Retainers

[Ralph]

Recently it has come to my attention that some people see retainers differently than I do. I figure I should explain my perspective here so people know what my assumptions are when I am running a game.

From everything I have read in canon, Retainers are seen as extensions of the people to whom they belong; their Domitors, for this discussion, regardless of bloodbond status. They are an extension to such a degree that everything they do is as if the Domitor was doing it themselves.

The thing is, this cuts both ways. I think people have a common understanding that if a ghoul fucks up, the Domitor pays the price. I think most folks also understand that if a ghoul does something worthy of reward, that reward is given to the Domitor. Attacking or using disciplines on a ghoul can be treated as if you did the same to the Domitor.

But there is another element to it: the Retainer speaks with the Domitor's voice, and acts as the Domitor's hands. That means that the Retainer has effectively the same level of Status as the Domitor in regard to whom they can speak to by default, when acting for the Domitor. Further, it means the Retainer can speak with the Domitor's authority on things that matter to Kindred, such as if someone is allowed in a personal Domain.

There is nothing I have seen in canon about how retainers should be seen and not heard. There is nothing I have seen in canon about how retainers must always be in the company of their Domitors. Though it should be said that there ARE courts where these things are true. Prince Mithras' court in the Dark Ages had a specific prohibition against ghouls speaking directly to the Prince (except the Prince's own ghouls of course.) Naturally of course, various Kindred have their own preferences.

I know some people see the way I play Victor Treabelle as an aberration - he's not. He is my example of how retainers can and should be used. He speaks with his mistress's voice, carries himself as if he had her status, and interacts with people as she would. In some ways he has more freedom than she does because, as a ghoul, there is the expectation that he can also speak to people of lower status than she might.

The thing he cannot do is directly expend Annabelle's status; though he can report her choice to expend her Status.

I believe that here at BAM, as a side effect of not having very many Retainer PC's (or NPCs really) we have built a communal think concept that Retainers must be with their Domitors most of the time, and should generally be treated as barely accepted. I am here to say that that's not how I intended for the world to work.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with me? I look forward to your feedback.
-Ralph

[Aoife]

Well, you're absolutely right that this isn't the current game culture.

I think I like your way better, to be honest. But it'll take some getting used to.

- Samantha

[Melissa]

I am totally in agreement here, though I figured how the domitor treats the retainer also factors in to how others treat them- though only in regards to flavor, not overall respect. If the domitor treats them like a valet or lady's maid in public, they will likely be treated like that by others- with respect and care for the domitor, but not as a proxy for them unless specifically stated otherwise. Victor Treabelle is treated as a proxy by his mistress, and is considered such by the people that talk to him.

Overall, I like this FAR better than "Retainers are Victorian servants who should be seen and not heard in all things", which is how it tends to be played. Your way makes ghouls and retainers WAY more playable and more fun to play. Though if you want to play the Victorian servant, if your domitor treats you like that in public, everyone else will likely follow suit, so that's still open as a playable option.

[MikeLG]

I remember reading somewhere that effectively you treat retainers and childer under the accounting as 2 status less than their domitor. I've been playing off of that, because as I see it, dealing with a retainer is different than dealing with the person in charge. From my end, if a retainer delivers a message, that's fine, but there is a difference. I've been going off of that because to me, it gives important individuals the ability to have retainers that are important, while at the same time, not making their retainers exactly as equal, because they're retainers. It shouldn't be a merit, which to me, having equal status comes off as (effectively giving free status, and allowing you to socialize with people much higher than you normally would, and not creating any form of scandal when it comes to people with 5 status taking priority of someone with say 2 status)

I am not saying that they should be treated as servants and seen but not heard, but with Treabelle, there is a very clear distinction that he's there at Treabelle's behest and it's a very very clear line.

Ultimately, the core of Camarilla society is that it's based off of nobility, and while a servant of a noble is held in higher regard than of someone who is a nobody, it shouldn't be held as an equal of the person in higher regard. If it's delivering word or judgment on behalf of the domitor? Absolutely fine. If it's in a social situation? Some more care should be considered.

As for Victor Treabelle? I see it that because of his regnant, that actually gives him a major exception in how he's able to interact. Because regional lesser harpy, it comes off that he's encouraged to dance around the line of appropriate associations. If he was a ghoul of someone of equal status to the Prince, let's say, and he delivered the word of his regnant, that would hold considerable weight. But when there's no clear line as to what he should be doing and what he should be doing becomes fuzzy? In no way do I see people holding that ghoul as equal in status as the Prince and when it's made very clear that the ghoul is expressing his personal opinions and not the opinions of his domitor, do not believe that it should be held with the same weight as the Prince.

Ultimately, as I see it: If there's a clear expression of working for their domitor then more consideration should be made than when it is very clearly the personal reaction of the ghoul, since in the former it is very much them acting as the hands of the domitor, when in the latter, it does not.

[Ralph]

I think Adam started writing this before I made an edit in my original post above. For clairity sake, I made an edit within a couple minute of my original posting due to an omission I made.

This line:

That means that the Retainer has effectively the same level of Status as the Domitor in regard to whom they can speak to by default.

Changed to:

That means that the Retainer has effectively the same level of Status as the Domitor in regard to whom they can speak to by default, when acting for the Domitor.

[MikeLG]

Ralph is 100% correct on when I started writing it.

[Camden]

Well, you're absolutely right that this isn't the current game culture.

I think I like your way better, to be honest. But it'll take some getting used to.

- Samantha

Ralph statement above, while I agree with his desire, is not current game culture and has never been the game culture since at least the Dawn of Prince Allister. As one of the few players who has played both a ghoul for an extended period of time, and someone who has had PC ghouls, the environment which used to exists and still does exist, is 100% caustic, and provides a very negative playing environment.

The worst time I have ever had in this game was when I had PC ghouls... it was miserable. Playing a PC ghoul was not much better in many respects but at least I had Sean next to me to keep things interesting. If it was not for Sean, my PC ghoul would have likely lasted only weeks.

On reflection, I have also noticed a trend for PC's who play ghouls to not return or take long breaks, but that may be unrelated.

For the sake of making the game a fun and enjoyable environment for everyone, I highly recommend either making the system (the wiki) reflect Ralph's statements, or completely getting rid of the PC retainer mechanic.

[Aldona Piast]

I remember reading somewhere that effectively you treat retainers and childer under the accounting as 2 status less than their domitor.

I've been scouring the old wiki for this - but I can't find it. Which bugs the crap out of me because this is my exact head cannon as well. This is how I was taught and how I've played since day one on both sides of the staff/player line.

[MikeLG]

Found it! Old wiki, FAQ:

Though this is not a system mechanic, a good rule of thumb is to treat a ghoul as if they had three less Status than their Domitor, to a minimum of zero. Thus, while the ghoul of an individual with two Status may be beneath notice, the ghoul of an individual with four Status bears about as much respect as an Acknowledged Kindred. While she may be a butler, the Prince's butler ranks a bit more deference than your average street thug.

[Paraclete]

I play ghouls a lot specifically because I enjoy the power dynamic of being a lesser being to most kindred, and I have generally enjoyed it. I do think there are ways that people can treat ghouls that have a huge effect on how much fun they are to play, and playing a ghoul in a game where everyone treats you like a piece of scenery is obviously really likely to be boring and uninspiring. It's much more fun to be abused, manipulated, and used against your domitor!

I have personally always assumed that ghouls have an echo of the status of their domitor reflective of the fact that ghouls have the ear of their domitor and can use this to cause trouble and influences things. But that doesn't mean that people always treat even a 'high status ghoul 'the same way. Walking over with a letter for you when the domitor is not around would to me invoke a different reaction(instant courtesy) than standing silently at their domitor's shoulder(complete lack of acknowledgment), and sitting in a corner of Elysium when the domitor isn't around a third reaction yet(be friendly, complimentary, inquisitive, manipulative?). There is no status penalty implied for seeking out a ghoul, though one assumes that regularly seeking out the ghoul of someone far beneath you in status would be odd and perhaps suspicious, while seeking out the ghoul of someone far above you might be odd, as well and perhaps suspicious... or very smart.

In my experience, playing a ghoul in a satisfying way seems to require both a domitor willing to give you things to do and excuses to interact with other people in an active way, and also people willing to find reasons to talk to you even when you are not actively on a specific duty, whether that reason is curiosity, romance, plotting, spite, boredom, or something more creative.

And I can't close my opinion on this matter without pointing out that when a retainer isn't a ghoul, but in fact a kindred, there is a whole other level of interacting with them that has political ramifications. Treating them in a cold, this-lump-is-scenery manner is a political statement about their lack of personhood, while being more casual and friendly, and taking the initiative to seek them out so that they have an excuse to talk to you, is also a political statement.

[Capet]

It doesn't make sense for a ghoul to be treated as the same status as it's domnitor. The peasant who washes the duke's dishes does not have equal footing to the duke.

[Melissa]

But what of the duke's personal secretary or seneschal, who he employs like the foot-washer? I think there is room for a broad range of ways to treat a retainer, depending on what their domitor uses them for, with the upper limit having them be treated like an extension of their domitor.

[MikeLG]

If the secretary is doing direct action or at least it's known that what the secretary is doing is on behalf of the duke? Absolutely. If the secretary is clearly performing personal activities and not under orders from the duke? I would give some respect, but not the same as the duke.

[Sibihah]

My interpretation of Ralph’s post tells me the majority of NPCs will have the world view he described because this is staff's opinion of the topic. Player driven characters are always free to think whatever those characters want to think and act accordingly. Similarly some NPCs may not believe the world cannon for various reasons. But it sounds to me like the players should be aware of world cannon and accept that they if want their characters to believe differently they will be the minority and likely won't find popular NPC support for their view (outliers always exist). Ralph please correct any misstatement here.

[Aoife]

Pardon me while I go all BBC geeky on you

Having been the peruser of *ahem* quite a few historical dramas and *ahem, again* quite a lot of actual history, I can say that the dishwasher of the duke actually WAS treated rather differently than say... the dishwasher of the merchant. So while you may make a case for not treating a retainer with exactly the same status as their domitor, it makes sense to understand that there is a ranking of retainers.

Jackson's ghouls would inherently be more respected than Aoife's ghoul, to use a specific example. Because Jackson is an inherently more valued person in Camarilla society and that extends to his entire household.

[Ralph]

Megan is correct that part of the purpose of Perspectives on Storytelling is for me to communicate my perspective to you all, OOC, so that you know how NPCs I play will react. I won't speak for the rest of Staff - but it is a clue as to how I tend to run things. She's also correct to say that there will be the occasional NPC who explicitly does not agree with how things in the world generally work and serves as a counter example.

However the other part is to start a dialog; perhaps my interpretations are way off the mark from what the rest of the game thinks is right. If that's the case, I can recalibrate. Thus, the conversation itself is important and valuable to me.

[Evangeline]

I am interested in the ideas bounced around here that there is a difference between time when a retainer is speaking and acting for their dormitor (in which they hold more weight/respect/reflecting their dormitor's status) and "personal time" when a retainer is acting or speaking for themselves which suggests they are not accorded the same importance.

In my experience in play, I haven't seen much expectation that the retainer has "personal" time, that every action and everything they say is seen as if it is coming directly from the dormitor.

[StephenAdler]

As previous characters I always treated retainers as having 2 less status then their dormitor at all times (as long as it is not political and social suicide). I like the static number as it allows for retainers, accountees, and others not directly part of society RP opportunities which will make their night more enjoyable then just standing around idly.

As for personal time; Retainers can completely act on "personal time" when they are doing nothing on behalf of their liege, or are saying things in stark contrast to what their dormitor would do/say. Personal time doesn't mean that everything they say or do shouldn't be "considered to be said by the dormitor"; it means that they are acting on their own behalf which the dormitor is still responsible for.

[Paraclete]

For me the trick in both being a retainer and dealing with them has been that complete inability for most people in most situations to truly know whether the retainer is acting for themselves, acting for their domitor but on their own recognizance, or acting specifically as their domitor commands. People can make assumptions. I know from experience that those assumptions are often incorrect, sometimes because the retainer is deliberately creating a false impression, sometimes because the domitor is deliberately ordering the retainer to create that false impression, sometimes because it's just hard to tell the reason someone is doing something just by outside observation.

Just to take an example that is purely illustrative and in no way resembling anything that actually happened in game....

The Prince's ghoul has wandered off from the Prince and is in a corner. They happen to end up near another Kindred, who notices they are looking upset. Oh my, there are bruises. The ghoul indicates through body language that conversation is not unwanted, and the chivalrous Kindred engages in that conversation, learns that indeed the Ghoul is miserable, trapped, and wishes something could be done to be freed from their tyrannical domitor. The Kindred is sorrowful and at conversation end contemplating how to release the ghoul from servitude.

A) Ghoul is trying to betray their domitor.
B) Prince is testing the loyalty of their subject
C) Prince has ordered the ghoul to sleep with the subject to set them up for owing a boon, and this is the seduction tactic the ghoul chose.
D) Ghoul wants their domitor's attention and is setting up the situation to renew the Prince's interest.
E) All of the above.

An outside observer to the interaction might well decide to tell the Prince about their ghoul's shameless behavior, the inappropriate interest the Kindred is displaying in the ghoul, etc. Depending on what is truly going on, the Prince may or may not do anything to Ghoul, Kindred, or Observer as a result of the report. General members of the populace might think various things about the Prince, Kindred, or Ghoul depending on their particular biases, what they think is going on, how strongly they feel about ghouls crying in Elysiums, what the status of all involved is, and where their politics are, etc. There certainly isn't any one right or wrong way to act by any party to the interaction.

This ambiguity, incidentally, is a huge reason I enjoy playing retainers. If it were obvious how I should act at all times, and my interactions with all people had only one right and correct way of being, and my only possible purpose or motivation is as mouthpiece for my domitor, and any deviation from this absolute view of correct retainer behavior would result in my being punished and my domitor too, it wouldn't be all that much fun to play.

[Ted]

I have a lot of opinions about this!

Firstly, I generally try to make sure that PCs are playable. This means allowing more leeway with PC retainers than NPC retainers. I try to avoid having my NPCs react in a way that would try to push PCs toward more drama, not less. Because of this, I'll generally avoid anything that might have a "chilling effect" on RP -- I don't want to run a plot that teaches the lesson that PC should just stay home and not interact, even if it fits better with canon. If something demands a response, I'll try a response that increases drama, rather than reduces it. This can mean a lot of things, but in the case of a retainer acting out, I'm more likely to call the domitor out for a duel, or require a boon (and then cash it in for a dangerous adventure soon after) -- things that cause more to happen -- rather than try to get them excluded from events or banished or other things that reduce action.

All that said, my general take on Retainers is that my Kindred NPCs generally don't see them as independent creatures that might defy their masters' orders, so much as an extension of their master. More like a walking cell phone or remote control car, rather than a separate person with decisionmaking powers. If your Retainer does something, you did it. If someone says their Retainer disobeyed them, then they're either lying or reckless. Most of my Kindred NPCs don't see a distinction between on-duty and off-duty Retainers. Someone who's off-duty and acting personally sometimes isn't a Retainer; they're an ally at best and a Masquerade risk at worse.

That's not to say that a Retainer has the status of their Domitor. The way I see it, it's more like, the Retainer is a medium for status stuff, not an independent being. You treat a Retainer like a letter from that person, which just happens to be able to walk around. A Retainer would have the right to talk to someone if their Domitor did. A Retainer who comes up to talk to you about chatty nothings would be treated like a chatty letter from someone - pleasant or inappropriate, depending on the person. Retainers don't exactly have any status of their own - but if you snub one very seriously, you'll be snubbing the Domitor.

In summary: I generally have NPCs assume that a Domitor is completely in control of their Retainer, even when it's more complex than that. And, either way, I try to bring PCs into play as much as possible.

[Sibihah]

Firstly, I generally try to make sure that PCs are playable. This means allowing more leeway with PC retainers than NPC retainers. I try to avoid having my NPCs react in a way that would try to push PCs toward more drama, not less. Because of this, I'll generally avoid anything that might have a "chilling effect" on RP -- I don't want to run a plot that teaches the lesson that PC should just stay home and not interact, even if it fits better with canon. If something demands a response, I'll try a response that increases drama, rather than reduces it. This can mean a lot of things, but in the case of a retainer acting out, I'm more likely to call the domitor out for a duel, or require a boon (and then cash it in for a dangerous adventure soon after) -- things that cause more to happen -- rather than try to get them excluded from events or banished or other things that reduce action.

A++ Agree/love

[Aldona Piast]

So, my personal views on the retainer/status issue aside -

this conversation has shown both through quoting the old wiki as well as through conversation about how Ralph's view is not currently thought to be "game culture" or that it's at least different than other people see it.

So - for those who have been playing with a different cannon in mind than how the head ST sees it, and who have been playing with the belief that their view was the in cannon, in character norm - how do we resolve that according to our HST, the world norm group think view of our kindred society is apparently not the way that we were lead to believe by old status rules on the wiki? Especially if we have made IC choices that have lead to serious conflict with others because our characters were sure they were upholding the party line?

Is this a case of "sorry, the HST doesn't see the world that way guess your character was just wrong - have fun dealing with the rude awakening."?
Is this another function of the world change that we can start to fold into gradual alteration of attitude as sent down by our elders?

Because if I had understood that this was the perspective on ghoul status rather than what was in the old wiki - I can not tell you how very different lot of my choices would have been in many many situations - or how different Aldona's attitude would be about several characters. For me this isn't just an issue of philosophy, but one of continuity as well. I mean, I can change my head cannon pretty easy - that's how folks want it to be? Great - flip a few switches and Lindsay moves along with a new society norm in her head to base choices off of - but I don't know what to do with all of the choices made in the past that lead to serious conflict that now no longer have the continuity of being based on the society norm.

[Melissa]

My take on how to resolve the conflict is that local subcultures vary, and it is most importantly acceptable for people to have different views on the matter, and that acting according to those views if you have the status to back it up is not really a problem. Maybe the pendulum of opinion is swinging back towards the opinions Ralph has about retainers, too, and this is something that characters can choose to go along with or not. This would require staff sign-off on, but it's one possibility.

There are a ton of things in the setting, both in canon and in BAM!Canon, that I or other players have only discovered after we made significant decisions based on an incorrect understanding of what is canon in this game. This is really a very common occurrence, in my experience, so Lindsay, I don't think anyone should be interested in punishing characters for acting in a manner that the player thought was the social standard.

In a larger sense and somewhat off-topic, I would really, really love for a global-editable part of the wiki for BAM!Canon and setting stuff. This forum is great for the opinions of staff and STs and that's really valuable, but with a continuity going back over ten years at this point, with bits and pieces held by a variety of people who are definitely not a staff, I would love for some of it to be documented. Example- until the last few months, no one had told me that mages don't exist anymore in BAM!Canon. Not particularly relevant for my character... But that could be REALLY relevant to another. I feel like having this information clearly documented somewhere searchable would help a lot in avoiding issues like this one.

That might be something to discuss for another thread, though.

[Sibihah]

My thought on it Lindsay would be assume your character just got news that socially things have shifted and proceed to update your own character's opinion (or not) in line with world cannon over a reasonable pace for you.

[Aoife]

Not staff, just opinionated.

Is this a case of "sorry, the HST doesn't see the world that way guess your character was just wrong - have fun dealing with the rude awakening."?

Please no, let's not do this. That would be far less than fun, particularly since we have a lot of players in our player base who have been working with the old system.

Is this another function of the world change that we can start to fold into gradual alteration of attitude as sent down by our elders?

This seems like a reasonable thing to have happen. I mean they've already done the whole "oh btw, the antediluvians are real after all" thing so maybe there's a whole sea of social change going on at the top levels. Heck, given that we've had Victor Traebelle in game as a character since the Conclave in 2012, maybe this was a change the Elders wanted to start implementing even before the massive world/system change.

Just my thoughts.

- Samantha