The Land Before (Without) Guild

[Lee]

In a message dated 98-10-03 18:06:37 EDT, you write:

>
Less taxable income, for one. A DM might force a loss of regency if they
all pulled out? Of course, then the regent could invite in new ones, or
create his own.

As for sidhelien and their lack of guilds, I suspect it's because they don't
see the need to work/trade for mere money. Maybe they are socialists? I
think in the case of Tuarhievel, a few humans or halflings have been invited
to open guilds in the name of the Prince, solely in order to compete with, or
block, the rapacious guilds that are creeping up the Ruide River valley.

Lee.

[BenandAmy]

- -----Original Message-----
From: LeeHa1854@aol.com
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Saturday, October 03, 1998 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - The Land Before (Without) Guilds


>In a message dated 98-10-03 18:06:37 EDT, you write:
>
>province? >>
> Less taxable income, for one. A DM might force a loss of regency if
they
>all pulled out? Of course, then the regent could invite in new ones, or
>create his own.
>
>As for sidhelien and their lack of guilds, I suspect it's because they
don't
>see the need to work/trade for mere money. Maybe they are socialists? I
>think in the case of Tuarhievel, a few humans or halflings have been
invited
>to open guilds in the name of the Prince, solely in order to compete with,
or
>block, the rapacious guilds that are creeping up the Ruide River valley.
>
>Lee.
>************************************************** *************************
>>Elves are isolationist and maybe a bit paranoid, but definitely NOT
socialist. The very concept is completely foreign to a freedom-loving elf.
The isolationism accounts for their lack of guilds.(If they don't trade,
then why have organizations devoted to trade?)

[BenandAmy]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Craig Dalrymple
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Sunday, October 04, 1998 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - The Land Before (Without) Guilds


>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: BenandAmy
>
>
>>Elves are isolationist and maybe a bit paranoid, but definitely NOT
>>socialist. The very concept is completely foreign to a freedom-loving elf.
>>The isolationism accounts for their lack of guilds.(If they don't trade,
>>then why have organizations devoted to trade?)
>>
>
>You must have a misunderstanding of socialism. It does not restrict
>freedom. It just changes how you look at property, ownership, and
>possessions in the face of society.
>
You must have a misunderstanding of freedom. Redistribution of wealth
or property in any form, for any reason is a gross injunction of freedom.

[Craig Dalrymple]

- -----Original Message-----
From: BenandAmy


>Elves are isolationist and maybe a bit paranoid, but definitely NOT
>socialist. The very concept is completely foreign to a freedom-loving elf.
>The isolationism accounts for their lack of guilds.(If they don't trade,
>then why have organizations devoted to trade?)
>

You must have a misunderstanding of socialism. It does not restrict
freedom. It just changes how you look at property, ownership, and
possessions in the face of society.

[Gary V. Foss]

BenandAmy wrote:

> >>Elves are isolationist and maybe a bit paranoid, but definitely NOT
> >>socialist. The very concept is completely foreign to a freedom-loving elf.
> >>The isolationism accounts for their lack of guilds.(If they don't trade,
> >>then why have organizations devoted to trade?)
> >>
> >
> >You must have a misunderstanding of socialism. It does not restrict
> >freedom. It just changes how you look at property, ownership, and
> >possessions in the face of society.
> >
> You must have a misunderstanding of freedom. Redistribution of wealth
> or property in any form, for any reason is a gross injunction of freedom.

I think that pretty clearly depends on which side of the redistribution of
wealth or property you are on.... One man's tyranny is often described as
another man's freedom. Taxes are redistribution. Are they such gross
injunctions against freedom? Interest payments are redistribution, and used to
be considered sinful enough to damn a person's soul to Hell. Very few people
hold that opinion now. The concept of property itself is considered by many
cultures to be a perversion of nature....

I think elves would have a more "enlightened" view of property and wealth.
Sure, there are members of elven society that are "better off" than others from
a material standpoint, but so what? Who really needs a Thorn Throne? Certainly
not an immortal elf. What use is money in an elven community? Most people have
plenty of time to barter for services or goods. Real estate isn't a problem
because elves live well within the capacity of the land to provide for them.
There is no overcrowding. Because there are no guilds or temples there is no
need for big cities or trade centers to support them.

There's a funny essay called The Abolition of Work by Bob Black on the web at
http://www.phil.uga.edu/faculty/wolf/work.htm. It's good read in addition to
being amusing. While I don't think it is anything like a characterization of
the elven culture, I think it would provide an interesting perspective on the
attitude towards work in an edenic society, and how that would influence
attitudes towards money, property and wealth. Give it a read if you have some
time.

Gary

[Sindre Berg]

BenandAmy wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Dalrymple
> To: birthright@MPGN.COM
> Date: Sunday, October 04, 1998 8:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - The Land Before (Without) Guilds
>
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: BenandAmy
> >
> >
> >>Elves are isolationist and maybe a bit paranoid, but definitely NOT
> >>socialist. The very concept is completely foreign to a
> freedom-loving elf.
> >>The isolationism accounts for their lack of guilds.(If they don't
> trade,
> >>then why have organizations devoted to trade?)
> >>
> >
> >You must have a misunderstanding of socialism. It does not restrict
> >freedom. It just changes how you look at property, ownership, and
> >possessions in the face of society.
> >
> You must have a misunderstanding of freedom. Redistribution of
> wealth
> or property in any form, for any reason is a gross injunction of
> freedom.
>
> ********
> ************************************************** ****************
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
> line
> The problem here is you discuss two different forms of freedom, freedom
from (your personal property becoming state owned) and the freedom to
(be able to go to the university you want etc.). Socialism in my opinion
emphazises the last, capitalism(liberalism) the first. And I prefeer the
last if you ask me.... But this is not a BR topic so if anyone wants to
asnwer this please email me personally...

- --
Sindre

Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:

www.uio.no/~sindrejb

[BenandAmy]

>
>Though others have commented nicely, I midas well throw another few
>pennies in the pot as I've already spoken out. :)
>
>Redistribution of wealth occurs in all forms of government, so applying
that
>as an evil of socialism is irrelevant as it's an evil of em all. (forms of
>government
>that is, oh, and there will be a BR tie in here...) The question then is,
>what is socialism?? :)
>
>I'm going to have to think back to my days as a political science major to
>do this,
>(and have to admit I just had wine with dinner) so don't look for great
>precision in my
>definition.
>
>Socialism is a system of government of shared ownership. All people own
>everything.
>The government (theoretically) does not own anything in exclusion to the
>ownership of
>the people, as the government is the people. If you need something that I
>have, you have
>it, unless that puts me in duress. Its a maximization of shared resources.
>Barter?? Heck no.
>If I raise chickens and you raise cows I get lots of beef and milk from
you,
>and you get
>poultry and eggs from me. No trade or consideration of value, just sharing.
>
>That's kinda how I see socialism under the influence of a good wine.
>
>I apply this to BR by having my Elven societies have no form of real
>government or
>trade. There is no wealth. People just have things. If others need them,
>they are
>shared. It's not forced by the government; it's just *natural* to the
elves.
>They
>don't understand the concept of barter amongst each other. They value life
>and
>relationships amongst each other. If sharing a possession helps a friend or
>neighbor, or
>even a stranger, it is shared. The eventual positive effect is then shared
>amongst all.
>
>It might be a happy and campy idea, but not everyone needs to be money
>grubbing freaks. Not in a fantasy game at least. I've only had one player
>understand
>this, and he has yet to ever pick up coins as treasure or loot. He looks to
>things that
>are valuable for other reasons (beauty: art, or just uniqueness and
>utility).
>
>Shoot me if you don't like it. It's a fantasy game and shouldn't always be
>like
>this dismal existence.
>
>Grimwell



Sorry if we took these posts a little off track, everyone. The real
reason I responded in the first place to that soc. thing is that in the BR
campaign; I can't see any way that any state could support such a complex
form of gov't in BR. I mean, hey, didn't somebody earlier post that the
English crown had an income of something like 40,000 pounds,(or crowns, or
whatever it was back then) during the Hundred Years' War?
Do you think the England of back then could've supported the kind of gov't
they have today on that? I doubt it. They'd all be speaking French today.
And England is considered "conservative" by a large part of the world. They
probably couldn't have afforded to have gov't intervention in much of
anything back then. These more complex forms of gov't were made possible
only by industrialization---which is why I don't allow them in my gaming---
and getting back to my original point--is also why I don't think that elven
society resembles this in any way. (Maybe in your games the elves are
pumping out Chevys inside those mysterious woods ;) hee hee)
Methinks I should'st lighten up a bit from time to time. (You don't have
to agree so quickly...)

[Craig Dalrymple]

>>You must have a misunderstanding of socialism. It does not restrict
>>freedom. It just changes how you look at property, ownership, and
>>possessions in the face of society.
>>
> You must have a misunderstanding of freedom. Redistribution of wealth
>or property in any form, for any reason is a gross injunction of freedom.
>


Though others have commented nicely, I midas well throw another few
pennies in the pot as I've already spoken out. :)

Redistribution of wealth occurs in all forms of government, so applying that
as an evil of socialism is irrelevant as it's an evil of em all. (forms of
government
that is, oh, and there will be a BR tie in here...) The question then is,
what is socialism?? :)

I'm going to have to think back to my days as a political science major to
do this,
(and have to admit I just had wine with dinner) so don't look for great
precision in my
definition.

Socialism is a system of government of shared ownership. All people own
everything.
The government (theoretically) does not own anything in exclusion to the
ownership of
the people, as the government is the people. If you need something that I
have, you have
it, unless that puts me in duress. Its a maximization of shared resources.
Barter?? Heck no.
If I raise chickens and you raise cows I get lots of beef and milk from you,
and you get
poultry and eggs from me. No trade or consideration of value, just sharing.

That's kinda how I see socialism under the influence of a good wine.

I apply this to BR by having my Elven societies have no form of real
government or
trade. There is no wealth. People just have things. If others need them,
they are
shared. It's not forced by the government; it's just *natural* to the elves.
They
don't understand the concept of barter amongst each other. They value life
and
relationships amongst each other. If sharing a possession helps a friend or
neighbor, or
even a stranger, it is shared. The eventual positive effect is then shared
amongst all.

It might be a happy and campy idea, but not everyone needs to be money
grubbing freaks. Not in a fantasy game at least. I've only had one player
understand
this, and he has yet to ever pick up coins as treasure or loot. He looks to
things that
are valuable for other reasons (beauty: art, or just uniqueness and
utility).

Shoot me if you don't like it. It's a fantasy game and shouldn't always be
like
this dismal existence.

Grimwell

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Sat, 3 Oct 1998, The Olesens wrote:

> I can't think of how I want to say this so here's my question:
>
> What would happen if there were all of a sudden no guild holdings in a
province? I have
> heard PbeM guilders say thing to th effect of., if you destroy my
domain, yours will have
> no guild holdings any your econmy will collapse or something like that.
But as far as I
> read, having no guilds doesn't affect a province in game terms really.
Would the people
> just have to be self sufficent? Wouldn't a lot of people (especially
city people) not
> like that?

In many ways, the economy WOULD collapse, but in effect, only the wealthy
and the nobles would really notice the change. The guilder's threat is a
good one, because they do have somewhat of a moral edge: the majority of
the people in a feudal economy are involved in subsistance agriculture.
They are making the food, and they have little of the capital needed to
buy trade goods and "luxuries" above the level of base existance. The ones
to really feel the collapse of the economy would be the regent and his
close associates among the nobility (as well as wealthier middle class).
If they do carry out their threat, I would probably rule that all work on
BUILD actions automatically proceed at lowest-possible rate (i.e. 1 GB per
turn) and that the rating of the regent's court is reduced by half, or to
quaint, or something similar.

> So what about elves? Why don't they have guilds? They obviously can
since Prince of
> Tuarhievel has 4+0 levels of guilds. I'll bet this one has a fairly
simple answer.

I've kind of wondered about this as well. I rather agree with some of the
earlier commenters in that the elves appear to do this cheifly in response
to humans. In addition to Tuarhievel, Inishiere (in Khinasiland) has
developed guilds, but it appears to be cheifly for espionage purposes and
not for trade (even w/ other elves) and so appears to be cheifly an
organization of rangers. Once again, a response to humans. In the case of
Tuarhievel, I could imagine that some of the more "liberal" elves see it
as sort of an amusing game, to see if they can "out-human" the humans
(after all, there is a easy way to keep score: gold. And elves can be as
susceptible to greed as humans).

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu