Throne Room OOC - Archived Parts

small note: Aelos will always say the King is right, even Mordred lost his wits and drools his words into a trompet of his own shit.



Edit: also, perspective. In the middle ages, people did not see themselves as free undividuals, but part of a Kingdom. Otherwise they would not allow a King to rule...

Quote :

Do not write that things happen that your character has no influence in (such as "suddenly the great candelabra came down from the ceiling, killing Lucius Aurelianus instantly

But I can still use the poisoned needles I put under his chair, can't I?

Quote :

also, perspective. In the middle ages, people did not see themselves as free undividuals, but part of a Kingdom. Otherwise they would not allow a King to rule...

I'm honelstly not sure about that. Without efficent flow of information, I'm not sure if people even knew the name of their current supreme lord (they could probably deduce that, if their lands had been raided, it was because whoever was their king failed to show his presence). It's not like the Austro-Hungarian emperor sent people to tell all Trentine villages that they now had a new king.

We need the opinion of history buffs.

Well I have just read it in a study book about goverment(?) Law. and such.

I'd like to advance that Pendor is at least a high medieval, if not a late medieval society. Apart from the fact that there have also been numerous peasant uprisings and noble revolts earlier in history, in these times the autonomous universities (Paris, Praha, Bologna, etc.) as well as the patricians in the cities had developed a certain degree and sense of individual freedom. Take for instance the free imperial cities in the Holy Roman Empire, the revolt of the barons in England under John Lackland or the peasant uprisings in France during the 100-years-war.

So this is around the 100 years war, time period wise?

It is difficult to decide the precise relative setting because there are some elements from all parts of the middle ages, but the general situation, politically, technologically and economically would be comparable to end of high middle ages/beginning of late middle ages with some aspects of France at the end of the 100 yars war (due to the long unification wars spawning brigads, weakening the nobles, destroying lots of the agrarian infrastructure).

It's most defiantly late medieval, probably sometime in the 13-1400's (so yes, Hundred Years War era), as such peasants would have a sense of belonging in their region and under their regional nobles but there isn't really any sense of nationalism yet (which is something this event is meant to address, actually). PoP3 sits in that weird time juuuuuuust before the renaissance, as the time period we're covering in PoP4 is early renaissance (without guns!)

Bear in mind that nation states did not really exist in Europe until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, so while we can consider nationalist identity to be a little more advanced in the world of Pendor (with Mettenheim and Barclay in particular), the common man would at least think of themselves as belonging to the province of the Fierdsvain or Ravenstern rather than of the kingdom of Pendor as a whole.

That said, there is nothing stopping the nobility from thinking on a grander scale, and as all the Orders played a part in the unification of Pendor, at least some of them would have bought into the King's vision of one nation state, that of Pendor... its just that this concept hasn't trickled down to the peasants as yet.

Mordred wrote:

(without guns!)

Damn XD Matchlocks started use in Europe in the 1440's which would put Pendor in just the right time period for those, and Handgonnes would have been in use even longer. What's the problem with early firearms?

The setting is not identical to Europe. Pendor has no far eastern chinese culture that invented gunpowder centuries before and whose knowledge would travel along the silk road. In Pendor there is no reason why the idea or even concept of a firearm should evolve. There is no way the Pendorians or their surrounding cultures would have heard of it.

On a second note: If we introduce firearms in the Aftermath and still want to use as lore for PoP4 in any way, players will expect firearms in PoP4, which would somehow conflict with the layout and feeling of it. There are enough firearm-mods out there and Pendor draws its uniqueness from other features.

Lovely, how I enjoy the current discussion. Marcus nailed it though, Aelos is a Griffon who cares about nothing else but the wellfare of the King and his royal family. (minor personal quest aside.)

Psst, Marcus, Brennus is duke of Avendor. Laria is ruled by Alamar.

@Aelos: Yeah, I enjoy it, too, and it served well to flesh out the stance of the orders towards the king. Until now the Silvermist seemed just as supportive of the king as the Griffon, and though that may be true quantitatively, it is certainly not true qualitatively, i.e. the way we serve him.

I have become rather good at scolding people nowadays, and I have no idea why. I am a little bitter and cynical

EDIT - Ty iskar love you fixed

EDIT2 - I loved the discussion, too

EDIT3 - I think that everyone is a little confused when you said that everyone has to take their seats. Is there a whole another table, or was Iskar just away from it for a moment? When I last checked, my characters were both seated to Iskar's left.

Ah good, thanks for posting the discussion topic up Caranthir. Looking forward to see the results of it. Remember we need not only the titles, and title holders, but also just which counties (hexes) those titles have jurisdiction over. Each hex should have a Ducal owner and a Provincial owner.

Aelos votes that every lord that has questionable, unknown or no loyalty to the Crown will be stripped of his titles and fiefs immediatly.

Everyone agrees? good... next point!

I miss all the good stuff!


Marcus, and well everyone, Isabel is not a Dawnite turned Griffon. Isabel was never a Dawnite. She shares a name with a prominent member, and happens to be pious.

Then stop failing and don't swap characters unless you can do it well

In Ana's/Isabel's defense I have to say that she definitely did not fail at all. In fact she did very good roleplay, but the Dawn turned out to not be what she had expected.

Iskar wrote:

In Ana's/Isabel's defense I have to say that she definitely did not fail at all. In fact she did very good roleplay, but the Dawn turned out to not be what she had expected.

Aww /hug. Now then, someone grab a copy of Hobbs' Leviathan! It's soooo underrated compared to Locke!

Isabel Tenorio wrote:

Iskar wrote:

In Ana's/Isabel's defense I have to say that she definitely did not fail at all. In fact she did very good roleplay, but the Dawn turned out to not be what she had expected.

Aww /hug. Now then, someone grab a copy of Hobbs' Leviathan! It's soooo underrated compared to Locke!

I love Hobbes, but that won't get us anywhere. Homo homini lupus

conflict is what you get with Hobbes.

In the state of nature where every man is out for themselves, life will be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".

Great text, by far my favourite when I studied it! That, Von Clausewitz's "On War", Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" and of course Machiavelli "The Prince" are definitely the most illuminating manuscripts on power, and how to wield it.

If you actually read the whole book, and not 'key excerpts' that were selected fifty years ago, you'll see that it is a quite broad and incredibly detailed political theory book. It was definitely written pre-Enlightenment, but the logic is sound and follows the later patterns. It was just obviously written in such a time when 'heresy' was an issue. The first... many pages are just definitions of useful societal things, such as honor.


The Prince has to be my favorite. Sadly it always makes me want to slap a few scholars for their interesting intrepretations of it. They look at the other texts he wrote but ignore the man's life at each stage!

From my experiences at University... scholars in general need a slap. Far too many of them are just complete imbeciles, and I do not use that word lightly.

I do like the prince, but if you read Machiavelli's actual main opus on politcs, the "discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio", shortly the "Discorsi", you will find them even more thought through and detailed, and in contrast to the "prince", Machiavelli reveals himself to be a proper republican mind in the "discorsi".

I wouldn't dare argue that point, though I know plenty that I might disagree with but I wouldn't slap.

Most of those that have published interpretations of the The Prince being a satire I would slap. 'Why do you think it's a satire?' 'Because it's evil! And look, he wrote pro-Republican later!' "Do you think it's because he was writing to get in favor with a ruthless prince at one time, and stopped bothering once that failed?' 'No. It was a satire only!'

hmm, although I hate my non-Law/Crime related sociology courses for the moronic professors that teach it... I realise now that I should at least read the books you are talking about.