|
I stumbled on a thread on another site *GASP* about D&D economies, and that led me into politics.
Now the other site explained how the D&D economy is really a barter economy, exchanging gold for other products and services. He was close. Gold is a Commodity Money. However, in his post he brought up an interesting problem. Each gold coin weighs 0.02 pounds. Which means that a crossbow costs 1 pound of gold, a composite longbow requires 2 pounds of gold, and a heavy repeating crossbow requires 8 pounds of gold. That is not too bad until we start looking at magic items.
Let's look at a suit of Celestial armor, which costs a modest 22,400gp, which is 448 pounds of gold. How are you going to carry that to the merchant, what is he supposed to do with that much gold once he has it?
Then I started looking at the politics of the game world. No complaint really, just trying to figure out the mechanisms of the world. Most countries listed in the Campaign Setting seem to be closely tied with the concept of Nationalism, which is a more modern concept. No problem with that, but I also like feudal societies as well. A nation CAN have a king, but it is more commonly associated with a monarchy, and part of feudalism which leads to the chain of commitments and nobility and also serfs.
These are really just observations really. Not complaints at all. It seems to me, that politically and economically, Golarion is rather advanced (not a bad thing considering it's considerably longer history than ours). They seem poised around the age of the Renaissance with elements of Middle Ages and Industrialization as well.
SOOOOOO my question is, how does nobility operate in this slightly more advanced period? The best I have come up with is closer to the Roman Republic with it's Senate dominated by nobles, or the English Monarchy with a King advised by and laws made by a noble legislature.
And yes I know the answer varies by every State.
Interesting side-note: I realized the United States, is by this definition, not a Nation at all! but rather an old-fashioned country.
Well, as for your coin issue, that is why I have been having 100 coins per pound for about 20 years.Its loosely based on a period of roman coins of similar size and weight. To make it easy I assume the silver and copper coins are actually bigger, so they all are 100 per pound. I generally try to ignore volume.
Except for when influxes or shortages caused the value of gold and silver to fluxuate wildly, the purchasing power of gold through antiquity is surprisingly stable. Also when rulers started debasing/cutting coins, things got unstable as well.
An ounce of gold generally buys enough food for a reasonably healthy diet for a year. Mostly grain with some meat or fish every now and again. Be it wheat or rice or whatever. It would also buy you a suit of clothing suitable to do business in or to even appear in court or at the local forum/cathedral/market square in a major city-- be it a toga or a doublet or something like that.
A silver piece was typically what a labourer would receive for a day's work. A roman silver piece contained about a tenth of a troy ounce of silver. From pretty much the fall of Rome to 1600, the silver/gold ratio was about 18:1 with fluctuations in particular locales caused by unusual events that disrupted the supply of one or another.
A pound of gold for a crossbow is a bit much. Historically that's about the same amount of money that would allow you to eat for 14 years. In today's dollars, a pound of gold would go for about $13,000.
Making a fantasy RPG's economy make sense takes a bit of reworking. One of the reasons for this is that the price of a given weapon might be linked to its stats rather than it's cost. Or it's just a number a game designer picked seemingly randomly. Like the scythe. 18 gold?! For one of the most common farm implements there are? Assuming a smith made five times what a laborer does and take an entire day to make a scythe, and the merchants sells it for 4 times that, you're still only looking at 20 silver pieces. And these are much tinier silver coins (see below). End result-- this over inflated marked up price of a scythe is about 0.4 gp.
A quarter is 0.809 ml in volume. Gold is 19.3 grams per ml. But it won't be pure. It'd likely be about 92% gold and the rest copper and/or silver. Gold is too soft to be pure in coins meant to circulate. So there'd be about 14.25 grams of gold and another gram of copper and silver. So about 15.25 grams per coin if it was the size of a quarter. That's 29.77 coins per pound.
These are monster coins though. The basis for almost all the gold coins of the middle ages was the Florin. It contained 3.5 grams of gold and was .925 fine. So the coin would weigh about 3.65 grams. So there would be 124 per modern pound. A pound varied highly during the middle ages, but a common pound (the Troy pound) was 372 grams, so there'd be about 100 gold pieces per pound.
So if silver pieces are 10 per 1 gold piece, at 18:1 you end up with ridiculously large 55.8 gram silver coins. Each of these would be roughly 7 times the size of a quarter. Historically you have things like silver pfennings which were only 1.36 grams of silver. This too varied by country, with some coins (like the English ones) being diluted with copper and only containing .7-.8 grams of silver.
So basically you have either 124 gold coins per modern pound or 100 (or so) per troy or tower pound. For silver you have 333 coins per modern pound or 273 per troy pound. At ~18:1 one gold piece would be equal to 50 silver pieces.
Copper value fluctuated far more widely than gold and silver and the copper coin was a matter of convenience. If you had enough copper to trade in for a silver coin, you did it because you never knew what the copper coin would be worth in the future. Almost all the cases of inflation during the middle ages was because of copper coin production rather than silver/gold supply changes. For a copper coin to be worth keeping for its copper value, it would have been huge like the copper "cartwheels" that were made for a time in England. In short, the usage of copper coins is pushed down to the poorest of society.
As for platinum, they didn't exist. The first platinum coin wasn't made until 1828. The process to reliably separate platinum from it's ore wasn't perfected until the late 18th century. So there's no historical price for platinum pieces as they didn't exist until the 19th century and even then they were more of a novelty.
I used to be a historical gold and silver coin collector, so I can blather on and on about the history of coinage if anyone wants me too.
I wan't :)
And i know the problem with players owning tons of gold....
Thats why my group and i started to use historical coins. Another thing we made, was to divide most prices by ten so that the silver coin is back as the standard coin.
And as for nationalism in the medieval ages i have to disagree somehow. The modern definition of Nationalism (as for the whole country) is in fact an invention of modern times.
But there definitly was nationalism back there. In germany for example there were big problems between the different principalities which consisted of the old germanic tribes (franks, saxons etc.). And i'm not talking about the nobles but about the common folk. A similar situation existed in eastern germany during the german colonisation (if you can call it so...) of the baltic states where slavic and germanic people lived next to each other.
And there are other examples like Bohemia, France (south and north), Great Britain (Englishmen and Scots) and so on.
So there was something like Nationalism in the medieval ages but the difference was that it applied more to cultural groups or races (i don't find a better word...).
"smart ass mode off"
i hope my scribbling is understandable....
|
[SNIP fascinating stuff!] As for platinum, they didn't exist. The first platinum coin wasn't made until 1828. The process to reliably separate platinum from it's ore wasn't perfected until the late 18th century. So there's no historical price for platinum pieces as they didn't exist until the 19th century and even then they were more of a novelty.
Platinum didn't feel 'fantasy' enough for us (even 'though, in a world with dwarves, alchemy, magic and hordes of underdark-dwellers, it's likely that platinum would be discovered / refined *long* before it was in our world), so we replaced platinum coins with mithral coins (same value as platinum), and added another tier of 'adamantine bits' (which were shaped like little bricks of metal, rectangular for easy stacking, thanks to the dwarven love of fitting as much as possible into a container...) for even larger purchasing power.
We even had general guidelines as to which coinage was popular with what races (elves and halflings preferring mithral and silver, dwarves being fans of gold and adamantine, and humans skipping mithral entirely and making 10x value larger gold coins called 'doubloons' as the next denomination above gold 'pennies').
Some dwarven 'banks' and moneylenders would use coins of brass, bronze, electrum or other alloyed metals, in very specific alloy mixtures (so as to prevent forgery), and with values out of proportion to their metal value (as they were backed up with gold that the dwarven banks hoarded, and functioned sort of like promissary notes, redeemable at any reputable dwarven banking institution!).
And then there were those pesky gnomes, whose currency fluctuated in value due to complex and inexplicable (to other races) rates of exchange, and included tin, copper, iron, silver, gold and flasks of liquid mercury (usually worth about 25 gp). They also had moneylending institutions, but weren't generally considered as reputatable by other races as the dwarven ones (although a gnome would use nothing else, if a gnomish moneychanger was available!). Much of it was from my games, initially, but other DMs built on it, and it's just an agreed convention now that we use mithral instead of platinum, and have adamantine coins for ease of carrying in higher-level play.
The presence of magic (free water, free acid, free stone, free iron, etc.) within a world that has access to spells like create water, acid splash, wall of stone and wall of iron is going to radically mess with the economy, so, while discussions of real-world monetary equivalents in medieval times is fascinating, it's a fairly academic discussion.
By medieval standards, the average CR 12 dragon horde is going to be insane, and magic item prices would begger small kingdoms, considering their relative ease of manufacture, compared to say, a castle or a pyramid or a grand cathedral.
I'm fortunate that none of my players have ever shown the slightest interest in the fantasy 'economy' of whatever setting we are using (other than taking advantage of it, with spells like metamorphose liquids, back in the day), so we can suspend disbelief pretty readily when it comes to matters of financial versimilitude / simulationism.
|
Making a fantasy RPG's economy make sense takes a bit of reworking. One of the reasons for this is that the price of a given weapon might be linked to its stats rather than it's cost. Or it's just a number a game designer picked seemingly randomly. Like the scythe. 18 gold?! For one of the most common farm implements there are? Assuming a smith made five times what a laborer does and take an entire day to make a scythe, and the merchants sells it for 4 times that, you're still only looking at 20 silver pieces. And these are much tinier silver coins (see below). End result-- this over inflated marked up price of a scythe is about 0.4 gp.
I'd love to see a historical list of prices for things in the PHB. I know such a thing couldn't exist because prices had to vary a ton from place to place, and things probably cost "as much as the seller could get for them." Still, assuming a silver standard, what would that stuff have cost?
On the other stuff that has been discussed, 100 coins per pound is nice round number - a bit more feasible yet round enough to work with easily. On the 18:1 with gold and silver, was that gold is worth 18x what silver is, or gold is 18x heavier? (sorry, I'm mid post and can't see the others) Because if it is value, which is mostly determined by scarcity, one could assume that gold is more plentiful on Golarion that Earth, say exactly 10x rarer than silver, resulting in a stable exchange rate of 1gp = 10sp. Oddly, it turns out that copper is exactly 10x more common than silver, resulting in 1sp = 1cp! Not terribly "realistic," but it's hard to escape the utility of base 10 exchange rates. I could skip a 10, and have something like 100cp = 1 sp, but I'd hate to see weird numbers (like 18 sp = 1 gp); just too hard to convert quickly.
I'd simply ignore the "a coin of gold weighs this much" line. Personally, I use an abstract wealth system.
|
MARKET ECONOMY
D&D 3RD EDITION
- LIVESTOCK - CP
- CHICKEN - 2
- GOAT - 100
- SHEEP - 200
- PIG - 300
- COW - 1000
- OX - 1500
- DOG - 2500
- PRIMARY PRODUCE (1LB) - CP
- WHEAT - 1
- TEA - 20
- TOBACCO - 50
- CINNAMON - 100
- GINGER/PEPPER - 200
- SALT - 500
- SAFFRON/CLOVES - 1500
- PRIMARY PRODUCE (TON) - CP
- FIREWOOD - 112
- SECONDARY PRODUCE (GALLON) - CP
- ALE - 20
- COMMON WINE - 36
- FINE WINE - 4266
- SECONDARY PRODUCE (1LB) - CP
- FLOUR - 2
- CHEESE - 20
- MEAT - 60
- LINEN (1 SQU YD) - 400
- SILK (2 SQU YD) - 2000
|
|
EVERY DOG HIS DAY
Bailiff Yano leaned on his Greatsword and smiled at the gathered elves.
"It has come to the attention of Baron Alvard De Johns that you have failed to pay taxes to the De Johns Family for the last five hundred years."
"Who?" Luca Sapwood stood up from examining his latest crop of Potatoes, his compatriots with him.
"Baron Alvard De Johns! His Family have held claim over these lands for many centuries. And you elf pig have failed to pay Tax!"
Sapwood shook his head in ignorance.
Emile Sapwood clicked with awareness.
"You remember...that bandit chap with the horses...we cemented his skull into the stonework above the fireplace about fifty years after the wretch burned down the Barn." Luca remembered pointing a finger and focused his attention on the fellow with the Sword.
"Cepio the Degenerate! I guess he changed the family name."
"Barons you say...well! well!. They have come a long way from baby raping bandits..."
DM BRIEFING: Someone shows up to collect tithe on the PC's Potato farm for their last five hundred years of untaxed bliss. The Thugs (er...Bailiffs) demand 50% of the produce estimated at 25 TONS per acre (Turnip Maximum Yield) for 500 years (or 112,500 TONS).
|
|
I think The most insightful part was:
A Note on Peasant Uprisings
Peasants may seem like they get a crap deal out of life. That's because they do. And regardless of whatever happy peasant propaganda you may have seen, peasants aren't really happy with their life even under Good or Lawful rulership. That's because they work hard hours all year and get nothing to show for it. So the fact that they don't get beaten by Good regimes or stolen from by Lawful regimes doesn't really make them particularly rich or pleased.
In Earth's history, peasant uprisings happened about every other generation in every single county from Europe all the way to China all the way through the entire feudal era (all 1500 years of it). It is not unreasonable to expect that feudal regions in D&D land would have even more peasant uprisings because the visible wealth discrepancies between Rakshasa overlords and halfling dirt farmers is that much more intense. Sure, as in the real world's history these uprisings would rarely win, and even more rarely actually hold territory (if lords can agree on nothing else, it is that the peasants should not be allowed to rise up and kill the lords). The lords are all powerful adventurers, or the family and friends of powerful adventurers, so the frequent peasant revolts are usually put down with fireballs and even cloudkills.
Students of modern economic thought may notice that cutting the remote regions in on a portion of the central government's wealth in order to buy actual loyalty from the hinterlands could quite easily pay itself off in greater stability and the ability to invest in the production of the hinterlands causing the central government's coffers to swell with the enhanced overall economy and making the entire region safer and stronger in times of war – but as noted elsewhere such talk is considered laughable even by Lawfully minded theorists in the D&D world. After all, since abstract currency doesn't see use and the villagers don't have any gold, it is "well known" that it is impossible to make a profit on investment in the villages. The only possible choices involve taking more or less of their food as taxes/loot as that is all they produce.
Most countries listed in the Campaign Setting seem to be closely tied with the concept of Nationalism, which is a more modern concept. No problem with that, but I also like feudal societies as well. A nation CAN have a king, but it is more commonly associated with a monarchy, and part of feudalism which leads to the chain of commitments and nobility and also serfs...
SOOOOOO my question is, how does nobility operate in this slightly more advanced period? The best I have come up with is closer to the Roman Republic with it's Senate...
In Golarion, there aren't too many feudal lands whose economies exist through manorialism (none that I've seen so far, actually). Most realms are quite modern, politically speaking. From kingdom to empire, the lands of Golarion have--from what I can gather--the following traits:
A) A sense of nationalism.
B) Set political borders.
C) Direct taxing systems.
D) A centralized authority.
E) A permanent, professional military under a centralized command structure that anyone can join.
So, yes, all of this is fairly anachronistic. Even the empires don't seem to be true empires, but rather nations, since an empire would require one power ruling over other distinct cultures (e.g., Mayan Civilization vs. Aztec Empire).
I wouldn't say any of these countries are similar to the Roman Republic and its senate. Andoran has the People's Council, but its structure is vastly different, there are no political parties (e.g., the Optimates), no social structure (i.e., patricians, equestrians, plebeians, etc.), no patron/client system, and on and on.
If you want to create a feudal society, you could probably toss one into the River Kingdoms with no trouble. But Golarion's kingdoms are clearly not feudal.
|
|
Most countries listed in the Campaign Setting seem to be closely tied with the concept of Nationalism, which is a more modern concept. No problem with that, but I also like feudal societies as well. A nation CAN have a king, but it is more commonly associated with a monarchy, and part of feudalism which leads to the chain of commitments and nobility and also serfs...
SOOOOOO my question is, how does nobility operate in this slightly more advanced period? The best I have come up with is closer to the Roman Republic with it's Senate...In Golarion, there aren't too many feudal lands whose economies exist through manorialism (none that I've seen so far, actually). Most realms are quite modern, politically speaking. From kingdom to empire, the lands of Golarion have--from what I can gather--the following traits:
A) A sense of nationalism.
B) Set political borders.
C) Direct taxing systems.
D) A centralized authority.
E) A permanent, professional military under a centralized command structure that anyone can join.So, yes, all of this is fairly anachronistic. Even the empires don't seem to be true empires, but rather nations, since an empire would require one power ruling over other distinct cultures (e.g., Mayan Civilization vs. Aztec Empire).
I wouldn't say any of these countries are similar to the Roman Republic and its senate. Andoran has the People's Council, but its structure is vastly different, there are no political parties (e.g., the Optimates), no social structure (i.e., patricians, equestrians, plebeians, etc.), no patron/client system, and on and on.
If you want to create a feudal society, you could probably toss one into the River Kingdoms with no trouble. But Golarion's kingdoms are clearly not feudal.
Well, I am thinking maybe a new kingdom just off the map somewhere would work for a feudal society. Granted I am not 100% dead set on I NEED a feudal society. More than anything I think it was a realization and observation.
Quite honestly the more I research historical politics and economics the more completely alien it seems to me and difficult to wrap my head around it.
For example in ancient Egypt, the total product of the kingdom belonged to the Pharaoh. Farmer peasants raised crops and cattle, which the Pharaoh would collect for famine, and collect to feed other peasants, for which the farmer peasant received some payment so he could buy other products needed. The artisans made their wares the same way, and real art was always the property of the Pharaoh. There was no concept at all of capitalism, or of profit. International trade was conducted by the Pharaoh, gold for wood or ivory, things that Egypt could not supply on its own. This trade was actually gifts to other kings who in turn sent gifts back to Egypt. Their entire economy was a circle with the Pharaoh at the center, directing and owning everything. A similar system existed in the Greek city-states.
Rome was even weirder!
So in a nut shell, I am content with the more modern societies that I can actually comprehend.
|
|
Making a fantasy RPG's economy make sense takes a bit of reworking. One of the reasons for this is that the price of a given weapon might be linked to its stats rather than it's cost. Or it's just a number a game designer picked seemingly randomly. Like the scythe. 18 gold?! For one of the most common farm implements there are? Assuming a smith made five times what a laborer does and take an entire day to make a scythe, and the merchants sells it for 4 times that, you're still only looking at 20 silver pieces. And these are much tinier silver coins (see below). End result-- this over inflated marked up price of a scythe is about 0.4 gp.I'd love to see a historical list of prices for things in the PHB. I know such a thing couldn't exist because prices had to vary a ton from place to place, and things probably cost "as much as the seller could get for them." Still, assuming a silver standard, what would that stuff have cost?
On the other stuff that has been discussed, 100 coins per pound is nice round number - a bit more feasible yet round enough to work with easily. On the 18:1 with gold and silver, was that gold is worth 18x what silver is, or gold is 18x heavier? (sorry, I'm mid post and can't see the others) Because if it is value, which is mostly determined by scarcity, one could assume that gold is more plentiful on Golarion that Earth, say exactly 10x rarer than silver, resulting in a stable exchange rate of 1gp = 10sp. Oddly, it turns out that copper is exactly 10x more common than silver, resulting in 1sp = 1cp! Not terribly "realistic," but it's hard to escape the utility of base 10 exchange rates. I could skip a 10, and have something like 100cp = 1 sp, but I'd hate to see weird numbers (like 18 sp = 1 gp); just too hard to convert quickly.
Well, according to above, a gold coin about the size of a quarter would weigh about 5-6 grams which would be approximately 100 per pound, or 0.01 pounds per coin. Half the weight of standard D&D. I think this is the size/weight I intend to use.
Then also, almost every treatise on fantasy economies admits that the fantasy world almost always has more precious metals available, and also fewer people so the value is less (as an example large cities on earth during an approximate similar tech period-without magic of course- could easily be over 1 million, yet the largest city in Golarion only has 303,000). In addition, if you want an exchange rate of exactly 10:1 you vary the weights of the coins so that they exactly equal that- barring inflation/deflation.
I expect that the Church of Abbadar has greatly influenced the world economy and essentially established the standards of coin size, weight and purity. I also expect that for very large transactions, in the thousands of gold ranges, the Church also issues letters of credit to avoid adventurers going around with a few dozen wheel barrows of gold to buy their magic gear.
I'm fortunate that none of my players have ever shown the slightest interest in the fantasy 'economy' of whatever setting we are using (other than taking advantage of it, with spells like metamorphose liquids, back in the day), so we can suspend disbelief pretty readily when it comes to matters of financial versimilitude / simulationism.
Amen. The primary use of money in D&D is to (a) ensure the PCs can get some cool equipment and (b) allow the players to say "I'm rich! I'm rich!" if they want to (or, alternatively, to say "I'm such a nice guy" if they prefer to give it to charity).
|
|
I wan't :)
And i know the problem with players owning tons of gold....
Thats why my group and i started to use historical coins. Another thing we made, was to divide most prices by ten so that the silver coin is back as the standard coin.And as for nationalism in the medieval ages i have to disagree somehow. The modern definition of Nationalism (as for the whole country) is in fact an invention of modern times.
But there definitly was nationalism back there. In germany for example there were big problems between the different principalities which consisted of the old germanic tribes (franks, saxons etc.). And i'm not talking about the nobles but about the common folk. A similar situation existed in eastern germany during the german colonisation (if you can call it so...) of the baltic states where slavic and germanic people lived next to each other.
And there are other examples like Bohemia, France (south and north), Great Britain (Englishmen and Scots) and so on.
So there was something like Nationalism in the medieval ages but the difference was that it applied more to cultural groups or races (i don't find a better word...).
"smart ass mode off"i hope my scribbling is understandable....
I agree that I would prefer to see a D&D economy using the silver standard. The DMG says that it is based upon the silver piece, but adventurers generally buy expensive things in gold. Yet even the cheapest stuf is often out of reach of a laborer.
I think the way you are describing the sense of identity in the middle ages is more of a sense of tribalism than nationalism. If it were nationalism, then there would not have been disputes INSIDE Germany or France, but rather disputes BETWEEN Germany and France *ahem* (yes I know there were disputes between them, but the point is, that disputes between Bohemia/France, England/Scotland, Franks/Saxons indicates a tribal identity rather than a national identity)
I had another gigantic post dealing with all sorts of stuff, but it got eaten when I hit preview. Note to self: copy all posts into the clipboard before previewing.
Anyway, here's a bullet form summary:
Golarion is also higher tech than feudal Europe. It has the printing press which historically marks the beginning of the end of the middle ages.
Elements of manorialism survived longer than others. Serfdom was around in Europe well into the 19th century.
The gold/silver ratio is a direct result of their ratios in ore. Change that and you change the ratio of value.
With 10:1 and 50 coins per pound, the gold coins are half the size of a quarter and the silver coins are the size of a quarter.
With 18:1 but 10:1 by coin value, the gold coins are historical 100 to a pound florin type coins, but the silver coins are larger and are 50 to a pound and are the size of quarters. 1 gp = 10 sp but silver coins weigh more. The reason it's not exact, is that alloys are added as needed.
Another thing that gives gold and silver authority beyond their desirability in a barter system is the development of legal tender laws. The root of these is in taxation. If a local government says they will accept gold and silver in payment of taxes, they will become defacto legal tender.
Thispost is awesome, but it misses out on the utility of gold/silver for the common peasant in the form of paying their taxes. A local guy might very well let you stay in his barn for silver/gold rather than labour, because it covers his tax debt so he can keep his turnips and have more food security.
Set's use of Mithral and Adamantine is awesome. Consider it stolen. Platinum is far more likely to have alchemical uses and require alchemy to refine the ore. It's not as suitable for money as something as useful as mithral would be.
Classic moneylender/goldsmith scheme: issue more promissory notes than you have gold to back them up. As long as you don't get a run on the bank, no one will find out.
Dwarves are on the decline in Golarion. I'd say that dwarves in banking would likely be found in human cities. Similarly, humans could use dwarven employees and ideas to put similar banks into place. The temples of Abadar would be natural locations for a bank.
Historical prices for the PHB would be a factor of pay for the blacksmith and profit to cover extra expenses. Farmers and the like who couldn't afford the merchant's prices would trade food directly with the blacksmith. Generally speaking, figure out how many hours it would take to make the thing and the item costs 2 silver pieces per hour. So a long sword would be very expensive as it's a long process and requires more technological knowledge to work with steel rather than iron, but a spear or a scythe would be cheap.
Consider removing copper pieces entirely. There's a reason a quarter is called 2 bits. It's because the silver dollar was chopped into 8 pieces to make change. A quarter of those eight pieces would be 2 bits out of 8. Silver coins could easily be chopped smaller pieces and merchants have scales and weigh them as needed.
|
|
I think The most insightful part was:
A Note on Peasant Uprisings
Peasants may seem like they get a crap deal out of life. That's because they do. And regardless of whatever happy peasant propaganda you may have seen, peasants aren't really happy with their life even under Good or Lawful rulership. That's because they work hard hours all year and get nothing to show for it. So the fact that they don't get beaten by Good regimes or stolen from by Lawful regimes doesn't really make them particularly rich or pleased.
In Earth's history, peasant uprisings happened about every other generation in every single county from Europe all the way to China all the way through the entire feudal era (all 1500 years of it). It is not unreasonable to expect that feudal regions in D&D land would have even more peasant uprisings because the visible wealth discrepancies between Rakshasa overlords and halfling dirt farmers is that much more intense. Sure, as in the real world's history these uprisings would rarely win, and even more rarely actually hold territory (if lords can agree on nothing else, it is that the peasants should not be allowed to rise up and kill the lords). The lords are all powerful adventurers, or the family and friends of powerful adventurers, so the frequent peasant revolts are usually put down with fireballs and even cloudkills.Students of modern economic thought may notice that cutting the remote regions in on a portion of the central government's wealth in order to buy actual loyalty from the hinterlands could quite easily pay itself off in greater stability and the ability to invest in the production of the hinterlands causing the central government's coffers to swell with the enhanced overall economy and making the entire region safer and stronger in times of war – but as noted elsewhere such talk is considered laughable even by Lawfully minded theorists in the D&D world. After all, since abstract currency doesn't see use and the villagers don't have any gold, it is "well known" that it...
Historically the idea of profit was alien to most people and certainly peasants. Feudalism was a sort of warped and perverted communism. The lord owned all the land. He was obligated to ensure the safety of his serfs and villeins. He usually allowed them some land, spread out over his lands, to harvest as their own, but they worked the land as a co-op. This food was distributed by the lord and sold to other workers who made shoes, or horseshoes or whatever. The money flowed from the lord as did the resources, which was all owned by the lord. So the concept of a peasant making a profit on his work was alien to him.
Also, I am not sure "uprising" is exactly the term I would use. To me uprising is very similar to rebellion, an attempt of the common people to overthrow their leadership and create their own leadership. Riot would be more like it. They seldom had a coordinated leadership, and no long term will to fight a prolonged battle, and certainly not the resources.
The United States had the Whiskey Rebellion, which was really more of a Whiskey Riot.
|
|
I had another gigantic post dealing with all sorts of stuff, but it got eaten when I hit preview. Note to self: copy all posts into the clipboard before previewing.
Anyway, here's a bullet form summary:
Golarion is also higher tech than feudal Europe. It has the printing press which historically marks the beginning of the end of the middle ages.
Elements of manorialism survived longer than others. Serfdom was around in Europe well into the 19th century.
The gold/silver ratio is a direct result of their ratios in ore. Change that and you change the ratio of value.
With 10:1 and 50 coins per pound, the gold coins are half the size of a quarter and the silver coins are the size of a quarter.
With 18:1 but 10:1 by coin value, the gold coins are historical 100 to a pound florin type coins, but the silver coins are larger and are 50 to a pound and are the size of quarters. 1 gp = 10 sp but silver coins weigh more. The reason it's not exact, is that alloys are added as needed.
Another thing that gives gold and silver authority beyond their desirability in a barter system is the development of legal tender laws. The root of these is in taxation. If a local government says they will accept gold and silver in payment of taxes, they will become defacto legal tender.
Thispost
is awesome, but it misses out on the utility of gold/silver for the common peasant in the form of paying their taxes. A local guy might very well let you stay in his barn for silver/gold rather than labour, because it covers his tax debt so he can keep his turnips and have more food security.Set's use of Mithral and Adamantine is awesome. Consider it stolen. Platinum is far more likely to have alchemical uses and require alchemy to refine the ore. It's not as suitable for money as something as useful as mithral would be.
Classic moneylender/goldsmith scheme: issue more...
I have the Church of Abbadar as THE banking system in the world (Think real world Templars when they were around). They pave the way for real international economies. I also have it that the Church is the ones that set that values of coinage at exactly a 10: ratio (their lawful/orderly values). The exact purity of the coins I am not too worried about, nor exact sizes (thinking perhaps gold the size of a nickel now, and silver the size of a quarter with varying amounts of alloys needed to keep the proper value- maybe not).
Personally I am going to have the gold coin the highest commonly traded coin. Beyond a gold coin, Abbadar letters are credit are the common medium of exchange.
And remember gold and silver coins are not a batter economy, but rather a commodity money economy- slightly different.
I have the Church of Abbadar as THE banking system in the world (Think real world Templars when they were around). They pave the way for real international economies. I also have it that the Church is the ones that set that values of coinage at exactly a 10: ratio (their lawful/orderly values). The exact purity of the coins I am not too worried about, nor exact sizes (thinking perhaps gold the size of a nickel now, and silver the size of a quarter with varying amounts of alloys needed to keep the proper value- maybe not).
It completely makes sense for the Church of Abadar to be the central bank for most nations and city states in Golarion. The nickle and quarter thing is close to being about right as far as the actual density of gold and silver are concerned. .803 ml for the quarter and .59 ml for the nickle. If the silver ones are pure and there's a 10:1 ratio in value, the nickle sized gold pieces would be 74% gold and the rest copper and silver (an alloy called Billon when used in coins). The end result is a very bright gold coin that looks like pure gold but is much stronger and resistant to wear and tear. It's also and easy alloy to melt down and separate.
Personally I am going to have the gold coin the highest commonly traded coin. Beyond a gold coin, Abbadar letters are credit are the common medium of exchange.
This is how it happened historically. A gold smith would have a vault and issue letters of credit on deposits there. The Church of Abadar is the perfect candidate for this as they are far, far less likely to be crooked fraud artists than bankers of our world. If I had the choice between putting my gold in a temple of Abadar or some private gold smith, I'd choose the temple of Abadar every time.
And remember gold and silver coins are not a batter economy, but rather a commodity money economy- slightly different.
Absolutely. And what makes this so is the approval of gold and silver as a method of payment of taxes. That's the route of any legal tender that's not part of a barter economy.
Historically the idea of profit was alien to most people and certainly peasants. Feudalism was a sort of warped and perverted communism. The lord owned all the land. He was obligated to ensure the safety of his serfs and villeins. He usually allowed them some land, spread out over his lands, to harvest as their own, but they worked the land as a co-op. This food was distributed by the lord and sold to other workers who made shoes, or horseshoes or whatever. The money flowed from the lord as did the resources, which was all owned by the lord. So the concept of a peasant making a profit on his work was alien to him.
This is mostly true, but the lord didn't own squat. The lord was a vassal in service to the king, who in fact owned everything. (The king could show up with his entire retinue at any time and demand food and shelter.) The vassal was granted a fief (which was oftentimes land, but not always), and for this the lord owed the king military service. In turn, serfs worked on his manor in exchange for food, shelter, and protection. The lord would also allow freeholders to work his land in exchange for rent or yeomanry.
The serfs, though, would work their "own" land, but they also had to provide labor for the lord, by working on his demesne: planting and plowing fields, chopping down trees so the lord could sell the timber, mining, quarrying, and so on. Serfs could sell their own excess food after taking what they needed to survive and paying taxes to the lord, but most likely they would barely be able to scratch enough out of their meager plots to feed themselves.
Yeah, tribalism was the word i was searching for. And you are right, the Nations of Golarion are much more modern than our nations in the medieval ages.
But i still dare to say that there was something like nationalism during the medieval ages. Scotland vs. England (the never ending story :); Germany (especially the teutonic order) against Poland and Lithuania; Spain (or Castille and Aragon if you like) against the Almohads; Normans against the rest of the world (kind of...), the Ottoman Empire against Byzantium....
I know this conflicts began because some King or Duke was powerhungry (which is imho the normal way how wars start. be it a nation, a kingdom or a democracy) but i bet that the soldiers were motivated through the fact that they were fighting foreigners.
Yeah, tribalism was the word i was searching for. And you are right, the Nations of Golarion are much more modern than our nations in the medieval ages.
But i still dare to say that there was something like nationalism during the medieval ages. Scotland vs. England (the never ending story :); Germany (especially the teutonic order) against Poland and Lithuania; Spain (or Castille and Aragon if you like) against the Almohads; Normans against the rest of the world (kind of...), the Ottoman Empire against Byzantium....
I know this conflicts began because some King or Duke was powerhungry (which is imho the normal way how wars start. be it a nation, a kingdom or a democracy) but i bet that the soldiers were motivated through the fact that they were fighting foreigners.
Those are certainly elements of nationalism, but they fall woefully short of capturing the level of nationalism that exists in Golarion. Those are more examples of cultures vs. cultures. Just because a culture recognizes "foreigners" doesn't mean they operate under nationalism.
Consider the Greeks vs. the Persians during the Greco-Persian wars. Or consider the various Gallic tribes who allied under Vercingetorix to fight Julius Caesar. These were similar people who shared cultures and languages who banded together against hostile forces, but they did not share one nation.
The Byzantines (a name that did not exist when they did, fyi) called themselves Rhomaioi, or Romans, as they were the Eastern Roman Empire and the inheritors of that culture. However, their unifying beliefs were less about "I was born within this geo-political border, therefore I'm a Roman" and more to the fact that they believed they were the spiritual successors of Constantine, and thus the true followers of Christ. The war with the Ottoman Turks was more about Christian vs. Muslim and less nation vs. nation. Also don't forget, that the Romans were rulers of an empire, which ruled by force various lands and cultures, of whom none saw themselves as Roman, but rather subjects under Roman rule.
Those are certainly elements of nationalism, but they fall woefully short of capturing the level of nationalism that exists in Golarion.
I'm not intending to be an ass by asking this, but can you give me an example? I have a decent amount of the Pathfinder Chronicles books as well as some APs, so I can look up sections on different countries if you've got a specific example or even a page number.
Then if you wouldn't mind, let me know what criteria you are using to distinguish modern nationalism from tribalism (or whatever you want to call the more local medieval analogue of nationalism) and how the specific example in Golarion meets or doesn't meet those criteria.
I'm not saying I disagree, but I need to get up to speed in understanding exactly what you're talking about before I chime in.
(I hope this post didn't come across as an adversarial "prove it with a page reference" type post-- cause that's not what I meant)
Yeah i'd have to agree that byzantium was a bad example. But what is then the difference between a turkish community ruled by Byzantium and a Taldan community ruled by cheliax ?
And as for the greeks: if the different poleis weren't the same things as nations (small ones) then i really don't know what defines a nation. Or what is with all of the gallic tribes? Wouldn't you call them nations?
I know, i know, a nation is defined by its geographical boundaries and a tribe or culture is defined by the people who live in it.
I just don't see the big difference everybody is seeing. And well i also think that since Napoleon "invented" or "reinvented" (imho the romans and other antique states invented it) the concept of nationalism, it was exaggerated vastly.
And i already agreed that Golarion is much more modern than our past i just disagree that nationalism is such a new invention. The scope was just much smaller.
Ok enough editing. I think it's understandable. Good night folks
And well i also think that since Napoleon "invented" or "reinvented" (imho the romans and other antique states invented it) the concept of nationalism,
Remember though, that Napoleon was a massive admirer and student of the classics. As Emperor, he put in place many ideas from Greek and Roman thought.
Spain (or Castille and Aragon if you like) against the Almohads
I'm no student of the genesis of modern nationalisms, but I've read references to something of a sort of proto-nationalism emerging in the course of the Reconquista. Granted this was in a book about the Reformation so I don't know that it's state of the art scholarship either. The author might have been using a sort of shorthand to describe a kind of more militant Iberian style of Catholicism that got generalized and applied to Protestants in the Catholic Reformation that resembles nationalism but isn't really exactly it either.
It makes a great deal of sense to me that a religion could be the subject of something effectively identical to nationalism, but most religions are treated as trans-national phenomena. Then again that could be a presentist assumption considering such nationalistic movements as Gallicanism or WWII-style State Shinto and Nicherin Shoshu Buddhism, of which I know few particulars.
It seems I started this post with something to say and ended up with questions instead. :)
And i already agreed that Golarion is much more modern than our past i just disagree that nationalism is such a new invention. The scope was just much smaller.
Ok enough editing. I think it's understandable. Good night folks
Maybe the term is at issue? Perhaps polity consciousness?
I sort of agree with you that the fundamental Us-and-Them of nationalism isn't really a modern invention. But a nation-state itself is relatively recent, at least as a kind of norm in the developed world. (And it's not always the norm there either as we occasionally see in Belgium, the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia, Quebec, and similar situations, along with the multitude of separatist movements.)
National sovereignty was the big innovation at Westphalia and one could consider that a necessary component of modern nationalism, but I'm not sure of it.
Those are certainly elements of nationalism, but they fall woefully short of capturing the level of nationalism that exists in Golarion.I'm not intending to be an ass by asking this, but can you give me an example? I have a decent amount of the Pathfinder Chronicles books as well as some APs, so I can look up sections on different countries if you've got a specific example or even a page number.
Then if you wouldn't mind, let me know what criteria you are using to distinguish modern nationalism from tribalism (or whatever you want to call the more local medieval analogue of nationalism) and how the specific example in Golarion meets or doesn't meet those criteria.
I'm not saying I disagree, but I need to get up to speed in understanding exactly what you're talking about before I chime in.
(I hope this post didn't come across as an adversarial "prove it with a page reference" type post-- cause that's not what I meant)
I don't have any page numbers handy, but just keep an eye out for these more modern conventions: geo-political borders that determine ones citizenship; a centralized government that presents the same, codified laws across the entire nation; a system of government officials and bureaucrats that ensures one side of the nation operates the same as the other; a national flag; a standing, *career* military that is centrally controlled; the ability to rise in rank within said military, go to a completely different unit in a completely different part of the land, and still hold your same rank and authority; and all of it held together by a shared sense of ideologies, culture, and national unity, as opposed to sheer force by whoever is the most powerful at the time.
Yeah i'd have to agree that byzantium was a bad example. But what is then the difference between a turkish community ruled by Byzantium and a Taldan community ruled by cheliax ?
And as for the greeks: if the different poleis weren't the same things as nations (small ones) then i really don't know what defines a nation. Or what is with all of the gallic tribes? Wouldn't you call them nations?
I know, i know, a nation is defined by its geographical boundaries and a tribe or culture is defined by the people who live in it.
I just don't see the big difference everybody is seeing. And well i also think that since Napoleon "invented" or "reinvented" (imho the romans and other antique states invented it) the concept of nationalism, it was exaggerated vastly.
And i already agreed that Golarion is much more modern than our past i just disagree that nationalism is such a new invention. The scope was just much smaller.
Ok enough editing. I think it's understandable. Good night folks
Well, I admit that on a semantic level this is all very academic. But I'm mainly refering to the lack of period-specific governmental models in lieu of more modern ones, which was what the OP was talking about. In that, the way these more ancient and medieval societies worked don't really have an example in Golarion (I think it was feudalism he was talking about?), but rather more modern nation states.
|
|
CAMPAIGN DEVELOPMENT: ECONOMICS IN A D&D PERSPECTIVE
“Burn the Wheat Fields!”In D&D there are Shortages not Surpluses. The distance between the wheat and the bakery is the price multiplier.
THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND
"Stand and Deliver!"In a Shortage Economy, Piracy is a legitimate process of redistribution. If social grouping X doesn’t supply a surplus for the use of social grouping Y, Y invades X and Kills them and take what they need. The economic system of X (just enough for us) fails through its own destruction and the economic system of Y succeeds.
Ok i think i'm starting to get it :)
Even though i'm not really happy about the absence of feudal states...
But hey, thats what i have my Imagination for, right?
Ok i think i'm starting to get it :)
Even though i'm not really happy about the absence of feudal states...
But hey, thats what i have my Imagination for, right?
Well, Golarion is a big place, and there's room for everything! You never know, something might pop up sooner or later. =)
|
|
Historically the idea of profit was alien to most people and certainly peasants. Feudalism was a sort of warped and perverted communism. The lord owned all the land. He was obligated to ensure the safety of his serfs and villeins. He usually allowed them some land, spread out over his lands, to harvest as their own, but they worked the land as a co-op. This food was distributed by the lord and sold to other workers who made shoes, or horseshoes or whatever. The money flowed from the lord as did the resources, which was all owned by the lord. So the concept of a peasant making a profit on his work was alien to him.This is mostly true, but the lord didn't own squat. The lord was a vassal in service to the king, who in fact owned everything. (The king could show up with his entire retinue at any time and demand food and shelter.) The vassal was granted a fief (which was oftentimes land, but not always), and for this the lord owed the king military service. In turn, serfs worked on his manor in exchange for food, shelter, and protection. The lord would also allow freeholders to work his land in exchange for rent or yeomanry.
The serfs, though, would work their "own" land, but they also had to provide labor for the lord, by working on his demesne: planting and plowing fields, chopping down trees so the lord could sell the timber, mining, quarrying, and so on. Serfs could sell their own excess food after taking what they needed to survive and paying taxes to the lord, but most likely they would barely be able to scratch enough out of their meager plots to feed themselves.
Well, not exactly. The King owned everything yes, but he secured his own power be extracting oaths from the vassals. These oaths included the raising of an army. The king did not have a standing army. Instead he had to make a demand from his vassals the soldiers, and usually they followed their own lord rather than the King into battle. The feudal system was one of shared oaths that provided power and security and in theory, the common good. And don't forget the King had oaths to the vassals as well. It was a sort of checks and balances that did a poor job for the most part, yet in theory would have been fine- until greed and power lust got in the way.
|
|
Yeah i'd have to agree that byzantium was a bad example. But what is then the difference between a turkish community ruled by Byzantium and a Taldan community ruled by cheliax ?
And as for the greeks: if the different poleis weren't the same things as nations (small ones) then i really don't know what defines a nation. Or what is with all of the gallic tribes? Wouldn't you call them nations?
I know, i know, a nation is defined by its geographical boundaries and a tribe or culture is defined by the people who live in it.
I just don't see the big difference everybody is seeing. And well i also think that since Napoleon "invented" or "reinvented" (imho the romans and other antique states invented it) the concept of nationalism, it was exaggerated vastly.
And i already agreed that Golarion is much more modern than our past i just disagree that nationalism is such a new invention. The scope was just much smaller.
Ok enough editing. I think it's understandable. Good night folks
The were city-states, not nations. The Gallic tribes were... ummm tribes, not nations. Look up the definition of nation first. I provided links in the very first post. There is a difference between a state, a tribe, a country and a nation.
A nation has far less to do with boundaries than a sense of self, which is different from a tribe. A tribe is connected by a PERCEIVED biological relationship... family, and a clan is part of a tribe and composed of many families. A nation, if you will, is composed of many peoples (tribes if must be) who have abandoned individual identities, and share a common history, language, culture and yes borders. A nation is BIGGER than a tribe.
If you look up the definitions of nation, even the concept of nation, it doesn't exist at all prior to a few centuries ago.
And Napoleon did not invite the concept of nationalism at all. The United States MIGHT be the first country to embrace nationalism. The French Revolution (prior to Napoleon) was nationalism taken to an extreme, therefore the concept predates Napoleon.
Well, not exactly. The King owned everything yes, but he secured his own power be extracting oaths from the vassals. These oaths included the raising of an army. The king did not have a standing army. Instead he had to make a demand from his vassals the soldiers, and usually they followed their own lord rather than the King into battle. The feudal system was one of shared...
Yeah, that's what I said: "The vassal was granted a fief (which was oftentimes land, but not always), and for this the lord owed the king military service."
Interestingly, this takes us back to nationalism; once direct taxing was in place, and the people were swearing loyalty to the nation instead of their respective lords, the king could afford a standing army (or mercenaries) and didn't need the feudal system for armies anymore.
|
|
Ok i think i'm starting to get it :)
Even though i'm not really happy about the absence of feudal states...
But hey, thats what i have my Imagination for, right?
I was hoping, at first, for a more feudal society as well. The more I have been reading about real feudal societies the more glad I am in not seeing them, or any other ancient form of government and identity. Mainly because I have a hard time wrapping my little brain around these concepts from a modern point of view. The economy parts are the parts that just floor me. The idea of a profit didn't exist in feudal societies (from what I have read-could be wrong).
Now I want to read more on the merchant princes of Italy, and how that concept came about.
BTW, I really don't mean to sound like some kind of authority at all here. I have been reading LOTS of stuff all over, and was a former political science major (HATED IT). I have absolutely no doubts that some stuff I say is in error, but the concept is in the right direction anyway. :)
|
|
Well, not exactly. The King owned everything yes, but he secured his own power be extracting oaths from the vassals. These oaths included the raising of an army. The king did not have a standing army. Instead he had to make a demand from his vassals the soldiers, and usually they followed their own lord rather than the King into battle. The feudal system was one of shared...
Yeah, that's what I said: "The vassal was granted a fief (which was oftentimes land, but not always), and for this the lord owed the king military service."
Interestingly, this takes us back to nationalism; once direct taxing was in place, and the people were swearing loyalty to the nation instead of their respective lords, the king could afford a standing army (or mercenaries) and didn't need the feudal system for armies anymore.
Oh sorry! :) I get confused easily lol :)
Honestly some of the concepts are just hard to believe!
Ok i think i'm starting to get it :)
Even though i'm not really happy about the absence of feudal states...
But hey, thats what i have my Imagination for, right?I was hoping, at first, for a more feudal society as well. The more I have been reading about real feudal societies the more glad I am in not seeing them, or any other ancient form of government and identity. Mainly because I have a hard time wrapping my little brain around these concepts from a modern point of view. The economy parts are the parts that just floor me. The idea of a profit didn't exist in feudal societies (from what I have read-could be wrong).
Now I want to read more on the merchant princes of Italy, and how that concept came about.
BTW, I really don't mean to sound like some kind of authority at all here. I have been reading LOTS of stuff all over, and was a former political science major (HATED IT). I have absolutely no doubts that some stuff I say is in error, but the concept is in the right direction anyway. :)
My degree was in history & English, and a lot of the stuff still escapes me. Fortunately, I still have about 100 books on these various periods, plus a lot of old essays I wrote. But really, even experts on these things have to just choose ONE area and stick to it.
But, I think these boards are the best place to find out this kind of thing, because there are a lot of people with varied interests who can shed a little light.
Oh sorry! :) I get confused easily lol :)Honestly some of the concepts are just hard to believe!
Hey, that's cool! If you're really interested in learning this stuff and have questions, fire away. If I don't know the answer, I might be able to find it in one these damn books, lol.
|
|
Well, for giggles and grins I decided to look up info on American coins, just to get an idea of weights. And already being a bit familiar with American coins I could get an idea of size.
So, for most of American history (since 1834) the gold dollar contained approximately 1.5 grams, which is 0.003 pounds (333 coins per pound).
Silver dollars contained about 14.5 grams of silver, or .031 pounds (32 coins per pound).
Unfortunately, all I have info on so far is the actual gold and silver content, not other metals.
So, the D&D currency is based upon a 10:1 ratio, whereas American, where as the American currency was 16:1. For a fantasy world I can accept a 10:1 ratio for ease of use.
So, I am thinking screw it! lol For game purposes 50 coins per pound is fine enough. I would prefer 200 per pound, but not worth the effort to mess with.
I will go ahead and use 1,000cp=100sp=10gp=1pp as a standard everywhere. I'll just assume Abbadar likes that arrangement and he proclaimed it the fair system of currency accepted by his church.
I think I will add bars, or ingots, as well. A 25 pound gold ingot is worth 1,250gp, and a 25 pound platinum ingot is worth 12,500gp. Obviously these are rarely traded outside trade houses, churches and governments.
Just imagine the look in the PC's eyes when you tell them the ship sank with 200 platinum ingots onboard (2,500,000gp), bound for the Absalom church of Abbadar.
Interestingly, this takes us back to nationalism; once direct taxing was in place, and the people were swearing loyalty to the nation instead of their respective lords, the king could afford a standing army (or mercenaries) and didn't need the feudal system for armies anymore.
But direct taxation that went to the nation's coffers and the transition from feudalism to identifying with a national monarch happened in the middle ages. You can definitely have a medieval flavour and still have a post-feudal national monarchy without having too much of a flavour of anachronistically nationalism present.
After looking at the identifying factors that you provided for nationalism, I took a look at the descriptions of the areas in the campaign setting and am begging to think that the nationalist factors are present mostly out of a modern sense of how to present and describe a region.
There are obviously exceptions of course. You have the analogue of the Robespierre years of the French Revolution. Gothic Ustalav is similar in its societal makeup to 18th century Eastern Europe. The Land of the Linnorn Kings is like Norway in the Viking Age (8th to 11th century).
|
|
I have the Church of Abbadar as THE banking system in the world (Think real world Templars when they were around). They pave the way for real international economies. I also have it that the Church is the ones that set that values of coinage at exactly a 10: ratio (their lawful/orderly values). The exact purity of the coins I am not too worried about, nor exact sizes (thinking perhaps gold the size of a nickel now, and silver the size of a quarter with varying amounts of alloys needed to keep the proper value- maybe not).It completely makes sense for the Church of Abadar to be the central bank for most nations and city states in Golarion. The nickle and quarter thing is close to being about right as far as the actual density of gold and silver are concerned. .803 ml for the quarter and .59 ml for the nickle. If the silver ones are pure and there's a 10:1 ratio in value, the nickle sized gold pieces would be 74% gold and the rest copper and silver (an alloy called Billon when used in coins). The end result is a very bright gold coin that looks like pure gold but is much stronger and resistant to wear and tear. It's also and easy alloy to melt down and separate.
Personally I am going to have the gold coin the highest commonly traded coin. Beyond a gold coin, Abbadar letters are credit are the common medium of exchange.This is how it happened historically. A gold smith would have a vault and issue letters of credit on deposits there. The Church of Abadar is the perfect candidate for this as they are far, far less likely to be crooked fraud artists than bankers of our world. If I had the choice between putting my gold in a temple of Abadar or some private gold smith, I'd choose the temple of Abadar every time.
And remember gold and silver coins are not a batter economy, but rather a commodity money economy- slightly different.Absolutely. And what makes this so is the approval of gold and silver as a method of payment of...
But if you remember, Philip of France crushed the Templars for refusing to gift him more rather than grant him a loan based on the surrender of collateral on default.
|
|
Lucky you are not playing 4E. That 'points of light' memo has given us a stateless campaign...literally.Ok i think i'm starting to get it :)
Even though i'm not really happy about the absence of feudal states...
But hey, thats what i have my Imagination for, right?
ummm... what? Point of Light? Stateless? I am so lost.
|
|
ummm... what? Point of Light? Stateless? I am so lost.Lucky you are not playing 4E. That 'points of light' memo has given us a stateless campaign...literally.Ok i think i'm starting to get it :)
Even though i'm not really happy about the absence of feudal states...
But hey, thats what i have my Imagination for, right?
I'm not going to get into an argument on economic structures where you buy horse shoes in one town and spend the next fifty years wandering the wastes in search of the town that buys horse shoes for twice the price you paid.
Live with the Fact that the NPCS in Golarion are all prepared to commit themselves to small yield estates worth a million gp annual income and that explains why there is a terrible shortage of food.
Otherwise we can continue this in an argument about that 1 square mile of light forest = annual firewood fuel for 1280 people = 110 wagonloads into their community weekly = 110 bushels of grain & chaff daily = 5.22 square miles of Grain harvest = 110 wagon drivers = 172 families farming 20 acre grain = Timber logging camp of 250 labourers = everything else not addressed.