Protecting the gentry as a role

Theres been a considerable amount of debate surrounding the gentry the nobility and AL. Unfortunately the exact details about AL are still unknown with regard to the contracts granting them to each land owner.

We currently know that only Bloodline+(gentry+) packages can purchase EP and therefor AL. This makes sense because traditionally untitled landowners were gentry.

How does someone become a land owner when they haven't been granted a title over a county, duchy, or similar fiefdom? Again by tradition we can look at a knights fee as an example. In this case, a knight would be awarded ownership of a fief with the provision he swears to serve the king when called to arms. Often there were provisions allowing another to be sent in lieu of the knight (a lieutenant).

Other examples of land awards may be for working/developing the land and paying a tax. Another could be for services already rendered, such as saving the crown from a would be assassin.

Starting out Ancestral Lands will have no taxes set upon them, making them closer to Allodial Lands than a fief. Any changes to this would constitute a change to an existing contract between the gentry and the king.

It has been said repeatedly that no title holder will lose their position without due cause, meaning your title cannot be taken until a situation has forced you to make a choice. You either stay Loyal and risk being overthrown with your liege, or you risk treason and then should the coup fail your title can be stripped. Shouldn't the gentry have this same protection?

As has been described to us thus far, the gentry could invest alot of effort into developing their lands only to have them suddenly attained by the kings edict and redistributed for control under the dukes or counts of the kingdom with no action of treason or abandonment by the gentry.

I'm proposing SBS implement similar protections on the Ancestral Lands, making them Allodial Lands until some other contract has been signed with their local counts, dukes, or king warranting such unilateral control over the ALs.

I understand that the royals and nobles paid a lot of money for the positions they've received, I also know there are a large number of gentry that also have paid a great deal of money for the position they plan to fill. I don't believe this should be a pay to win game, and especially not with how each tier fills out the population. Every tier of the game is important in its own right and deserves some bit of security that those roles will not be invalidated by other players without some personal choices initiating such a conflict.

TLDR: Gentry need the protections planned for every other position and shouldn't have their role invalidated without some act of crime, treason, etc.

Please upvote if you agree.

8/12/2019 7:47:00 PM #1

Yes AL... you can lose it,.. for whatever reason.. You could even lose AL to another player, if they kill you and hold your land for long enough time. There has never been anything that guaranteed you would keep anything you buy on the marketplace.

As in.. The risk of loss is there for everyone.. Not just the Gentry. A King, Duke, Count or Mayor can still loss their lands. They can loss their tittles. There is nothing in place that will guarantee that this does not happen.

Those persons do not OWN the land that is in their domains... In truth they do not even own their domains. They would only own land as much as any other AL owner does. Because those persons would have the same access as everyone else to AL.

8/12/2019 8:05:48 PM #2

Its not about not being able to lose the land, its about having some protections against sudden unprovoked changes to the contract that grants ownership of the land.

If your breaking the laws or committing treason etc, that would justify the attainment of the lands. I just want there to be some provisional protections against unjustified changes to that initial contract.

8/12/2019 8:19:23 PM #3

OPs point being AL as with all land can ofc be taken from you by force... from an outside entity, YOUR count/duke/king shouldn’t be able to requisition your land for their own use unless they’re given good reason

8/12/2019 10:41:27 PM #4

Well.. A Count and or Duke can not requisition your land for their own use. Only a King can do that, and they can do that to anyone in the Kingdom. Be said person a Count, Duke, Gentry or even an AL owner.

So, the OP wants to be protected from Dukes and Counts taking their lands by force?

I mean, A Count and or Duke can have their land taken from them by force while not losing their title. So do you suggest they also be protected from losing lands?

Anyway... Back to the OP, I feel that we will have to wait for more information to be released on how AL will be handled. And, I feel there may be some consequences to taking someone's land from them. Or even consequences for a Monarch who decides to requisition all AL in their Kingdom.

8/12/2019 10:52:06 PM #5

Skittles once thought lost falling down a shirt can, with enough cleavage, become something new, something better....

Posted By Xefipor at 12:47 PM - Mon Aug 12 2019


I have nothing else to contribute to this thread.

8/12/2019 11:03:10 PM #6

Posted By Vucar at 5:52 PM - Mon Aug 12 2019

Skittles once thought lost falling down a shirt can, with enough cleavage, become something new, something better....

Posted By Xefipor at 12:47 PM - Mon Aug 12 2019


I have nothing else to contribute to this thread.

I'm not even gonna change it.. :D

8/13/2019 2:50:11 AM #7

Per Thomas Hobbes, it may be just (and legal) for a king to peremptorily acquire the property of his subjects without recompense, but it is not necessarily wise to do so. If he does so to private landowners (AKA Gentry in CoE terminology), does that create or contribute to the creation of a casus belli for subordinate nobles against the king?

8/13/2019 11:58:02 AM #8

I agree with Poldano: If the ruler in this game requires gentry land for some reason - (say, because it's in a particularly suitable position for a ruler to secure the necessary defence of the realm in some way), then it is probably best they try to win over the gentry concerned to get their agreement. It might be the gentry affected can be granted temporary housing in the castle or an inn, at the ruler's request?

In reality, the ruler could presumably just take over gentry land anyway. But why create a potential enemy? However, if the gentry understands the reasons for the ruler's request and willingly complies, as a good subject, then the ruler gets the land...and can later reward the gentry for their loyalty (maybe returning/replacing the land and a bit more) and gains a more faithful follower. The 'Dance' goes on...

Physician, Alchemist & Herbalist to the Duchy of Anor, Al-Khezam - Selene (EU) Server

8/13/2019 1:58:15 PM #9

So if I'm translating the last two posts correctly...

The Noble can take your land if they want it, but they do so at the risk of alienating you, as well as setting the precedent with the other gentry that their lands can also be taken from them at any time?

Makes for an interesting story point...

And something that any Noble should keep in mind before doing such a thing.

Just because you can, doesn't always mean that you should.

We Are The Many... We Are The One... We Are THE WAERD !!!

8/14/2019 1:10:11 AM #10

Glosterian and Kajoreh, you interpreted my post to mean what I intended it to.

I don't know whether there can really be a casus belli against a monarch, but careless application of royal prerogatives is a sure-fire way to inspire one if so. My vision of how the game has been presented is that players will always be given enough rope to hang themselves, metaphorically speaking. That's essential for political verisimilitude, in my opinion.

8/15/2019 10:36:59 PM #11

I agree with that but I still feel Ancestral lands starting out as Allodial Lands would be favorable to just being immediately under threat from a ruling class that doesn't appreciate the gentry as an important part of their realm. I believe the Allodial lands could then be contracted into feudal lands with reasonable contracts or by force where required. it drives both the potential conflict and sets an understanding between the gentry and their king where otherwise we're missing that relationship. Realistically the contract wouldn't need to be with the king either, The king may have more favorable conditions available to those immediately willing to contract while the dukes or counts may lean on landowners unwilling or slow to take the king up on his offer. This would allow the king a dedicated group of gentry contractually obligated to him while dukes and counts may also want to offer up similar options before resorting to force.

8/16/2019 7:43:22 AM #12

Not trying to be negative, but I sure hope there is a good law/justice system put in place to control griefers/trolls. Players need the tools to be able to really protect kingdoms/property/life. All along I've loved the entire concept of this game but the biggest concern I see is protection/enforcing laws. I'm not even talking about from bad land owners, they will soon become land owners of empty areas or npc's only (if not just dead in the street.)

There is going to be so much trolling in this game if they don't make a way to actually enforce laws as fast as people can break them. And real consequences for breaking laws other then some lost play time off your soul if your killed. Because that doesn't really stop trolls. I mean how long would it take even say 20 people to mess up an eco system by just chopping down all the tree's they can as fast as they could etc? Killing off animals and just letting them rot away?

I'm guessing there needs to be hundreds of npc guards around even very small settlements. Nothing kills a game like a small community of friends working hard creating a village to have it wiped out one night by griefers while they are offline. Are there going to be NPC bounty hunters? There always seems to be more troll players then players to track them down for justice.

Players love to just mess crap up for others. I can just see a guild like Goonswarm from Eve online deciding to just blob rush and destroy everything they can and zerg rushing rulers to just kill them or cause as much havoc as possible. What are you going to do to stop 1500 china players from rushing your kingdom to kill a ruler when most your players are offline etc. Look at Atlas for example. Considering how much money people invested to be said ruler makes them prime targets for such groups that just want to drink the tears and see the rage quit. I guess part of it depends how many players will actually be online at once in one area at a time and how the game will even handle if there are say 5000 players in one area? Or 10k?

8/16/2019 9:21:20 AM #13


CoE is not intended to work like other games. There are survival aspects that serve to dissuade griefers and trollers. Also, those NPCs you speak of may actually be players' offline characters, or OPCs, which will function much like NPCs and have access to the same scripting capabilities.

@Levald, et al.,

I'm not sure where the notion that AL will be hell on the Gentry classes gets its rational justification. As a Gentry player (my Rank 7 comes from the extra EP and goodies I've bought), I intend to create a landowning family that is not titled. I don't see the existence of Aristocrats and Nobles owning huge tracts of land, either AL or otherwise, as forcing me out. Instead, I see the potential danger of well-endowed Gentry making life difficult for low-investment Counts.

8/16/2019 2:42:28 PM #14

as gentry myself I have only good intentions toward my count, I expect to provide benefit to the entire economy of my kingdom and especially my local county and duchy. I didn't want to be a mayor as I was worried it would require more time and dedication than I could commit given my plans for a business oriented guild.

My concern doesn't stem from my expected starting situation but that there are plans being made to undermine the role of gentry on the kingdom level across the servers. While it may not start that way everywhere if it gains traction it could effectively wipe out the role across the game.

The gentry are meant to have a relationship with the king, the dukes and the counts. They should have some voice in the kingdom but if wiping out or diminishing the gentry's role in the kingdom is how kings plan to begin the game I fear there will be lasting and potentially permanent consequences.

That said I believe Allodial Lands would be a reasonable solution to the problem, they aren't a permanent fix but they address both that the lands weren't granted by the current monarch, and that there will need to be some interaction between the gentry and whomever their lands become feudaly contracted to.

8/16/2019 3:41:36 PM #15

Posted By Poldano at 05:21 AM - Fri Aug 16 2019

I see the potential danger of well-endowed Gentry

Totally out of context, but this needs to be in your signature somewhere, dude.

We Are The Many... We Are The One... We Are THE WAERD !!!