caste the dice

[reverancepavane]

I'm thinking that for my next fantasy campaign, which will probably use modified BRP rules (all that's left is the hardest part - hacking a suitable magic system), of introducing Birth Caste. Not sure whether it will be random or whether I'll allow the players to choose or some combination of the two). What do people think? Anyway, caste will be determined before characteristics are rolled. Normal characteristics are rolled by taking 3d6 of a 4d6 roll (it doesn't have to be the best three if players want), but the characteristic that is associated with the character's birth caste uses all 4d6 of the roll. The castes are (in rough order of social standing): Noble (CHA): This is the ruling caste - those who have a native right to rule. It does not mean that they get to rule, merely that their childhood has exposed them to the art of rulership, and given them an air of authority and command. Naturally, there are relatively few members of this caste. Warrior (STR): The warrior or military caste are those who were born to fight and who have a strong martial heritage. Not all soldiers are warrior caste (in fact comparitively few of them are), but those of the warrior caste who take up arms are naturally expected to excel at them. The Hindu kshatriya caste is the prime example of this caste. Priest (INT): The priest or scholar caste is a caste of learning and education. I'm thinking of a world where the temples (of the core civilisation of the campaign) are primarily involved in many matters of learning and teaching rather than devotion to some supernatural entity. Although this does not preclude their learning the art of magic). Like my old campaign, the gods will probably be unreachable and unknowable - if they do exist in fact. And this hopefully will breed many different philosophies, some orthodox, some heterodox, and some outright heresy. [And yes, I do want priest-engineers and priest-scientists.] The Hindu example of this would be the brahmin (and yes, I have intentionally placed them beneath the kshatriya, despite the fact that they teach they are higher - I see arguments developing as to which of these two is the higher caste). Artisan (DEX): The artisan caste are those involved in the crafting and manufacture of goods. There is a strong aesthetic ideal that runs through this caste (and therefore through all artisans), that what they produce should be functional works of art. The crude manufacturies and factories are for the peasants who cannot afford better. That includes the munitions-quality armaments thay are equipped with. Many of the magic swords and armour of That Other Game™ are actually the products of artisan swordsmiths and armourers. Next to the nobles and sorcerors, this is probably the smallest and most exclusive caste. They are the Hindu vaishya. Peasant (CON): The vast majority of people are members of the peasant caste. Farmers, labourers, and merchants, all generally belong to this caste. In a substantially agrarian society farmers actually are probably the highest members of this caste, because they produce the food people need to survive. Merchants, while they may end up quite rich and are vitally important to the proper functioning of society, are generally viewed with disdain socially because they create nothing and simply gain their wealth by selling the produce of others. As in our world, the rising power of this middle class will upset society. These are the Hindu sudra. Sorceror (POW): While not recognised as a proper caste, this is an option that my be taken by player-characters. It represents an individual who has sorcery in their bloodline. Whilst priests may eventually learn sorcery, it comes to these individuals naturally, often before they learn the discipline to use it responsibly (in fact a priest must pass many examinations before they can begin learning the magical arts as it is considered very dangerous). Sorcerors are generally the villains in folk tales, putting princesses to sleep and getting poisonous vipers to bite small children, only to be defeated by the famous warrior hero (and her faithful wise-cracking male sidekick). And there is an element of truth to these tales. Naturally this predisposes the general populace against them, although there are a number of sorceror communities that simple pretend to be the other, except on certain nights, when they enact powerful rituals. Now I mention the Hindu equivalencies because that is probably the first thing people think of when people think of caste. However one thing I want to avoid is the Hindu idea of purity and that character's membership of caste is a result of the character's karma. In actual fact I'd like to encourage the concept of caste mobility. I'd rather have people comment in amazement at the ability of a peasant to become a ruler, than have them consider it a travesty and society being broken as a result. As such I emphasise we are talking about birth caste here. It's simply a measure of where the character grew up. And whether their father insisted that they carry bags of sand up and down the hill whilst they were growing up. That sort of thing. The other possible problem, is the inherent social status of each caste. No one can doubt that the noble caste has a higher rank than the peasant caste in society. However all the player-characters will have a single Status that applies to the entire campaign, not their caste. This means that a noble player-character will probably have an extremely minor rank in their caste (and correspondingly few opportunities available to them due to their caste), whilst a peasant player-character will have quite a high rank (and correspondingly greater opportunities available to them due to caste). In addition to the bonus to a specific characteristic roll (which on average is just a +1), each birth caste will probably have slightly different background starting skills and opportunities for apprenticeship. Any thoughts?

Comments

[maelorin]

Sounds good. Perhaps, to break away from Hindu associations, look to mediaeval European history?

In social situations, even a very minor noble will usually outrank a commoner, and have access to people and places as a consequence - and because of who they are related to, etc. But not always. A Master Craftsman who is a Guild Member will outrank a Baron's son within the Guild; a Baron's son from one Earldom may be outranked by a Baron's son in another Earldom when travelling (though treated as a Baron's son, his fealty runs through a different Earl)

In military situations, a sergeant or corporal may have greater authority than the Baron's son (unless daddy bought him a commission as a second lieutenant).

A commoner could always be elevated to nobility through recognition of their deeds by their liegelord or king.

This system is more structured than ones I have used in the past: and most players tend to structure their character/stats around the profession/class of their choosing (or best fits their abysmal dice rolls >.<)

I like the idea of access to different skills/knowledge prior to campaign based upon social origin. A baker's son would know and do different things from a farmer's daughter, or a Baron's grandson.

A gemcutter's son becoming a thief or a fence makes sense as a background *and* as a set of starting skills.

In many parts of Europe, the daughter of a herbalist was pretty much expected to follow mummy into the business: through access and opportunity of learning, but also because the 'power' was through to run in one's blood. It is also possible for someone to exhibit a talent for healing/magic and thus transition out of their 'birth' 'caste' and into their 'true' caste of sorcerer.

Perhaps you may also have a culture that values some traits differently: priests may be cha, nobles int-oriented? Which might cause some subtle confusions - especially amongst members of the 'appropriate' caste as they/others travel?

I like the notion that opportunities are costed differently for different castes: 'basics' for a noble did cost more than those for a peasant - the expectation on the quality being different. And a peasant would have access to different skills - some beneath the noble, others would be out of their reach for the same reason. And some would be beyond them only because of lack of opportunities. A farmer would be unlikely to learn gemcutting, but could learn basic stonemasonry for building walls and the like.

Perhaps a starting dicepool of points, say 6d6, to buy skills? with in-caste cheaper than out-of caste? With some skills denied to (not available), or 'forbidden' (at an even greater cost) for their caste?

And perhaps instead of calling it 'caste' you could refer to the primary trait as 'path' or similar? after all, someone may roll an int-oriented character, but argue for a noble heritage ... and their path/campaign may be a journey to discover their true place in society? Not everyone is naturally in their 'best' profession/occupation at 14-16 (or 26-46) :D

Alternatively, 'caste' and 'path' could be two different things: one may be born into a caste, but have none of the talents for it - instead, be better suited to very different work: which could be a reason for travelling, etc?

[reverancepavane.livejournal.com]

That's why I am explicitly citing as birth caste. Basically what I'm using it is as a representation of the character's childhood upbringing more than anything else. Tying it to characteristics allowed me to identify and create the castes. And I'm going to expressly use social class as the "caste" the character is currently occupying. Your birth caste won't change, but I expect your social class to do so, or I'm not doing my job correctly. Although it is confusing that they use the same name, I admit. I want a lot more social mobility than is possible through most of the later European history you mention. I'd actually look to earlier eras, such as the creative anarchy of the Norse, or even the Republican Roman valuation of wealth over all else (albeit in a patrimony). Once class structures actually became settled in law and custom, class/caste mobility was generally very poor. In a lot of medieval Europe there were legal restrictions against taking up in other trade but your father's. And whilst a petit-sargeant (the most likely of commoners to be in the situation where this was possible) could be enobled by royalty, this was an exception rather than the rule, and often noted as such. And as well, the newly enobled would be treated as a parvenu. Later, the normal methods for rich merchants to better their social standing was to marry their children into it, to the benefit of both sides. And yes, almost every agrarian culture had caste restrictions that has translated into class restrictions. I could have used Sengoku-era Japan just as easily (in fact the derision that the merchants are held in is probably heavily influenced by Japanese notions. Indian notions tend to rate successful merchants and money-lenders as Vaisya - acknowledging their ability to purchase the education that can make them twice-born (the Hindu religion is nothing if not extremely practical in this regard, however they may wish to disguise it). Again the promotion of peasants to the military caste (samurai) was rare - although one shogun came from the peasant caste and was always cited as the exception that makes the rule. Although this doesn't meant the ashigaru, the peasant foot-soldiers didn't have a higher social status than a peasant tilling the soil - after all, they were soldiers with weapons (and that sort of think tends to garner respect). Although I'm sure some characters in the game (including many NPCs) will have a degree of class prejudice which left unchecked would lead to the the creation of a formal caste structure and restrictions on social mobility, but I want this to be on the nature (to borrow the GURPS term) of an Odious Personal Habit. And, of course, I'm ignoring elements like the various jati or guilds that tend to develop in restricted social mobility situations. Don't need 'em; don't want 'em.

[enkorvaks.livejournal.com]

It certainly seems like an interesting concept. I will be interested to see what becomes of it.

[reverancepavane.livejournal.com]

I'm tempted to run it as a virtual tabletop session. Especially if I grab the virtual tabletop with the floating licence options. That means I don't have to find somewhere physical to play, and the first five people (or however many have their own copies of the tabletop licence) who want to can join a session. But that requires me to upgrade my Windoze box (something I've been intending to do for some time now and still haven't gotten around to doing, testing the tabletop to see if it does what I want, building some game-specific tools and automation into it, creating the graphics for it... And as my health declines the goal posts are looking further and further away. Damn this conveyor belt! As to whether I actually use The Crater as conceived, I don't know. It may be too difficult to perform on a virtual tabletop, as it was intended to have important 3D elements. Also am wishing I was a better artist, especially a digital artist. I'd love to create animated sprites and use a rotatable isomorphic map. Not only would it allow me to customise imagery to fit my campaign sensibilities, but I think it would be cool. Anyway it's much more an old school game with simplified character generation. Because I personally miss the old dungeon crawls.