![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethI went to look up some words but ended up back on my own blog finding the last time I complained about imprecise translation of historical relationships of power, so I am no further ahead but know I've been annoued about the same thing for Long.
I started out with Pathfinder rules, where if you take a Leadership feat you get Followers and also a Cohort. In the skinnier book Cohorts and Companions it elaborates on this so you can also have Recruits, which are like slightly lower level Cohorts but you can have several of them, only one of them following you around on any given day. Companions usually means *animal* companions, which ends up being unflattering to Doctor Who. And there are a lot of very specific versions of cohorts, some of which you get through an archetype, like Instructor and Apprentice for wizards, which can only make the same type of wizard as you are but has rules for letting them go voluntarily and finding a new apprentice. Or there's Torchbearer, Light Bearer, Weapon Bearer, Page, Squire, and Groom, who are all lower level cohorts of a particular limited type. (Many of those are from Ultimate Intrigue, or look them up on Nethys.)
What interests me are the in universe social and legal relationships implied by this stuff. Like there are Adventure Party Charters mentioned in Cohorts and Companions p22, and in some jurisdictions the Party so contractually bound is a legal entity with a specific tax relationship to the state, one which works out as expensive up front but advantageous if you survive the long term. "In some regions [...] characters can pay a fee of 100gp per level for each member to register their charter with the local government, exempting them from salvage taxes on treasure and mitigating fines for collateral damage to property and buildings." [C&Cp22] Of course not every game is going to have taxes etc in the first place, which may be why the associated feat is mentioned but not actually included, anywhere, ever. But it's an interesting try at giving the Party a distinct legal status. They're a business with a difference from mercenary companies, since no one has to hire them and 'salvage' is presumed to be relevant Often. But they're different from everything else too.
Honestly requiring the armed bastards to get a licence seems like an idea with significant utility.
And a new party just setting out isnt going to have the fees handy.
And part of registering is making sure no one else is using the name, like Companies House and so forth. But who among the sixteen year olds with a single spell each or possibly One sword is going to have encyclopedic knowledge of such parties? They'd end up looking for names just like usernames on a new service.
Also it clears up the deciding who is and isnt the party. The full members paid their 100gp per level and are entitled to treatment as per the charter re treasure sharing and being brought back from the dead. "Are shares equal or is level a factor".
Also when I went looking for what a cohort calls their leader (no opinions discovered) I found many (many) discussions on where a cohorts equipment comes from, who pays for it, should the party wealth by level be adjusted for them (no), etc. The book says a new cohort is equipped as per an NPC of their level, but after that it sayeth not. So people kept arguing. Like, the people saying a cohort is over powered and they dont allow them at their table and the people saying its really difficult to keep them properly equipped from their share should maybe pay attention to each other's point? But in Cohorts and Companions it actually mentions this as something the *charter* needs to decide, "Do cohorts or hirelings get some portion of the wealth, or is their master responsible for rewarding them?"
Which also is one vote for Master and Cohort. Which seems awkward to me.
But it puts that at the level of 'the party decides and agrees in advance' rather than a rule.
Honestly page 22 seems Incredibly Useful for deciding in advance the kinds of things adventure parties get Really Very Annoyed about, and having people agree in advance seems likely to lower the temperature on a Lot of arguments.
Where people could learn this kind of stuff before they run full tilt into it in universe though... seems like a Pathfinder thing? Like teh Pathfinders aren't an adventurer guild exactly, but they also are. Guild experience would accrue in many advice books, and Pathfinders publish the Chronisles full of hard earned lessons. And if you've got to charter, you could probably get some suggested charters there.
... p22 also advises thinking of a party alignment and keeping everyone within one step of that. Which probably helps answer such questions as do you actually have to help each other in combat. Team Evil's charter could be evil.
... Team Chaos having a charter at all seems counter intuitive, but that runs into the definitions thing again. Like I'm sure Robin Hood and his merry men were very clear on the division of wealth and their obligations to each other, they're just paradigmatically Chaotic Good because they weren't taking top down authority about any of it.
ANYway
I set out looking for Words
because there are a lot of specific Words for specific sorts of cohort
but fewer for the people who have cohorts.
Like, Recruits dont imply the existence of a Recruiter, let alone that they'd address their Recruiter by that word. "Be they students, retainers, new recruits to your order, or neophyte members of your faith, you have access to a small set of dedicated servants." Your recruits have so many words right there, but what do they call you? Teacher? Sir? Leader? Master?
Master is awkward for... several reasons. Because Master of the house, Master of the subject, and Master who owns slaves, are all the same words. Master Journeyman Apprentice encodes a different relationship of power to Master and Slave, as far as I know.
Also when I went looking for word sets I got annoyed, because thrall in the dictionary says it means slave, servant or bondsman, but those are different things. And nobody says what the person who can give the thrall orders is called. English seems to have fewer words for boss than for people you're the boss of. Forms of address, there should be more of them.
Also when I went looking for stacks of words in original language, older versions of English maybe, I still got frustrated at the fuzzy definition, and still didnt find anything about how you'd address the next layer up. Is it just not there or do I not know the search terms?
Wait, google is rubbish looking for things I already know are there, that's going to make it trickier.
Why I ended up back on my own journal was looking for a citation for a thing I remember reading that said English translations frequently introduce gender where no gender is stated or implied. Not just saying policeman where the original word is more like police officer, also saying Lord or Lady, or rather specifically saying Lord as a translation for a particular level of power and according to this one specific book ignoring that the gender just isnt there.
But even my own notes get frustrated because yes the one book said it, but only that one, so then what?
Like, also, I'm frustrated with the subtitles on martial arts movies, because I feel like I'm not understanding the relationships between people, since how they treat each other isnt necessarily something I'd guess from available titles in translations. But is that because English just never did that exact relationship, or because I dont know enough martial arts movies, or because the translator was doing their best, or what?
If we're inventing fantasy worlds we're inventing fantasy relationships of power, and we get to decide what those mean.
But we either go full conlang (I lack the skills)
or we're importing thousands of years of historical assumption with every word.
... actually having the characters work out a Charter *on page* would let you specify what Party and Cohort means *to them*, and then you can stress them accordingly.
But you'll still have to decide what the cohort calls their... leader master instructor knight boss.
I started out with Pathfinder rules, where if you take a Leadership feat you get Followers and also a Cohort. In the skinnier book Cohorts and Companions it elaborates on this so you can also have Recruits, which are like slightly lower level Cohorts but you can have several of them, only one of them following you around on any given day. Companions usually means *animal* companions, which ends up being unflattering to Doctor Who. And there are a lot of very specific versions of cohorts, some of which you get through an archetype, like Instructor and Apprentice for wizards, which can only make the same type of wizard as you are but has rules for letting them go voluntarily and finding a new apprentice. Or there's Torchbearer, Light Bearer, Weapon Bearer, Page, Squire, and Groom, who are all lower level cohorts of a particular limited type. (Many of those are from Ultimate Intrigue, or look them up on Nethys.)
What interests me are the in universe social and legal relationships implied by this stuff. Like there are Adventure Party Charters mentioned in Cohorts and Companions p22, and in some jurisdictions the Party so contractually bound is a legal entity with a specific tax relationship to the state, one which works out as expensive up front but advantageous if you survive the long term. "In some regions [...] characters can pay a fee of 100gp per level for each member to register their charter with the local government, exempting them from salvage taxes on treasure and mitigating fines for collateral damage to property and buildings." [C&Cp22] Of course not every game is going to have taxes etc in the first place, which may be why the associated feat is mentioned but not actually included, anywhere, ever. But it's an interesting try at giving the Party a distinct legal status. They're a business with a difference from mercenary companies, since no one has to hire them and 'salvage' is presumed to be relevant Often. But they're different from everything else too.
Honestly requiring the armed bastards to get a licence seems like an idea with significant utility.
And a new party just setting out isnt going to have the fees handy.
And part of registering is making sure no one else is using the name, like Companies House and so forth. But who among the sixteen year olds with a single spell each or possibly One sword is going to have encyclopedic knowledge of such parties? They'd end up looking for names just like usernames on a new service.
Also it clears up the deciding who is and isnt the party. The full members paid their 100gp per level and are entitled to treatment as per the charter re treasure sharing and being brought back from the dead. "Are shares equal or is level a factor".
Also when I went looking for what a cohort calls their leader (no opinions discovered) I found many (many) discussions on where a cohorts equipment comes from, who pays for it, should the party wealth by level be adjusted for them (no), etc. The book says a new cohort is equipped as per an NPC of their level, but after that it sayeth not. So people kept arguing. Like, the people saying a cohort is over powered and they dont allow them at their table and the people saying its really difficult to keep them properly equipped from their share should maybe pay attention to each other's point? But in Cohorts and Companions it actually mentions this as something the *charter* needs to decide, "Do cohorts or hirelings get some portion of the wealth, or is their master responsible for rewarding them?"
Which also is one vote for Master and Cohort. Which seems awkward to me.
But it puts that at the level of 'the party decides and agrees in advance' rather than a rule.
Honestly page 22 seems Incredibly Useful for deciding in advance the kinds of things adventure parties get Really Very Annoyed about, and having people agree in advance seems likely to lower the temperature on a Lot of arguments.
Where people could learn this kind of stuff before they run full tilt into it in universe though... seems like a Pathfinder thing? Like teh Pathfinders aren't an adventurer guild exactly, but they also are. Guild experience would accrue in many advice books, and Pathfinders publish the Chronisles full of hard earned lessons. And if you've got to charter, you could probably get some suggested charters there.
... p22 also advises thinking of a party alignment and keeping everyone within one step of that. Which probably helps answer such questions as do you actually have to help each other in combat. Team Evil's charter could be evil.
... Team Chaos having a charter at all seems counter intuitive, but that runs into the definitions thing again. Like I'm sure Robin Hood and his merry men were very clear on the division of wealth and their obligations to each other, they're just paradigmatically Chaotic Good because they weren't taking top down authority about any of it.
ANYway
I set out looking for Words
because there are a lot of specific Words for specific sorts of cohort
but fewer for the people who have cohorts.
Like, Recruits dont imply the existence of a Recruiter, let alone that they'd address their Recruiter by that word. "Be they students, retainers, new recruits to your order, or neophyte members of your faith, you have access to a small set of dedicated servants." Your recruits have so many words right there, but what do they call you? Teacher? Sir? Leader? Master?
Master is awkward for... several reasons. Because Master of the house, Master of the subject, and Master who owns slaves, are all the same words. Master Journeyman Apprentice encodes a different relationship of power to Master and Slave, as far as I know.
Also when I went looking for word sets I got annoyed, because thrall in the dictionary says it means slave, servant or bondsman, but those are different things. And nobody says what the person who can give the thrall orders is called. English seems to have fewer words for boss than for people you're the boss of. Forms of address, there should be more of them.
Also when I went looking for stacks of words in original language, older versions of English maybe, I still got frustrated at the fuzzy definition, and still didnt find anything about how you'd address the next layer up. Is it just not there or do I not know the search terms?
Wait, google is rubbish looking for things I already know are there, that's going to make it trickier.
Why I ended up back on my own journal was looking for a citation for a thing I remember reading that said English translations frequently introduce gender where no gender is stated or implied. Not just saying policeman where the original word is more like police officer, also saying Lord or Lady, or rather specifically saying Lord as a translation for a particular level of power and according to this one specific book ignoring that the gender just isnt there.
But even my own notes get frustrated because yes the one book said it, but only that one, so then what?
Like, also, I'm frustrated with the subtitles on martial arts movies, because I feel like I'm not understanding the relationships between people, since how they treat each other isnt necessarily something I'd guess from available titles in translations. But is that because English just never did that exact relationship, or because I dont know enough martial arts movies, or because the translator was doing their best, or what?
If we're inventing fantasy worlds we're inventing fantasy relationships of power, and we get to decide what those mean.
But we either go full conlang (I lack the skills)
or we're importing thousands of years of historical assumption with every word.
... actually having the characters work out a Charter *on page* would let you specify what Party and Cohort means *to them*, and then you can stress them accordingly.
But you'll still have to decide what the cohort calls their... leader master instructor knight boss.