'm not certain about multiple patrons at the same time.

I think if the wording, instead, made it clear that patronage was not exclusive then the point would come across better.  All too often I've seen people who become 'partisan's but are, in fact, marginlized employees or straight up employees.  Employment is not patronage.  

With patronage you do not gain exclusive rights to the partisan's service - there may be specific people that the partisan agrees not to accept comissions from (based on the initial patronage agreement they work out) but a partisan should be free to do multiple contracts from multiple sources.  The patron just gets priority.

[Cuusardo]

That's the way I always thought it was: one patron who is your main support, and the others are only outside contracts.

[Gimfalisette]

What marko has laid out above is the actual current state of practice in the game, and I'd like to see the docs changed to reflect that. It doesn't make sense to me that patrons of bards or any other type of Tuluki citizen would want their partisans also supporting other patrons. However, patrons who do not rope their partisans into employment are typically pretty open to letting partisans do contract work on the side, with mutal discussion of the work to be done. I see partisanship as, in essence, saying "I cast my vote for this individual" in the political system. And each partisan gets only one vote.

[My 2 sids]

Some jobs one is constantly taking on multiple projects and clientle wich often have little in comon.  So, I think it's unfair to say just because an artest would have multiple patrons they somehow couldn't give their best.

I blame the PCs here.  The PCs with the power seem to go under the assumption that patrionage is akin to employment so much so that they take great offence at the very idea their commissioned artist might have other patrons.   That's just unrealistic.  But, because they hold the power, it's up to them to help change things to being more realistic.

[Gimfalisette]

I have to emphasize, from the docs: "Patron-partisan relationships are, however, as varied as those who craft them. Although their basis is always political, they commonly cross into business..." (Emphasis added.) http://www.armageddon.org/general/tuluki_rp.html#politics

Partisanship should not be misunderstood as being basically a work arrangement, whether via employment or contract. The patronage system IS political, period. If you're a campaign worker for Amos Smith, is that political camp going to look on you very favorably if you also decide to be a campaign worker for Malik Jones? Of course not.

In fact, a partisan might not have to do anything at all for their patron, as the docs state. It might be enough just to make it publically clear, "I support JimBob Winrothol." Because it's a political statement, not a work arrangement.

[LoD]

The PCs with the power seem to go under the assumption that patrionage is akin to employment so much so that they take great offence at the very idea their commissioned artist might have other patrons.

Patronage of the Arts seems better suited to political "bragging rights" than it does to placing ownership over an artisan's complete set of work.  If a given patron, say a Noble House, wants to have complete ownership over a bard or artisan, then an employment agreement with exclusive rights and boundaries seems more prudent.

It makes IC sense for a patron to commission an artisan (i.e. bard, sculptor, painter) for a specific project which the patron can then take sole credit for supporting while the artisan takes credit for creating.  Both parties make out as part of the deal, but neither are bound by that arrangement for future endeavors.

Example: Chosen Lord Tenneshi serves as patron to Master Sculptor Riju on commission to craate a representation of a Tuluki Hero somewhere in the city-state.  At the end of the project, the sculptor goes on his way, perhaps to be picked up by another patron or even by the same Chosen Lord Tenneshi.  The product here that the noble has bought are the "bragging rights" to the sculture, not the sculptor himself, which I think is one of the points being made.

Artisans and their patrons should be very clear about what is being created so there is little confusion about what should be delivered.  Their commisioned work should be the product: a song, a statue, a weapon, a poem.  Upon completion of this work, the artisan would likely move along to other work in the city, perhaps even for the same patron on another project.

Just like current day collaborations, I think you would find certain Houses that favored working with certain Bards (i.e. Like Danny Elfman and Tim Burton) not because they'd made some lifetime commitment to one another, but because their styles compliment one another and frequent collaborations come easily and comfortably.

My suggestion would be for Patrons to view their partisans less as employees and more as tools for building an impressive portfolio of artistic works upon which they can raise their political and social worth in the eyes of the art loving populace, especially those with both the time and position to appreciate it.

Partisanship should not be misunderstood as being basically a work arrangement, whether via employment or contract. The patronage system IS political, period. If you're a campaign worker for Amos Smith, is that political camp going to look on you very favorably if you also decide to be a campaign worker for Malik Jones? Of course not.

Of course the patronage system is political.  However, using the flip side of your example; Is the prestige of supporting Amos Smith made less if another House also claims to support him?  I'd think so.  That is why it would make more sense to me that the artist's works be the product by which judgement is passed because it allows two things: Patrons to compete with one another in discovering genuine talent, and lasting works to which the House can lay claim rather than the simple existence of someone "in the spotlight".

What I think is important is for those PC's who find themselves in the role of a Patron allowing for the wide variety of possible partisan relationships to occur, and not to demand that each bard/artist you support be 100% loyal to you and your House in their subsequent actions.  There are a lot of interesting scenarios out there where patronage is a simple and passing arrangement that ends as quickly as it was given when the agreement has been honored.

-LoD

[Gimfalisette]

There are a lot of interesting scenarios out there where patronage is a simple and passing arrangement that ends as quickly as it was given when the agreement has been honored.

Hmm. But that's already handled by bards and other artisans taking commissions. And that's what it's called in game, a "commission" to produce a work of art. It would seem muddling to me to call that patronage instead.

[Barzalene]

I think this is an interesting issue, when the docs and the current manner of game play are at odds, which holds sway? I think it depends, on why they're different. In this case, New Tuluk is so new, and so changable, that the variation is not the result of evolution, but rather the docs having never been enforced. Instead of changing the docs to suit the current way things are being played, I'd really encourage people to try to shift their rp to better suit the docs in this case, if it's possible to shift with current pc, that's great if not with future pcs. I really like that a lot of work has gone into making Tuluk society different from the south's. I thin the rules rather than stifling, creativity, just points it in new direction.  

In summary societal evolution is great, and the docs should be changing to reflect those changes, but that's different from an ooc rejection of the docs, which isn't in the long run a good thing.

[marko]

It makes IC sense for a patron to commission an artisan (i.e. bard, sculptor, painter) for a specific project which the patron can then take sole credit for supporting while the artisan takes credit for creating.  Both parties make out as part of the deal, but neither are bound by that arrangement for future endeavors.

As Gim pointed out, that is what is referred to as a commission.  A partisan may accept commissions from other people than their patron.  In other words, doing exactly what you wrote.  

Patronage is often a long-termed relationship where a partisan accepts the protection and influence of another to further their own career.  The patron, in return, gains the bragging rights and other special little perks of having a partisan.

What I think is important is for those PC's who find themselves in the role of a Patron allowing for the wide variety of possible partisan relationships to occur, and not to demand that each bard/artist you support be 100% loyal to you and your House in their subsequent actions.  There are a lot of interesting scenarios out there where patronage is a simple and passing arrangement that ends as quickly as it was given when the agreement has been honored.

Those scenarios aren't necessarily patronage, to use it as the documentation of Tuluk originally stated, but rather a commissioning of a single work or a collaboration.  To use the term patronage is to dilute it's meaning as it was documented for Tuluk.

A partisan with a patron does _not_ have to do 100% of their works for that patron.  A partisan can, and should, accept commissions from other sources.  An overly zealous patron who refuses to allow their partisan to do this would simply be acting as an employer and may as well hire the person directly.  But, as part of the patronage agreement, it may be that the patron would refuse to allow the partisan to do works for a few specific individuals - thereby, for example, preventing a social rival from gaining access to a specific artisan.

This is the current documentation for patronage:

In a new and distinctly Tuluki practice coming to be known as patronage, the enterprising noble attracts commoners with promises to relay their needs and political concerns to the noble faction for appeal to the Triumvirate. In a typical arrangement, the commoner will perform small services for the noble from time to time in exchange, but will not be pressed to join the ranks of the noble's servants (and will receive no wages). Patron-partisan relationships are, however, as varied as those who craft them. Although their basis is always political, they commonly cross into business, with a patron investing in partisan projects and receiving profit shares, discounts, or extended personal services. Other nobles build household staff around a slow stream of partisan recruits, assuming the latter is willing to sacrifice some of their wages for political representation. Some arrangements are fleeting, others life-binding. One patron can attract many partisans; however, a partisan that takes more than one patron suggests to each that their individual representation skills are less than ideal - a sentiment more wisely kept to oneself. Bards, however, may have more than one patron without such stigma and often do.

The bards bit was added more recently.

[marko]

Thinking about it further - I wanted to clarify my own post.  

Everything that LoD suggests can be done in accordance to the patronage documentation and could have be done.  

Most characters have, instead, entered into long term patronage relationships.  And, a lot of times, these have acted as employment as opposed to patronage.  

Short term patronage is reasonable and appropriate in some situations.  But, when someone is already a partisan, then it is better to call a commissioned piece (or work) a commission.

Further, not every collaboration would necessarily be patronage.  If you hire someone to do a work for you then that doesn't have to be patronage.  That's just hiring them for a work.  

Now, if you provide a workshop, the materials, and protection for the duration of the crafting period then that would be patronage (or a combination thereof).  In other words, a relationship that goes two ways that is formally agreed upon (other than obsidian which would just be a purchase) and lasts for some duration be it days to years is what makes patronage.

Patronage is a wonderful thing in Tuluk and really should be used more.  I always get a little sad watching so many people being snapped up to be employed instead of engaged in patronage.  I realize patronage is a little contrary to our own concept of how to make one's way in the world since it is almost like being your own boss (being self-employed).  

But it's cool, has less restrictions, and allows for someone to do so much more than being an employee (which typically holds all sorts of restrictions).

[LoD]

An overly zealous patron who refuses to allow their partisan to do this would simply be acting as an employer and may as well hire the person directly.

I imagine that many "Patrons" probably act this way now.  It would be easier if patronage was more tightly associated with commission work, because these blurred lines would become more clear.  I understand the difference between the two, but the relationship seems prone to result in misguided demands for the level of service expected of an employee.

As you mention in your second post, most players seem to enter into these long-term patronage arrangements for the same reasons the Patrons confuse them with employees; they don't really know much better.  It's a difficult concept to grasp and understand where the payoff is when what you might be swapping are often intangibles; influence, social standing, political protection, reputation, public opinion.

The tangible side of patronage is easier to understand, which is why I thought more commission-based patronage would help demonstrate the difference and cut down on the "My bard, MINE!" mentality.  That should still exist in the way that greed, lust, honor, and integrity exist - but it would be nice to see it not practiced as the standard.

I'd much rather see Patrons fighting to support public, high profile artistic works rather than over the artist themselves.  This encourages the creation of art in the gameworld which will be seen, felt, or heard by further generations of players rather than treating Tuluk and its Patronage system like a bunch of rich people in a dog park showing off their poodles.   At the very least, I wouldn't mind seeing the two pursuits more evenly pursued by Patron and Partisan alike.

-LoD

[My 2 sids]

The patronage system IS political, period.

The _system_ is political, the individual artisans are not.  For example:  Did many nobles in the 14th century get painted into scenes depicting the birth of Christ?  Yes.  Was this political?  Yes.   Were the artists considered politicans?  No.

My suggestion would be for Patrons to view their partisans less as employees and more as tools for building an impressive portfolio of artistic works

Exactly.  Just like any other merchant artisans sell: songs, poems, art, music, whatever.  Like many other merchants it shouldn't be surprising if the individual artisan maintains a level of neutrality in politics.  

Patronage is often a long-termed relationship where a partisan accepts the protection and influence of another to further their own career. The patron, in return, gains the bragging rights and other special little perks of having a partisan.

I believe what you're talking about is more in lines with present-day political patronage (buying a congrassman) than artistic patronage which is much more about the money.  Although, it would be assumed a patronage would be extremely greatful for the oprotunity they're not going to sell themselves and their alliance.


Final thoughts from me are that it is worth it to make sure to keep that seperation between patronage and employment.

From an OOC level patronage allows for independant characters.  Also, I believe that if it was understood that this is not employment more common-PCs would be more inclined to support the arts.

It would allow a system where Joe Poet would make the majority of his revinew from Chosen Jane but, would also accept a commision from Sargent John to create a poem to commemerate a fallen comrade.

[Gimfalisette]

The _system_ is political, the individual artisans are not.  For example:  Did many nobles in the 14th century get painted into scenes depicting the birth of Christ?  Yes.  Was this political?  Yes.   Were the artists considered politicans?  No.

If you vote in an election, are you a politician? No. But you are participating in the political process. The patronage system is political, and those who engage in it are participating in politics whether they like it or not. A partisanship is a VOTE for a particular patron. It's saying, "This noble or templar best represents my personal interests in the Triumvirate."

Just like any other merchant artisans sell: songs, poems, art, music, whatever.  Like many other merchants it shouldn't be surprising if the individual artisan maintains a level of neutrality in politics.

This is commissioning, not patronage.

I believe what you're talking about is more in lines with present-day political patronage (buying a congrassman) than artistic patronage which is much more about the money.  Although, it would be assumed a patronage would be extremely greatful for the oprotunity they're not going to sell themselves and their alliance.

Art and politics cannot be separated in Tuluki culture. They are absolutely linked.

It would allow a system where Joe Poet would make the majority of his revinew from Chosen Jane but, would also accept a commision from Sargent John to create a poem to commemerate a fallen comrade.

This already happens in the patronage system as it currently stands. Talented partisans, regardless of affiliation with a particular patron, are eagerly pursued by those offering commission work. There isn't any change needed to make this happen.

[jstorrie]

You don't see this often in play simply because the pool of Tuluki noble/templar PCs at any given time is pretty small, so it would be a big deal to be a partisan of, say, three different nobles - sometimes there aren't even three noble PCs active.

Similarly, noble PCs generally have other noble PCs as rivals, rather than rivalries with NPCs or VNPCs, for obvious reasons. So in most cases it would be a gross conflict of interest to be partisaned by multiple nobles.

When nobles or templars team up with each other, however, it's reasonable for a bard to associate themself with the group, because the odds for a conflict of interest there is lower.

One important thing to note, though, is that most commoner PCs very rarely need to appeal to the Powers that Be for a change of laws or anything like that, so political representation is not often very important. What is more important is being associated with someone of influence, either up or down the partisanship stream.[/b]

[Naiona]

As long as I am stirring the pot, here's something else to mull over (again, speaking purely as myself and not as 'official staff'):

I'd like to see higher ranked nobles and templars as patrons to lower ranked ones.  It would be very cool and useful for all parties if High Templar Fluffy had among his/her partisans two Winrothols, a Tenneshi and a Kadian family member.  Or if Senior Lord Tenneshi had a lower level templar acting as their partisan (though frankly I see this mainly as a higher level templar thing).

The benefits to both sides of the relationship are obvious, and would remove some of the concept of partisan as employee and replace it with partisan as political/social supporter - while of course, the patron would be expected to pay attention to the needs and wishes of their partisans.

[Jherlen]

While I don't have much to add, I take issue with the representation of patronage as a political "vote". I imagine most Tulukis are vastly too far below the Triumvirate socially and too uneducated to know much about it or what it does, and I don't think the Triumvirate cares how many run of the mill commoners are "voting" for one person or another. That makes Tuluk sound far too much like a democracy for my taste. I can see that system working for nobility, templars, and maybe high ranking merchants and bards, with patronage in the upper tier ranks as Naiona suggested, and think that would be cool... but not for Apprentice Bob being a partisan of Baby Chosen Lord Joey.

Instead I would much rather see, at the lower levels of society (junior nobles and down, basically) patronage being more of a relationship of -personal- support. I think that's why most commoners want to become partisans of Joey Winrothol anyway... not because they want to "vote for Winrothol in the Triumvirate", but because they want to support Joey Winrothol and want Joey's resources supporting them.

I think I could see someone being a partisan of two patrons with similar interests and good relations, but definitely think somebody trying to be a partisan of two patrons who don't get along would be in a pickle.

[jstorrie]

Jherlen, you've got it a bit backwards - if Joe Bob Lumberjack was a partisan of Jake Tenneshi, Mr. Tenneshi would be offering his political sway (with the Triumvirate specifically) in support of Joe's interests. In return, Joe supports Jake's more mundane interests and if Joe becomes a person of prestige, Jake gets to ride on his coattails a bit.

[Jherlen]

I don't think you got the intent of what I was trying to say. I was responding to:

A partisanship is a VOTE for a particular patron. It's saying, "This noble or templar best represents my personal interests in the Triumvirate."

I don't agree that most Tulukis know or care about issues the Triumvirate would, or have interests the Triumvirate would care about. If I'm wrong, somebody correct me, but I think on the lower levels of society, partisanship is more of a personal relationship than a political one.

[spawnloser]

There are things like taxes...fees for doing business.  Having an influential patron could get you things easier or cheaper maybe?  Changing some taxes, or getting you a merchant's whatever thingy are both possibilities.  There's more, too.  They can be a voice supporting you when you're accused by someone else...who has their own patron support...and all the fun political maneuvering that can follow.  It's great.

[Myrdryn]

Sorry to necrolize an old thread but I thought it better to continue an old thread than to start a whole new thread on the same topic.  A recent post in ask the staff forum got me thinking on the partisan/patron arrangement and how players perceive it.

Partisans for the most part are, in general, contractors.  They work for someone more socially affluent than themselves and in return get 'favors'.   All patron/partisan relationships are not the same, in fact no two patronage contracts are probably ever the same.  What a partisan does or doesn't do is determined by the agreement with their patron.  Patrons and partisans almost always have a pre-arranged agreement stating what is expected of each side.  The patron will usually write it this down somewhere so they don't forget.  Being a partisan doesn't have to be a 'job', though it can be depending on the agreement.  It also isn't written anywhere that partisans can't have more than one patron, however sometimes patrons don't want this to happen.

Being a partisan doesn't mean that you've sworn a blood/life oath to your patron either (again, unless it is part of the agreement, though this would be rare).  For political reasons oftentimes patronage is secret.  Partisans for the most part are independent and rarely bound by normal employee/employer rules.  Sometimes partisans become more trusted and are even hired on as employees of their patron's house.  At which time they cease being partisans and are then regular servants.

Patrons can be anyone with power and/or wealth.  They are usually nobles or templars, but they also be merchant house family or some other politically/economically powerful person.

The the patronage system is designed to be dynamic and allow players to use it as they need it.  In essence there aren't many rules except those that are imposed by the patron or partisan.  However some patrons or partisans might have their own self imposed rules that they follow regarding such things.

[My 2 sids]

It occurs to me that if this were just a political thing, we'd see more patrons in 'nak.  There has to be another reason Tuluk would have such practices and 'nak doesn't. 

In the North they love to show the facade of being a more tight-knit society (that's why the Nobility can chat it up with the commoners).  Patronage gives that same facade -- it's not slavery, it's not employment, it's not even fitting in with the merchant houses monopoly -- it's quasi- help out Amos Commoner.   The nobes can get that warm feeling of helping out the commoners by dishing out a bit of money to pet projects (the ultimate "Look at me being humble" shout out).

[Gimfalisette]

It occurs to me that if this were just a political thing, we'd see more patrons in 'nak.  There has to be another reason Tuluk would have such practices and 'nak doesn't. 

The patronage system is the historical descendent of the relationships between commoners and nobles during the Rebellion. That is why there's no analogue in Allanak.