In game rank linked to guild rank

I was thinking that it would be nice to have in game ranks reflect the persons rank in the guild. This obviously cannot be finalized as we do not necessarily know what ranks there will be in DF2.0 but there is a good chance it will be the same as the current version. Here is a start:

Supreme General

• The King
• Members of the Palatine Cabinet

General

• Archbishops
• Bailiff
• Baronet
• Bishop
• Captain
• Cavalier
• Commander
• Knight
• Lieutenant

Colonel

• Esquire
• Gentlemen
• Herald
• Ventenar

Major

• Clerk
• Priest
• Pursuivant
• Ranger
• Reeve
• Serjeant
• Sheriff
• Sinecure Yeomen

Captain

• Chaplain
• Deacon
• Footman
• Friar
• Man-At-Arms
• Thaumaturgist

Lieutenant

• Militia
• Villain

Private

• Serf

I put the Villain as a Lieutenant to give people an incentive to advance in the guild and assume the responsibilities that their new role demands, for instance by joining the garrison.

The rank I'm most unsure about is the General due to their extensive in game powers, though they can't do all that much more damage then a rogue Captain+ who raids the bank.

DF's rank system always made it difficult unfortunately.

Yeah, the best we can do is an approximate social/military structure.

Bishop and Archbishop are more likely to have the same if not more power than the king. The church was more powerful back in those times.

Good work Falesh, this is certainly a stepping-stone of what we would like to achieve with ranks...I like it.

Would the Bishop and Archbishop have the same say as the Palatine Cabinet in the running of a County Palatine though? I bumped them up to General for now.

In terms of social standing a temporal lord (baron) and a spiritual lord (bishop) are in equal standing and neither is subservient to the other. In fact, in the United Kingdom, an Archbishop is higher in the order of precedence than any temporal lord, coming just after the royals, and a bishop is placed above a baron but below most earls.

It is not the title that distinguishes which has more influence in society but the office that they hold. For example, imagining the Barony of Yew with a baron and a bishop, it is most probable that the baron would be accommodating to the bishop and respectful, but the ‘office’ of the baron grants him rulership in temporal matters over the barony. So the bishop has not the authority to determine the tax rate of the baron, unless he holds a place on the cabinet/court, but equally the baron cannot fine or punish a member of the clergy.

From a game point of view a baron is assigned to head that game and so he would be looked to for leadership and just like in real feudalism titles only mean so much; the rest is decided by your wealth and power and at the moment the church has very little of that. Which is the long way of agreeing with Lord Rhygar.

Now looking at the ranking structure, a deacon is very much on the same social standing as an esquire and a priest, without office, is the same as a Knight. Additionally chaplain and cavalier are on the same level of authority so the changes would need to be made to reflect that.

In terms of the ranking structure I would change it to look like, open to discussion, using a weighting of social standing plus job role, the following:

Supreme General - The 'lords'
The King
The Earl (This title may not always be held by the King)
The Bishop

General - those representing, organising and commanding on behalf of the lords
Palatine Cabinet (including Chancellor, Constable, Chamberlain, Exchequer)
Other senior positions such as Vicar general and Grand Master

Colonel - those heading up various aspects of day to day management
Cavalier / Chaplain
Palatine Court (Herald, Clerk, Sheriff)
Senior clergy such as an abbot or a prior.

Major - distinguished people who would be looked too.
Ventenar
Ranger
Baronet, Knight and Priests without a title in the Earldom


Captain - trusted people who get things done
Deacons and Esquires without a title in the Earldom
Serjeant
Yeoman with a title in the Earldom (craftsmen for example)

Lieutenant - members without obligations
Gentleman without a title in the Earldom
Freeman without a title in the Earldom
Man at arms
Footman
Militiaman
Villein

Private - new member
Serf

That is a very useful post. I like the change to the Baronets and Knights in particular as I was feeling like they had too much power but thought they deserved that high a rank.

I would like to see Footmen and Men at arms placed higher then villeins though as they have one of the most serious obligations in game; that of laying down their lives, and risking their worldly goods, in defence of our people and land. There are two other ranks I didn't use in between the Private and Lieutenant: Corporal and Sergeant, so it goes from Private to Corporal to Sergeant and finally Lieutenant. Maybe one of these could be used like:

Lieutenant
Gentleman without a title in the Earldom
Man at arms
Footman

Sergeant - members without obligations
Freeman without a title in the Earldom
Militiaman
Villein
Friar was this mistakenly left off your post or are Friars still considered Villeins?

As a side note do we have a single page document showing a summery of the stratifications in the Wessex hierarchy? I know I would find that very useful and it would certainly be helpful for new members so they can show the proper respect to the various ranks. In fact it would be a perfect addition to the main Wessex pdf.

Good spot on the friar!

As far as I am aware there is no single document that represents this as there are multiple layers that define a person’s standing within Wessex and these can interact on numerous levels.

The first and most notable is someone’s social standing and this really defines how someone is viewed by the society. It is predominantly the aspect which grants someone a title such as sir or father. From a Wessex perspective there are:

Commoners
Freemen
Gentry
Magnates

Now within each of these groups there are further differences in precedence and social ordering. For example heralds are considered to be incredibly important and influential members of society and although knights and esquires are both gentry there is a clear difference. The clergy straddles across these groups with friar being akin to villein, deacon to esquire, priests to knights and prelate to magnate.

The next deciding factor is what job title an individual holds. For example a freeman in a county cabinet is given the honorary title of mister, even though he is not a gentleman, and he would have more direct authority over the management of the county than a gentry member who is outside of the court; even though he has to be polite and accommodating. However depending on the influence of the gentry member he may have no choice but to bow down to his wishes. Confused yet? Good.

The final area would be military rank and as you can imagine this can also have an impact on how someone is treated. Although gentry (and clergy can be) are given ‘officer’ ranks in the military there is nothing to stop a common ventenar who has become a war hero (such as Zehtuka) from having more respect and battlefield presence than a knight.

I hope this helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Falesh Helithian

Lieutenant
Gentleman without a title in the Earldom
Man at arms
Footman

Sergeant - members without obligations
Freeman without a title in the Earldom
Militiaman
Villein

---

I really like this. Will it cause any door control problems?

Ah, I forgot about that. Still it is not a cripilling issue as we should have a decent amount of people who can open it for them if they are unable to get over the walls by other means. In fact it might be another nice incentive to people to better themselves within the guild. ;)