Patron/Partisan discussion

[Larrath]

If I was playing a templar or a noble, and I hired a partisan who disappeared for 2 RL months before suddenly coming back, I'd most likely be upset.

I think it's a player's basic responsibility to try and not take important roles if they know that they won't be able to play for a long time.  Special-apped leader roles are a given (for instance, Salarri that are only around for two hours each week), but I'd personally expect the same from any other PC that spearheads any important activity.
If you're the only recruiter for a clan, for heaven's sake, be around or get an assistant.  If you're the only leader in a clan, for heaven's sake, be around or get an assistant.  If you're heading to the local grocery store, for heaven's sake, bring me some white chocolate.

[Gimfalisette]

If I was playing a templar or a noble, and I hired a patron who disappeared for 2 RL months before suddenly coming back, I'd most likely be upset.

Hmm. Let me clarify, because I sense some misunderstanding. A patron is a person such as a noble, templar, merchant family member, or potentially a wealthy independent, who wishes to gain favor with the Common caste in Tuluk for political purposes, and therefore takes on partisans in a loose agreement of mutual support. This is not an employment relationship, it is not "hiring."

A partisan is an independent, by definition. They are not "hired" by anyone, they are not an employee of anyone. They either have a long-standing agreement with a single patron or they might cultivate short-term agreements potentially with multiple patrons in succession. Except in the case of Circle bards, there isn't any form of regular pay changing hands, though the partisan probably receives payment for doing particular jobs for the patron, as agreed on. A partisan is NOT a leader of anything. A partisan does not recruit or hire or lead on behalf of the patron, but rather just does the type of work that the partisan does. (E.g., bards do their song and dance, hunters hunt, crafters craft, etc.)

If it was stated up front between the potential patron and the potential partisan, "Hey I'd like to offer you my support, Chosen Amos, but I take every other year off to do my own thing." ...I honestly don't see any reason why Chosen Amos wouldn't want such a thing. When the partisan is around, Chosen Amos will benefit from the relationship, just as the partisan will. And when the partisan is NOT around, then Chosen Amos isn't missing anything...because Chosen Amos has other partisans, and one partisan is only a small cog in the wheel of politics.

The role of a partisan is only as important or unimportant as the player makes it and has time to allot to it. But it IS a way to be involved, while not being essential, and not being depended on.

[Larrath]

If I was playing a templar or a noble, and I hired a patron who disappeared for 2 RL months before suddenly coming back, I'd most likely be upset.

I used the wrong word.  I meant Partisan instead of Patron.

As for what a patron is;
A patron is an influential person in Tuluk (traditionally a Noble, but frequently also a templar or even a wealthy Merchant, usually of the Great Houses).
The purpose of the patron is undefined - some nobles might patron a hunter purely in order to hear tales of their adventures, or a templar can patron a Bard in order to motivate people into joining the Legions, etc..

In exchange, the partisan benefits from their patron's influence; a Merchant patron might work to ensure that their Partisan bard gets the lead role in a major play, for instance, or any sufficiently powerful Nobles/Templars could be able to help the Partisan on a lesiglative level, however this is very rare and generally doesn't happen with PCs.

A partisan is not an employee, though they are hired and can be fired as well, and oftentimes they do have to answer to their patron.
Now, even though a partisan doesn't generally get codedly recruited into the noble's clan, it doesn't mean that they can just take off for a year without affecting anything.
In fact, a partisan is meant to be used frequently, and can only be used by the patron.  A partisan is in many ways a partner, and partnerships usually require playing times.  I'm not saying 24/7, but if a player can't contribute at least two hours every other day, I don't think they'd be able to play a useful partisan.

If a partisan states UP FRONT that they have or will have availability issues, this is an OOCly responsible stance and I would never have any beef with that player.  And if that fits with my needs, I'd probably hire them on.  But most likely it won't fit my needs, because if you can't rely on a PC to be around, how can you use them?  It's much smarter to find someone whose availability can be relied on, and use them instead.

...and one partisan is only a small cog in the wheel of politics.

Yes, but a very essential cog.  A partisan disappearing for 2 RL weeks is nothing like House Guard recruit Simon disappearing for 2 RL weeks.

The role of a partisan is only as important or unimportant as the player makes it and has time to allot to it. But it IS a way to be involved, while not being essential, and not being depended on.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with this last sentence.  A partisan that is neither essential nor dependable is, in my opinion, a very bad partisan.

[ale six]

I'm pretty sure Larrath understands all of this as well as anybody.

My own two cents: play an indy in the north, south, Luir's, Red Storm, tablelands, or whereever else you're going to enjoy and avoid long term commitments. Don't become somebody's partisan if it involves any sort of long time contract that you can't meet due to RL (and similarly don't take work from a southern noble that amounts to the same thing - such relations do exist and just aren't formalized in the silly way Tuluk does.)

You can play in any area casually or for the short term, I don't think any one city is better suited than any other. Just make sure your PC doesn't pick up responsibilities that you can't meet.

[Gimfalisette]

Larrath, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this topic. Clearly, if -you- were playing a potential patron in Tuluk, you wouldn't want a partisan who might disappear. And if -I- were playing a potential patron in Tuluk, I'm saying that I'd be likely to be OK with that, if it were part of the arrangement. "Partisan-patron relationships are as varied as the people that craft them," to roughly quote the docs.

My point is, that partisanship is a valid and potentially very fun route of play for someone who can't play constantly or log in a ton. Obviously different patrons will have different desires along these lines, but I'd like to see people at least -asking- their local patron potentials about this, rather than pre-rejecting the idea as unworkable. Because it IS workable, with the right patron-partisan combination.

P.S: You said: "In fact, a partisan is meant to be used frequently, and can only be used by the patron." But that is not correct. Whether or not a partisan can work for other nobles/templars/merchant houses etc. is by agreement of the patron and partisan. This is current practice in Tuluk.

[bardbard#4]

*emote raises his hand*

Patronage agreements are often made for a specific time frame.  So if you can only play for a bit, make an agreement with a noble that will last up until you can no longer play regularly.

Then everyone wins!  The key is that patronage is not a permanent agreement.  It lasts as long as the patron/partisan agree that it does.

[jstorrie]

Patronage is not just an on/off thing. The strength of the agreement rests on the cooperation of the patron and partisan. If your partisan is never online, it's not like you have to pay him every month or always watch his back.

[Aernis]

Patronage can take many forms.

It can be formal and restrictive if that is what the parties wish.

It can be loose and informal if that is what the parties desire.

Every patronage agreement is unique and individual.

There is no "set" patronage relationship.  There is no absolute "this is how it has to be done" situation.  

Patronage is not hiring.  It is the acceptance of an agreement where one party says, "I will do X for you" and the other party says, "I will do Y for you" in return.  Patronage relationships exist for short durations or the long term but they exist for a period of time.

Basically, what I am saying is that both Larrath and Gimfalisette are correct.  Each is speaking about a different form of patronage.

A lot of times patronage can lead to employment and a lot of times people like to keep a patronage relationship really loose and informal.  It is entirely up to the people involved.

[Eternal]

I have to say it...

Patronage = Independent contractors.
House hiring = employees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_contractor

The more I hear of the whole system, the more I begin to believe it.   :wink:

[Aernis]

Yes, you can use independent contractors for the broad basics if it helps.

Patronage holds more political connotations than independent contractors would but it isn't a bad comparison for a start.  Roughly speaking it works.

[Vanth]

I find it useful to think of organized crime when I think of patrons and partisans.

There are some people who aren't "made" (i.e. members of the mob) but still do work for them and/or pay tribute.

You don't want to play the Russian mob against the Italian mafia, but being loosely affiliated with the Italian mafia gives you some slight protection against the Russian mob.

[Vanth]

Made these posts into a seperate thread so they're not off-topic.

[Gimfalisette]

Yes, you can use independent contractors for the broad basics if it helps.

Patronage holds more political connotations than independent contractors would but it isn't a bad comparison for a start.  Roughly speaking it works.

For the political connotations, my rough analogy is:

Patron = Congressperson (providing political representation)
Partisan = Constituent (getting political representation)

That is for longer-term patronage arrangements, of course. And it's also not to imply that the patrons are elected, because they're not; although the partisan does have a sort of "vote" because they get to choose who their patron is. That's why patrons WANT partisans, after all...the partisans are essentially casting a vote of support for the patron. And to the Chosen caste, that's their political power in the Triumvirate.

In the case of employees, they are the constituent of the employer automatically (because they can't be patroned by someone else). But employees are more expensive to maintain than partisans, so that's an advantage to the patron of having partisans instead.

Not to wander too far off topic, but since we are talking about Tuluki politics here AND it's voting day in the good ol' USA, the way I think of the three factions to help me visualize things is analogous to the US's three-branch system:

Noble faction = Congress (representation of the Common caste)
Templar faction = Judiciary (with lot of enforcement thrown in)
Sun King's faction = Executive power

And with the way the voting works in the Triumvirate, that's the "checks and balances" system, since resolutions need a 2/3 vote of the factions to pass.

Yes, the above analogies are imperfect, but they've helped me get my head around the structure and flow of Tuluki politics. And I'm sure Aernis or Vanth will jump in to tell me if I'm totally messed up

[Dalmeth]

The independent contracter comparison is the best.  It is entirely true that a partisan disappearing for weeks at a time would be an odd thing.  The thing is, a partisan-patron relationship doesn't have to last longer than a few real days.  

It's generally a temporary relationship, where the partisan performs a specific job.  So long as the partisan performs his jobs, he can gain a good reputation as a partisan even with long periods of absence.

[jstorrie]

Personally I always see the Tuluki social arrangement as very closely resembling ancient Korea. I think it might be clouding things a bit to see the nobles as a Congress-like group, as they're really more of just super-trained high management than a ruling body. If you were going to compare them to the Real World, they're more like CEOs of mega-corps that are in bed with the government or as heads of massive civil service agencies.

edit: the checks and balances in Tuluk only really apply to matters below the notice of the upper echelons of the templarate, as important matters will generally be forced through with the combined votes of the Sun King and the templars, who never disagree on weighty matters. This is straight from the Tuluk docs. The Sun King and the templarate are judiciariy, legislative, and executive all at the same time.

[Gimfalisette]

I think it might be clouding things a bit to see the nobles as a Congress-like group, as they're really more of just super-trained high management than a ruling body. If you were going to compare them to the Real World, they're more like CEOs of mega-corps that are in bed with the government or as heads of massive civil service agencies.

When I said the nobles were analogous to Congress, that was in the context of being the representation of the people. Obviously the noble faction is not a legislative body in and of itself. However, the source of power of the noble faction (yes, though they are "Chosen") is recognized to be the support of the Common caste, in my understanding.

...important matters will generally be forced through with the combined votes of the Sun King and the templars, who never disagree on weighty matters. This is straight from the Tuluk docs. The Sun King and the templarate are judiciariy, legislative, and executive all at the same time.

Can you point out where it says this in the docs? Because I've looked, and I don't see it. (Doesn't mean it's not there, just means I don't see it.) It seems kinda un-Tuluki to me, the idea that the Sun King and templar factions would force a vote on something the noble faction disagreed with enough to vote against. (Meaning a majority of the Chosen Houses didn't like it.) Blatantly pissing off the nobles would be a fair can of worms to open, I'd think, with their connection to the Common caste, control of resources, and etc.

[jstorrie]

The details of the Triumvirate are at
http://www.armageddon.org/general/tuluki_rp.html

I think you might be mixing up Tuluk and Allanak a bit. Allanaki nobles derive their power from the influence they have on the commoner class. Tuluki commoners are much more indoctrinated, in my opinion, and their support isn't very difficult to get at all. Rather, each Tuluki noble house has a specific set of responsibilities and goals, so they are more like very, very powerful civil service agencies or massive companies, who are granted significant power by the government in order to allow them to attend to those responsibilities.

As the Sun King's vote is cast by High Precentor Fyloria of the Lirathan Order at the moment, it's pretty unlikely that the templarate would ever vote any other way. Tuluk runs on the illusion of political justice, not justice itself, and you might be buying in to the templar's own propaganda too much if you think it's at all comparable to a democratic system.

[Doppelganger]

I think you might be mixing up Tuluk and Allanak a bit. Allanaki nobles derive their power from the influence they have on the commoner class.

I somewhat disagree with both of you, though I like Gimfalisette's point of view much more.

In my opinion nobles of both city-states derive their power from respective Sorceror Kings alone. Even Tuluki Chosen Houses are chosen to position of power by the lonely Muk's vote. Power, influence and all the other good things come from top to bottom of society and never other way around, that's the point of tyranny and I don't see any sign of democracy on Zalanthas. Common caste is not a source of influence; commoners are what influence is inflicted upon. I am not saying that commoners are utterly useless, they are servicemen, and they are resource of a kind. If you accept my analogy, dogs are not useless too. They can do funny tricks, fetch your slippers and even guard your House, but they don't get to choose their masters, no matter how helpful they are.

I think the difference between Allanak and Tuluk lays in the way dogs are trained. In the South they prefer to beat their dogs to obedience, while in Tuluk they pet dogs to obedience. Why indeed, Tuluki commoners deserve some extra food and pats after they saved ruling castes during Liberation, and they get both, but they are still on receiving end of influence. Noble should be careful not to piss off their Sorceror Master or his Templars, because that's where their stipend, support and social standing come from. Even in Tuluk blatantly pissing off common populace is dangerous only because this way you upset the source of your power. Tradition to keep Tuluki pets happy is old, and has proven itself to be right in the time of troubles, so no one looks to change it.

Tuluki commoners are much more indoctrinated, in my opinion, and their support isn't very difficult to get at all.

Again, I see no difference. Commoners of both city states equally require attention of their betters. Beat them or pet them, but effort is necessary to keep them in order. Both mechanisms of oppression are old and work just fine, but it doesn't mean that new generations of commoners would behave when mechanism will be broken.

[Bebop]

I agree with you Larrath, I am a firm believer that you should not dedicate your PC to an employer or role of leadership if you will not be available to fullfill the tasks set out for you.  But I think patronage does offer more lienence (sp?) then contract employment with a clan would.

Also I think if you do get hired by someone, before you agree IC that you are hired you should take a moment OOC to ask about playing times just to be clear if that is going to be an issue.

[Aernis]

There are a few issues that are being brushed upon here.

First, patronage is a wonderfully loose and free forming system that allows for a lot of possibilities.  Patronage can offer all the perks of employment without any of the restrictions if the agreement is done out that way.  For example, let's say a Chosen Lord patrons a hunter.

The agreement they come up with is as follows:

The Chosen Lord provides an apartment for the hunter (no, not the House barracks or estate but an apartment).
The Chosen Lord provides a steady supply of arrows.
The Chosen Lord provides his political protection to the hunter.

In return, the hunter provides:

X number of chitin discs per week.
News of what is happening outside the Gol Krathu.
Scouting services on demand.
And Y amount of duskhorn meat.

The hunter is allowed to take on one-off contracts from any other noble or templar or merchant.  The hunter can sell all their excess goods to anyone they wish.  The hunter can go out and hunt people for other people.  The hunter is not forced to stay in the City.  The hunter doesn't have to travel in a group if they don't wanna.

In other words - in this agreement the hunter gains most of the perks of a clan without its restrictions.

Patronage allows for a whole lot.

Shifting gears, I wanted to point something out about Tuluk.  In Tuluk the Noble Faction of the triumvirate has _real_ power.  Not false power or the appearance of power.  The nobility of Tuluk have real power.  They can, and have, made laws that were passed.  The game of politics and intrigue in Tuluk is huge because of this and right now...

Well, right now, Tuluk is exploring its future through the interactions of the players.

[jstorrie]

The noble factions certainly do have real power, but they're not exactly what the government officially claims - just like the power the templarate wields is not exactly what the government claims, or like the power that commoners wield is not exactly what the government claims.

I think my main point is that while Allanak runs on the constant projection of power to cow everyone into obedience, Tuluk runs on the constant projection of social justice and patriotism - but like a modern-day fascist state, these images of social justice and national comraderie are half-truths. How do nobles fit into this? From my play experience, they officially have many political rights and powers that technically they may not really be able to exercise - but on the other side of the coin, they have many potential modes of influence that officially, publicly, they don't use. The power of the noble houses directly stems from the fact that if the templarate cracks down on, say, Uaptal, the city starves. If problems are caused for Tenneshi, the city dries up and construction comes to a halt. If problems are caused for Winrothol, the slave supply is cut short. etc., etc.

[FantasyWriter]

Resurrecting a great thread that I just found.

[touringCompl3t3]

Also I think if you do get hired by someone, before you agree IC that you are hired you should take a moment OOC to ask about playing times just to be clear if that is going to be an issue.

I liked that point especially.  I feel as though players tend to ignore the OOC component of play, towards the result that players can end up in miserable circumstances that a little foresight could have prevented.  A bit of communication goes a long way.