Cross-Fealty Ministers
Posted by Apostate on 10/18/20
Q: Is it okay to have ministers from a different fealty?
A: It depends.
ICly, there are at least three things to keep in mind.
First, does the character have responsibilities that they would arguably be ignoring by working as someone else. This is most relevant to heads of house. There are cases when a head of house is acting in a position of a high honor, such as Gabriel as head of the Bislands who was written to be also acting as regent and then a Voice of the Crown. There are some issues with that which might not be obvious. It should be noted I specifically wrote Gabriel as someone who wasn't actually happy about this, and mostly deferred the responsibilities of rule to his wife. He was written to be a brilliant combat comander and field leader, but someone who was ill suited to rule, and mostly was a figure head. This actually reflected badly on him in the eyes of the peerage, but he was respected enough by his successes to make it work, and it was perceived as an obligation he was fulfilling, not something he wanted, which would mitigate the perceptions of social climbing. So for other characters on this basis, it is likely to more reflect on them rather than the domain they are working for, as they would be perceived as blowing off their other obligations to work for another house. A character might not care too much about that perception, but this is particularly hard to justify for actual heads of house to work as a minister for another house.
Second, the diplomatic thematic perceptions. How friendly the fealties are between the NPCs really, really matters. For example, in alpha and early beta, the Crownlands and Mourning Islands were on the brink of war, and during the Great Road crisis there WAS a war, with Helianthus and its allies destroying a fleet of Graysons' and Northlands ' vassals. Someone working cross fealty in a position of public service is a big deal, and it's a public statement. It will have positive contexts for those hoping for peace, and negative ones for those who are more warlike. But this could also very easily cost someone their own domain, if they were perceived as a tool of their enemies, and lead to open rebellion. Obviously, working for an ally, and specifically using it to emphasize a bond has a very different reaction, but it still can have negative baggage.
Third, social rank really matters in perceptions. A commoner would be presumed to have their liege's leave to do so, and is usually below notice and they are only really relevant because of their position. A higher born noble helping a lower born house would usually be perceived as a teacher trying to cultivate an ally- it could be seen as essentially slumming, but if they aren't blowing off obligations, it doesn't usually reflect too badly on them. A lower born noble helping a higher born house is almost certainly going to be perceived as a social climber and ambitious, which is pretty common when you get down to it, but they face a lot of jealousy and judgment over it. Again, how harshly these are judged cross fealty depends on whether the regions are traditional allies or enemies. Crownlands-Mourning Isles, Oathlands-Northlands, Oathlands-Lyceum tend to be the most hostile matches, with Oathlands-Crownlands, Mourning Isles-Lyceum, Northlands-Lyceum tend to be much friendlier.
Now, the OOC: I really want to see any kind of house position, whether voice, sword, minister, etc go to a rank 3 or 4 member of the noble house first, whenever possible, because it's one of the few ways to emphasize the recognition of characters in their core org. I generally think multiple positions filled by outside the house is a sign the house might need more help in fostering more internal roleplay, unless an appointment happens due to really significant story development that is apparent to everyone in the house and pretty much has the tacit agreement of all members. We do have too many orgs as it's just too common a usecase for people to create an org with their friends, and when that particular storyline runs its course, the org is there forever as kind of a ghost, which is why I tend to be so resistant to making new ones, but it's usually not a fix for remnants of those orgs to be given positions in other healthier orgs too- they really should be merged in entirely imo.
A: It depends.
ICly, there are at least three things to keep in mind.
First, does the character have responsibilities that they would arguably be ignoring by working as someone else. This is most relevant to heads of house. There are cases when a head of house is acting in a position of a high honor, such as Gabriel as head of the Bislands who was written to be also acting as regent and then a Voice of the Crown. There are some issues with that which might not be obvious. It should be noted I specifically wrote Gabriel as someone who wasn't actually happy about this, and mostly deferred the responsibilities of rule to his wife. He was written to be a brilliant combat comander and field leader, but someone who was ill suited to rule, and mostly was a figure head. This actually reflected badly on him in the eyes of the peerage, but he was respected enough by his successes to make it work, and it was perceived as an obligation he was fulfilling, not something he wanted, which would mitigate the perceptions of social climbing. So for other characters on this basis, it is likely to more reflect on them rather than the domain they are working for, as they would be perceived as blowing off their other obligations to work for another house. A character might not care too much about that perception, but this is particularly hard to justify for actual heads of house to work as a minister for another house.
Second, the diplomatic thematic perceptions. How friendly the fealties are between the NPCs really, really matters. For example, in alpha and early beta, the Crownlands and Mourning Islands were on the brink of war, and during the Great Road crisis there WAS a war, with Helianthus and its allies destroying a fleet of Graysons' and Northlands ' vassals. Someone working cross fealty in a position of public service is a big deal, and it's a public statement. It will have positive contexts for those hoping for peace, and negative ones for those who are more warlike. But this could also very easily cost someone their own domain, if they were perceived as a tool of their enemies, and lead to open rebellion. Obviously, working for an ally, and specifically using it to emphasize a bond has a very different reaction, but it still can have negative baggage.
Third, social rank really matters in perceptions. A commoner would be presumed to have their liege's leave to do so, and is usually below notice and they are only really relevant because of their position. A higher born noble helping a lower born house would usually be perceived as a teacher trying to cultivate an ally- it could be seen as essentially slumming, but if they aren't blowing off obligations, it doesn't usually reflect too badly on them. A lower born noble helping a higher born house is almost certainly going to be perceived as a social climber and ambitious, which is pretty common when you get down to it, but they face a lot of jealousy and judgment over it. Again, how harshly these are judged cross fealty depends on whether the regions are traditional allies or enemies. Crownlands-Mourning Isles, Oathlands-Northlands, Oathlands-Lyceum tend to be the most hostile matches, with Oathlands-Crownlands, Mourning Isles-Lyceum, Northlands-Lyceum tend to be much friendlier.
Now, the OOC: I really want to see any kind of house position, whether voice, sword, minister, etc go to a rank 3 or 4 member of the noble house first, whenever possible, because it's one of the few ways to emphasize the recognition of characters in their core org. I generally think multiple positions filled by outside the house is a sign the house might need more help in fostering more internal roleplay, unless an appointment happens due to really significant story development that is apparent to everyone in the house and pretty much has the tacit agreement of all members. We do have too many orgs as it's just too common a usecase for people to create an org with their friends, and when that particular storyline runs its course, the org is there forever as kind of a ghost, which is why I tend to be so resistant to making new ones, but it's usually not a fix for remnants of those orgs to be given positions in other healthier orgs too- they really should be merged in entirely imo.