Daily Goods Supporting a Person
Consumed Item.........per day.............cost
Bread..........................2 loaves..............55cp
sheep..........................1/8 sheep...........13cp
Wool blankets &clothes………………………………
Ale...............................2 Pints..............1gp
Cheese..........................1/2 pound.........
firewood……………………………27.397lb……………17sp
Turnips…………………………….2 turnips…………….37cp
total daily cost………………………………….......37sp-40sp/day
x5 people per family.............................185sp-200sp/day
So a single poor houshold in Specularum requires a daily income of 20gp/day
We know that it is a city of some 600,000 people
???
AFAIK the gaz puts the population figure at 50,000 people or less. Only Thyatis City comes even close to having 600,000 people...
So a single poor houshold in Specularum requires a daily income of 20gp/day
That is going to be a problem, since the pay for an average 3E day's work is something like 10 silver pieces if I am not very much mistaken...
:-) Jesper
???
AFAIK the gaz puts the population figure at 50,000 people or less. Only Thyatis City comes even close to having 600,000 people...
And Sundsvaal and Draco, both on mainland Alphatia, are both cities above 500,000 people (Draco beng 600,000 I believe).
Daily Goods Supporting a Person
Consumed Item.........per day.............cost
Bread..........................2 loaves..............55cp
sheep..........................1/8 sheep...........13cp
Wool blankets &clothes………………………………
Ale...............................2 Pints..............1gp
Cheese..........................1/2 pound.........
firewood……………………………27.397lb……………17sp
Turnips…………………………….2 turnips…………….37cp
total daily cost………………………………….......37sp-40sp/day
x5 people per family.............................185sp-200sp/day
So a single poor houshold in Specularum requires a daily income of 20gp/day
Where are those costs from? They seem rather out of keeping with anything I'd expect.
Ale costs nothing. Really, nothing. Small beer will be produced by every household, in every street, and you can barely give it away. 2 pints costing 1gp is way, way over the oddds.
A eigth of a sheep can't realistically cost less than two turnips or a couple of loaves of bread and, more importantly, many poor families will be lucky to afford meat as often as once per day. You find that in countryside regions people can get fresh meat easily and cheaply, but with urbanisation, even early urbanisation, meat consumption becomes more and more expensive.
I think that the costs here are somewhat skewed.
Where are those costs from? They seem rather out of keeping with anything I'd expect.
Ale costs nothing. Really, nothing. Small beer will be produced by every household, in every street, and you can barely give it away. 2 pints costing 1gp is way, way over the oddds.
A eigth of a sheep can't realistically cost less than two turnips or a couple of loaves of bread and, more importantly, many poor families will be lucky to afford meat as often as once per day. You find that in countryside regions people can get fresh meat easily and cheaply, but with urbanisation, even early urbanisation, meat consumption becomes more and more expensive.
I think that the costs here are somewhat skewed.
The Quantities of consumption are from the real world because this information is not in any D&D book. The costs are from GAZ11: The Republic of Darokin. These are base prices. Conceivably they could be +/- 4gp in total depending on what city.
As Eldersphinx continues to point out. There are shortcommings in the prices given for produce in the D&D books. Despite the fact that a single 172 acre vinyard can pull in an income sufficient to employ a Wizard.
Based on existing Agricultural calculations Karameikos is getting his income from the estates and their lords and Barons and is not contributing anything to the growth of Karameikos other than his mercenary army of occupation some twenty years deployed which is hold up in the Guild town of Specularum from which he plunders rent and Taxes. If someone waves a flag and says three cheers for good King Stephan, he deserves a knife in his back.
Based on this reality, Stephan Karameikos is Evil and Magda Marilinev is Good.
And Based on the lack of real control he had over Baron Blackeagle i would suggest that the Lawful of the old D&D when describing Stephan Karameikos was Lawful Neutral at best.
Based on existing Agricultural calculations Karameikos is getting his income from the estates and their lords and Barons and is not contributing anything to the growth of Karameikos other than his mercenary army of occupation some twenty years deployed which is hold up in the Guild town of Specularum from which he plunders rent and Taxes. If someone waves a flag and says three cheers for good King Stephan, he deserves a knife in his back.
Based on this reality, Stephan Karameikos is Evil and Magda Marilinev is Good.
Stefan has created a mostly-stable, mostly-unified nation that is more affluent in general than it was before and better prepared to defend itself against foreign invasion. He has built roads, forts, provided for defence, brought in magical talent from abroad, standardised the currency. He has left the native faith alone, allowing it to flourish. He has instituted a uniform legal code throughout the land. On the scale of things, he is an EXCELLENT sovereign, and in the real world, if he were the king of (say) England, he would be remembered in history as one of the greatest kings of all time.
The sovereign owes his people... well, usually, as little as he can get away with. That Stefan has provided so much makes him an exceptional sovereign. And the Specularum takes in food makes it a tribute to bureucratic strength, not a token of tyrannical power.
It all depends on what's expected in the moral value of the time.
Bruce's spreadsheet can give you the big picture that fits in Mystara's economic system. As far as the individual trade good prices, they need to be revamped to be of any use to NPCs.
GAZ1 page 13 - then retire (from life of adventure) to wise rule of his (unusually wealthy) duchy. He wanted to rule a territory shaped by his own hands and formed in his own image
GAZ1 page 43 - (Adriana) likes her fathers approach to politics -: Find the right person for the job and have him do it
I normally have the Duke as a person not interested in politics, but more likely leading a patrol into the lands surrounding Specularum. He would rather have open revolt and battle.
and in the real world, if he were the king of (say) England, he would be remembered in history as one of the greatest kings of all time.
Usually they are remembered for 1 thing, burnt cakes, beating the saxons, eight wives, agincourt, madness, unless you do more digging.
That Stefan has provided so much makes him an exceptional sovereign. And the Specularum takes in food makes it a tribute to bureucratic strength, not a token of tyrannical power.
Look at William the Bastard/conqueror, placed his men in strategic forts, sweeping away the old order, suppressed revolts, started central record keeping (doomsday book), most info came from the anglo-saxon local records. Good King/Bad King - Both, but it was the centralisation of power in one man that gave England a kick start as a nation, rather than a grouping of small kingdoms.
Stefan is a william wannabe, without the political skills.
Stefan cares nothing for managing Karameikos
*snip*
Look at William the Bastard/conqueror, placed his men in strategic forts, sweeping away the old order, suppressed revolts, started central record keeping (doomsday book), most info came from the anglo-saxon local records. Good King/Bad King - Both, but it was the centralisation of power in one man that gave England a kick start as a nation, rather than a grouping of small kingdoms.
Stefan is a william wannabe, without the political skills.
William genuinely invaded a strong, unified kingdom, put his social order on top of the old, and was forced to militarily conquer the entire kingdom, and then bureaucratically conquer it.
Stefan annexed a weak, disunified kingdom, mixed his social order with the old, and faced only one open revolt. He stabilised the kingdom bureaucratically, but only once was called to put down armed rebellion.
England had been effectively one kingdom since the days of Alfred the Great; Traladara was one kingdom in name only.
As for Stefan's style of ruling, yes, he finds the right person for the job... which is far better than most kings' style of doing it all themselves. He recognises when others have a better chance of getting things done themselves, and he lets them do it. That isn't to say he does nothing himself. At several points, it mentions Stefan's own personal decisions (he meets with Davinos himself in the adventure summary, for instance), indicating that he takes an active part in court life and the day-to-day administration of his kingdom. That the book doesn't go into the detail of what he actually does is because it's a sourcebook for a game aimed largely at younger gamers (AD&D being the more mature line), and so it doesn't deeply examine the politics of the duchy.
Here are some extrapolations that I have made (non-canon, but reasonable assumptions, I feel - at least as reasonable as any 'Stefan is a bad sovereign' assumptions
):* The 'Duke's Law' sounds to me like something of a revolution in laws. I see the Traladara of old having laws that varied from baron to baron, with no real central administration. The Duke imposes a uniform code, ensuring equal access to justice for everyone, no matter where they live. (Much like Henry II)
* The roads allow easy access of trade, sending surpluses out of the country and bringing wealth into the country. (Similar to old Roman rulers)
* By centralising somewhat, and making communication and flow of goods easier, and the building of his forts, he was also able to send resources where they were needed most (such as Fort Castellan holding off humanoid incursions, whereas without centralised resources, there would be no way to maintain a fort way out there).
* A centralised government is easier to deal with than a decentralised one, in regards to international diplomacy. By unifying the country, Stefan has revolutionised the nation's international relations, securing peace through diplomacy.
He has not:
* Engaged in useless wars.
* Disenfranchised nobles, apart from those who opposed him militarily.
* Simply imposed a new social order.
* Bankrupted the treasury on useless ventures.
* weakened the nation's defence or relations.
He has his flaws, naturally. He is weak, at times: the Black Eagle Barony is the key weakness. I feel the version in the book is simplified somewhat. I've discussed this before on these boards.
Yes, he shares many strengths with William, who was more dashing in that his task was greater. Yet it took him his entire life to complete, partly due to the fact that his target was stronger, partly due to the fact that his methods were more brutal. True, he didn't simple decapitate the old social order, he did allow the existing nobles to keep their land where possible. But his barons came along with him enticed by promises of land, and so most of England was parcelled up to foreigners. While there are several Thyatian baronies in Karameikos, most of it seems to be in the hands of its traditional lords. So while he achievements may be less, his controversy is less as well, making it (in my eyes) a tie).
In addition, the nation-building enterprises mark him as a great stabilising force. In particular, I go back to the law concept, which makes him a Henry II as well as a William. This tips him over the Conquerer, and so yes, I believe he would be remembered very fondly. While there are perfectly valid reasons to interpret him as a bad sovereign, I don't feel they are as supported by the text as mine. While a campaign with a 'bad Stefan' may be fun, it is not the logical conclusion from a thorough reading of Gaz1.
A 20' wide dirt road costs 5,000gp per mile. Hate it when i get the price wrong.
William genuinely invaded a strong, unified kingdom, put his social order on top of the old, and was forced to militarily conquer the entire kingdom, and then bureaucratically conquer it.
England under threat from outside presented a strong front, but the Saxons had they won Hastings would have fallen apart due to internal disputes (a commonly held what-if theory that even the BBC did a program on it.)
Every king is good/bad, for us it depends how you perceive the Gaz info. For me as I have said, he relays on others to do the job for him, except for his army, and the roads to move them.
Anybody else had Stefan as a weak (political) ruler? with his wife dominating the court and political intrigues and guiding him?
Were the Heathan Buggers refusing to Convert?
Here are some extrapolations that I have made (non-canon, but reasonable assumptions, I feel - at least as reasonable as any 'Stefan is a bad sovereign' assumptions
Here's my reading of the of the same material - where I differ from you
* The 'Duke's Law' sounds to me like something of a revolution in laws. I see the Traladara of old having laws that varied from baron to baron, with no real central administration. The Duke imposes a uniform code, ensuring equal access to justice for everyone, no matter where they live. (Much like Henry II)
As Marilenev has the same laws as the 'Duke's Law', I read this as he has made no major changes to the old Traladara laws, just fiddled at the edges a bit (apart from outlawing slavery). Each of his barons has various bylaws, see Kelvin, Threshold and the Black Eagle.
He has not:
* Disenfranchised nobles, apart from those who opposed him militarily.
* Simply imposed a new social order.
Gaz1-page16-Nobility=Thyatian, "before there was a Thyatian nobility, there was Traladaran Nobility", to me this means he has disenfranchised the Traladaran Nobles and that they have to fit into the new order - ask for his favour to retain their noble status.
He has outlawed slavery and made the serf a freeman. This is a radical change to the old society, which has lead to the old Traladaran Nobility losing influence/power/resources.
Daily Goods Supporting a Person
Consumed Item.........per day.............cost
Bread..........................2 loaves..............55cp
sheep..........................1/8 sheep...........13cp
Wool blankets &clothes………………………………
Ale...............................2 Pints..............1gp
Cheese..........................1/2 pound.........
firewood……………………………27.397lb……………17sp
Turnips…………………………….2 turnips…………….37cp
total daily cost………………………………….......37sp-40sp/day
x5 people per family.............................185sp-200sp/day
and:
The Quantities of consumption are from the real world because this information is not in any D&D book.
How do you get these are real world quantities?
2 lbs of bread, 2 lbs of vegetables (turnips), 1/2 lb of cheese is somewhat reasonable, but another 4-10 lbs of sheep per day as well? That seems more than a little extreme, at least 10 lbs of food per day. And even children consume that much? That's way beyond any real world rate of consumption.
As for more than 27 lbs of firewood, where do you get that number from? And this is per person? Everyone uses a separate fireplace to cook? And to heat the home?
They burn 10,000 lb of fire wood per person per year in South American villages. The third world is this nasty place where firewood boils the water you drink, cooks the meals, scalds the pork, keeps you alive, and pretty much everything else you need heat, and light for.
Yes the live off that in the real world where medieval people toil 12 hours a day and get a bowl of grain for breakfast stew and bread for lunch and a nice meal for dinner. For starters you ate that so you grow up to be big and strong so you can spend your best years in agricultural toil only to die at fifty from the plague.
That still doesn't amount to 4-10 lbs of food per day.
Stuff yourself and you are hard pressed to manage 4 lbs per day.
Bloating like that isn't going to happen, particularly not on that much meat.
They burn 10,000 lb of fire wood per person per year in South American villages. The third world is this nasty place where firewood boils the water you drink, cooks the meals, scalds the pork, keeps you alive, and pretty much everything else you need heat, and light for.
And you have a source for this claim?
Also, you seem to have this rather significant real world axe to grind about something or other. I'm not exactly sure how that relates to a poor economic system in a game, but it hardly serves to prove anything.
We know that it is a city of some 60,000 people and that it requires over five hundred million pounds of firewood a year to cook food, heat homes, and support industry. It has a population density of 61 people per Acre. That means it covers over 1.41 square miles in housing alone.
Daily Goods Supporting a Person
Consumed Item.........per day.............cost
Bread..........................2 loaves..............55cp
sheep..........................1/8 sheep...........13cp
Wool blankets &clothes………………………………
Ale...............................2 Pints..............1gp
Cheese..........................1/2 pound.........
firewood……………………………27.397lb……………17sp
Turnips…………………………….2 turnips…………….37cp
total daily cost………………………………….......37sp-40sp/day
x5 people per family.............................185sp-200sp/day
So a single poor houshold in Specularum requires a daily income of 20gp/day
Rations - 1 week unpreserved = 5gp per person (RC) = less than 8 sp per day. Lets buy our food the same place as those damned adventurers
They burn 10,000 lb of fire wood per person per year in South American villages.
Completely, absolutely, without a doubt untrue. Not only untrue, but ridiculous. Please cite your "sources" when posting this drivel as authoritative.
Please cite your "sources" when posting this drivel as authoritative.
So as not to be a hypocrite:
Brazil produces roughly 34 million cubic meters of wood per year.
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/logging-in-the-amazon.pdf
A cubic meter of "green" wood, freshly harvested, weighs on average, 36 pounds.
http://www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/forest_products/forest_products5d.htm
This means Brazil produces 1,224,000,000 pounds of wood a year.
Basic math there.
Brazil's Population is 186,112,794
Only 22% of Brazil's population lives below the poverty line, which would be a defining factor of your village dwellers theory. So, we have about 40,944,815 villagers in Brazil.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html
So, 40,944,815 villagers, 1,224,000,000 pounds of wood. That's a hair under 30 pounds of wood per person per year. 30! Not 10,000,000 just 30.
And I'm being generous. I ignored the fact that 90% of Brazils wood production is exported to other countries. That means the locals only use 10% of the total, bringing the actual yearly personal consumption by Brazils poor to about 3 measley pounds.
But wait, you say, parts of Brazil are urban and modern, surely poor people live in those areas too. I'll be extremely generous here, I'll assume 99% of Brazil's poor live in the cities, so only 1 percent of the poor, or a hair under 5 hundred thousand people, live in villages in the amazon.
So, here's the results:
500000 people
122,400,000 pounds of domestic wood use yearly
That means ....
244.8 pounds of wood, per person, per year.
Still a bit shy of 10,000 don't you think?
I for one think
10,000lbs/365 days a year=27.397lbs per person per day.
That you will find is a lot more accurate than figures where only a portion of the populace use firewood are passed around to determine what a person is using firewood on average. If you want to know what one person averages find out what is being burned and divide by the people burning it.
The results you are pushing are poor Maths.
The results you are pushing are poor Maths.
Today only, see yellowdingo do his AMAZING cast-iron pot imitation! Absolutely FREE!
That you will find is a lot more accurate than figures where only a portion of the populace use firewood are passed around to determine what a person is using firewood on average. If you want to know what one person averages find out what is being burned and divide by the people burning it.
Oh, but I did. The FACTS I presented represent what wood is actually harvested from Brazil's forests. And notice, my figures represent only .22 percent of the population. Does that qualify as "only a portion"?
But then they are not all at Medieval levels of Firewood useage. A lot of South americans Are obviously using a hell of a lot less, because both of their dependence on petroleum reserves, and a rougher tribal way of life.
Umm . . .
How can people living a "rougher tribal way of life" be dependent on "petroleum reserves"?
They wouldn't have access to the infrastructure to use oil or gas, and would be even more dependent on wood.
Living in a Medieval community where you harvest firewood to do more than just cook, burns a substantial amount.
Except you've never cited a reliable source for levels of medieval firewood use. You've just declared a number by fiat, and divided it to get your daily requirement.
A site based on sudan giving rural and urban figures plus includes GNP and other fuels.
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/x0199e/x0199e02.htm
Heres one from the Australian GOv.
http://sres.anu.edu.au/associated/marketreport/report16.pdf#search='firewood%20consumption'
S.E. Asia
http://www.odi.org.uk/fpeg/publications/greyliterature/fuelwood/agarwal/agarwal.pdf#search='firewood%20consumption'
But why bother, so much detail in the end will just slow a game down and become boring anyway. At the end of the day you want your adventures out there adventuring not stuck with a bunch of scribes and merchants trying to sort out daily woodlots for the cook fire.