It is common for noble families to hold tournaments to attract new talent

I wasn't think the Lords of vast estates. I was think newly (like just a few generations) appointed nobles, minor and or desperate houses, or use as a propaganda tool. (See how awesome your rulers are! They are made from the best stock of all walks of life!)

Also legitimate children would rarely by awarded. I was thinking "Oh one of my Harem had a child, I can secure it's livelihood and gain additional talent with high loyalty." And bastard children would be better treated as to not poison their future spouse against you.

They could be used for both. It's important to seek out exterior talent, especially if they can surpass the trials set before them.

No. Getting in good with the Duke AND the Count is much more important then my grandson who isn't even going to inherit much maybe being good at math. There isn't any reason to not just hold a tournament and give the people who win rewards and regular jobs to keep them around my property.

>super intelligent warrior group of bastards
>overthrow a city
>bastards rebellion
Sounds like a starting off point for the larger nation country or authority to crush rebellion.

Interesting settings...

>which most nobles (being the military arm of a kingdom) should be engaging in constantly
>as would be the case for especially centralized and effective kingdoms.

Depends on setting

Assuming you don't run out of bastards from having so many contests, you're still making one pretty big assumption: that marrying bastard children is in any way worthwhile or prestigious.

A second legitimate son of most nobles can expect to inherit pretty much nothing. That's why historically many second sons became priests. A bastard can expect less than nothing - marrying them off is the equivalent of getting rid of them gracefully. Any myths you might have read about mixing the blood of nobility and their serfs has no basis in reality.

So your system can work, but you're going to need to offer some actual worthwhile reward. Of course, a prestigious position with a decent salary is its own reward, probably much more enticing than marriage.

Also, ignore entirely, because he has no idea what he's talking about. "The battlefield" is a thing that barely existed, and certainly nobody was "engaging in constantly." Famous military leaders probably fought two or three battles in their lives. Pitched battle was simply a very rare occurrence in the middle ages (most wars were basically series of sieges and supply hijacking).

Depends on mow many high-level heroes there are.

And a tournament seems like an excellent way to fish out high-level people.

>A second legitimate son of most nobles can expect to inherit pretty much nothing. That's why historically many second sons became priests.

Primogeniture was a mistake.

> Getting in good with the Duke AND the Count is much more important

Depends on setting

> that marrying bastard children is in any way worthwhile or prestigious

Well it's his setting so he could easily make this the case.

t. norseman
Gavelkind was a shit system, you blond bastard.

On one hand, I'd say "fair enough," but still not really. People are practical; any romantic notions of "prestige" go out the door when you're talking about subsistence farmers. Marrying someone who's not going to inherit anything just isn't any more interesting than marrying the hot chick down the block.

And OP's setting would have to jump through some interesting hoops to explain how noble families can remain rich while dividing their wealth among half a dozen or more heirs each generation. Remember, we're not talking about cash, that people can accumulate over a lifetime; we're talking lands and real estate, of which there is a decidedly finite supply in a given kingdom. There's just no way bastards are getting anything worthwhile.

Not really.

No. Only the first born gets anything inheritance wise. This is a way to use manly a way to utilize bastards to attract new talent. This is to avoid incompetence in the ranks AND take care of your own.

Yeah, that's what I figured. In that case marrying bastards wouldn't really have much of a point. Much better to offer the winner a job, like a position as a retainer.

But doesn't that prove the validity of OP's idea?

>bastard daughter is useless
>hold tournament to find best blacksmith in the entire country
>marry useless bastard daughter to blacksmith
>blacksmith is now a member of the royal family, thus has many legal rights and privileges common peasants lack, like a severe reduction in taxes.
>happy new addition to family helps does his part in forging the best weapons and armor in all of the lands for the armies of his new family.

>You are the monarch of a small trading state

>Looking to expand your borders through Military conquest you announce a grand chess tournament to find the greatest general in the land

>This general will receive the hand of your youngest, comeliest daughter and command of your army and navy

>In the end the greatest chess master in the land is crowned victorious

>He is instated as Prince-General of the kingdom and a lavish wedding is laid on

>Loses his first battle because he didn't realise he had to command in real-time

This is why we use Chess Clocks now.

Marrying a bastard does not in any way make you a member of a noble family (I assume you meant noble and not royal). The whole point of bastards is they're illegitimate and don't count as nobles.

>does his part in forging the best weapons and armor
What, for free? That's a full-time job. They better pay him for it. Which is what I suggested to begin with: dude wins a contest, give him a fucking well-paying job.

>go out the door when you're talking about subsistence farmers

Well it's his setting so he could easily make this not the case.

>dividing their wealth among half a dozen or more heirs each generation

Who says they divide it?

>Well it's his setting so he could easily make this not the case.
Except I made the argument that farmers need to be practical to survive, so a bastard without an inheritance is in no way a better marriage prospect than any other person. Address this argument instead of just saying "depends on setting."

>Who says they divide it?
It was a hypothetical meant to demonstrate that it's silly for them to divide it, further adding to the argument that they won't, and thus marrying a bastard is pointless.

>happy new addition to family helps does his part in forging the best weapons and armor in all of the lands for the armies of his new family.

A master weaponsmith was typically not a good armorsmith, and vice versa.

You'd specialize, and being a basic blacksmith meant you're just forging horseshoes and chains.

And do you realize how many people there are in an army? How would one man be able to supply the "armies of his new family" with exceptional armor and weapons? That shit gets commissioned, who is taking the measurements?

I think the person you responded to was assuming peasants drafted into the army wear metal armor and fight with actual weapons, rather than both of those being mostly restricted to the nobility. Which is, of course, fantastically non-historical, and thus a silly assumption unless OP says otherwise.

You are missing the big picture. You are still paying for his services, but he is providing for your daughter (who can keep tabs on him and keep him loyal), the lower castes feel like hard work will min them better status (but only for a very small few, and they are fairly controlled), and you don't have to kill your bastards that your harem girls give birth to. You might even attract more attractive gals because you "take care of all your children".

>and you don't have to kill your bastards that your harem girls give birth to.

Woah woah wait hold up, when did harem girls get added into this scenario? I thought we were talking about something like France or England.

Are the lower classes stupid in your scenario? Why would they want to marry a bastard girl with no noble perks who they then have to provide with when all they want is a well-paying job?

>You might even attract more attractive gals because you "take care of all your children".
Literally what. You think attractive women go around looking for wealthy men to take care of children they don't even have yet?

This. It's what I really like about Exalted as a game: How they utterly transform societies. See the Bull of the North, for one.

Your PC is likely to be courted by whatever anti-Realm royalty he finds, because he has the power of a million exploding suns in his fists. Given his lifespan, he'll probably end up King! (Too bad about his kids, they'll only be half-Caste at best.)

If a family is rich enough then they can still provide a small sum of money that for them is nothing, but to a peasant can make or break whether they can survive for the next several generations.

We see that everyday IRL. People in first world countries literally flush the same amount of freshwater down the toilet in a year that could sustain an entire village in a third world country.

All a noble has to do is not buy his bastard daughter that new ward rove she wants, and put that money into a dowry, yes, it would be a laughing stock of true legitimate nobility, but for a peasant it could be the ticket to buying those four acres he needs to build his own orchard so he can move up from common generic farmer to something better.

You're both fucking idiots, go back and read my post again.

>Too bad about his kids, they'll only be half-Caste at best.
I'm not so caught up on my exalted lore, but is it not possible for the kids to be exalted themselves? Like, do they have /less/ chance of being exalted than some random joe who may or may not be chosen by the unconquered sun?

There are only 300 Solar Exaltations. Celestial Exalted cannot 'pass on' their powers. Only Dragon-blooded give their children a fair chance to Exalt.

It is very, very unlikely your son will be a god-king like you. The odds are substantially less and rely on his personal valor.

Exactly, but they're not less likely than for anyone else. Having a god-king as a parent certainly doesn't /hurt/ your chances, even if they don't help them much either.

I could see this working.

Most of them are "just" bastards though, outliers that are fetching to commoners but a step down for most nobles.

>I'm pretty sure arranged marriages only existed through a combination of ritual and superstition as opposed to any logical reason.
And yet even today arranged marriages are on average more succesful than voluntary ones. You should know that for most of human history love was not a prerequisite for marriage. That's a modern delusion.

>farmers need to be practical to survive

Depends on setting.

> it would be a laughing stock of true legitimate nobility,

Depends on setting

> that for most of human history love was not a prerequisite for marriage

...yes...because it's ritualistic and superstition. It's a song and dance that when it happens people say "we will behave in X way now because that is what married people do" as opposed to any logical reason behind it.

Do you always put words in other's mouths when you argue with them?

Ok, sure. If in OP's feudal setting, the peasantry was magically not taken advantage of, then they might not give as much of a thought to survival at all costs. Marrying a bastard is still pointless.

Also, you're using "depends on setting" wrong. It's an answer you give when people ask a question that depends on setting. When people are answering someone else's question and they didn't provide enough detail, it's acceptable to assume "standard D&D setting" (e.g. magical medieval Europe).

While not necessarily what was brought up by the OP, as i read the thread what occurred to me is that this could perhaps happen in a system where each child is expected to inherit. Now many have pointed out that if you divide it among many children, so many that you can give them away as prizes, no one's going to inherit much. Now if your society uses the Gavelkind system, and you have a shit ton of kids, then perhaps the only solution is to try and increase your holdings. Make it a really really divided setting, with all the noble houses constantly fighting because they know the only way they will have anything is if they take it from someone else. Wage wars of inheritance not with brothers, but wars to claim your inheritance from your neighbor.
what say ye Veeky Forums?

> inb4 historical precedent

yes i know it's kind of daft but this is fantasy, and we're already talking about tourneys to see who marries your kids.

>Marrying a bastard is still pointless.

Not really. Since the bastard was offered in the first place it's safe to assume that they are still connected and recognized by the noble house. Sounds like a good way to bump elbows with movers and shakers.

>because it's ritualistic and superstition
Can't the same be said about love and marriage in general? At least arranged marriages move those rituals and superstitions in a productive direction.

>marrying illegitimate children is pointless
>nobles would never offer their 3rd son or 5th daughter to low-ranking retainers

It's hilarious to watch you morons trying to correct others when you have basically zero knowledge of history.

> "standard D&D setting"
is not
>magical medieval Europe

And the more you think about it the more it falls apart.

After all, it's hard to wage petty and endless wars for title or land when orcs, gnolls, dragons, and other such monstrous things are a real threat to all kingdoms.

No. Love is a naturally occurring thing within a human.

Marriage is a system created by humans to ritualistically bond them.

>productive

So comedically subjective I have no idea why you even brought it up as a point.

No. Marriage is about managing family and to ensure heirs. You marry to bind loyalty and/or ensure offspring. Love isn't meant to be involved. You marry your wife, love your mistress. If you were luck this could be the same person, but get real.

>ensure offspring

Can you say to me how marriage magically makes sure you have babies?

Because we can look outside and see plenty of creatures makin babies without ritualizing a pair or small enclave. The ones that do are always for arbitrary reasons of "that's just how that animal works."

Marriage is just an organizational tool. You can slap whatever meaning or use on it that you wish.

I am arguing that love is meaningless in regards to marriage.

>No. Love is a naturally occurring thing within a human.
It's also an emotion. Yet you consider basing important life decisions on emotion more important than basing it on such "ritual and superstition" as the parents having a clearer view on the flaws and merits of a potential suitor.

>Marriage is a system created by humans to ritualistically bond them.
Yep. As you said "ritual and superstition". This is the ritual part. So why not get rid of it altogether, considering how condescending you are towards ritual?

>So comedically subjective
Creating a stable and financially viable (in the absence of mo money fo dem programs) environment to raise children is "subjective"? Bitch, it's how most of humanity across the globe functioned for most of history.

>Can you say to me how marriage magically makes sure you have babies?
It trades the woman's obedience, womb and dedication to childrearing for the man's ability to put bread on the table, especially while the woman is being pregnant and helping the children through their most vulnerable years. Do you not know how humans work? Can you not look past the length of your nose? Do you really think there wasn't a reason for a system that persisted for most of human history and has only recently been abandoned in the West (with disastrous results the West may never recover from)?

marriage or something equivalent is pretty important to how humans work. babies are helpless enough it takes two and men want to ensure the child is actually theirs if they're gonna be spending the next 20 years feeding the damn thing

And if you want to define marriage that way then you are free to do so.

Marriage is whatever you want to define it as.

It's a tool.

>Yet you consider basing important life decisions on emotion more important

wut

> the parents having a clearer view on the flaws and merits

I'm glad you live in a world where all parents are magically the perfect judges of character and are completely free of selfish motivations. But you must understand that not all humans share that experience.

>So why not get rid of it altogether, considering how condescending you are towards ritual

wuuuuuuuuuut

>Creating a stable and financially viable (in the absence of mo money fo dem programs) environment to raise children is "subjective"?

I'm pretty sure this is a strawman.

>It trades the woman's obedience, womb and dedication to childrearing for the man's ability to put bread on the table

Depends on setting.

The instant a noble house lacks members with PC levels is the instant they get knocked over and the survivors flee the country with whatever they can carry or less. Marrying off your heirs to people capable of beating a giant to death with a spoon in single combat are the absolute best investment you can get as a noble.

>And if you want to define marriage that way then you are free to do so.
While you're free to call a horse a dog, that doesn't change the fact that what that user said was how love was defined by most of humanity for most of history. You'll see some changes here or there (like the conditions for engaging in marriage, the conditions for ending/suspending marriage, how many wives you can have, whether or not you're allowed to have lovers, the rights and duties of each partner etc.) the "core" value (namely the endgoal being facilitating reproduction and childrearing for both parties (which often meant ensuring some kind of "pension" in the absence of a government that can tax the fuck out of you)) remains the same across almost all cultures and times. The West for the past 100 years is the exception, not the rule. And our demographics show we will remain the exception for as long as we last (which may only be another century).

>men want to ensure the child is actually theirs

...are you saying marriage magically stops affairs?

Marriage into a noble or royal family would ultimate reward that a vassal could receive and only bestowed to vassals whose service and loyalty was essential to power and stability of the lord's house. The best example would be general or admiral who has won many important victories for his lord and there a need to both reward him and ensure his continued loyalty by making him part of the family.

Legitimate children could only be married to vassals of noble blood to preserve the dignity of the house. Fortunately this could include those from the petty nobility who have little or no land of their own. A cynical lord might conspire to "discover" a noble lineage for a vassal in extreme circumstances, but at the risk of considerable scandal.

Illegitimate children would be more likely to be married off to important vassals as they would of no use in securing alliances with other houses. This would realistically be the best that a vassal of somewhat baser background could hope for.

The more typical rewards for service would be to enoble knights to landed vassals and men-at-arms to knight retainers (i.e. steady income plus full benefits). Craftsmen would be compensated in a similar fashion, but with less prestige and political clout as they are not of the warrior class.

At the bottom of the ladder, servants might receive little more than room & board and perhaps a little personal security in that an assault on their person would offend their master and risk his wrath. Their lord could of course dismiss them at any time without loss of face.

For millenia humans had no planes.

That didn't mean it was impossible to make them, we just didn't have the understanding to do so.