Re: The Importance of Caste (or Why Wizards Don't Rule)

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at__hog6oYQAOhrDYWHQGugoY0txGk8HnMl2F--ZND3gO9eFY9CC-jARoeyjI-CpFb-eMV>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:45:36 +1300

On 2/16/2011 12:21 AM, Jeff wrote:
>> Leaving aside the wizards and the lords, I think the warrior and farming
>> families for a given region should have shared kinships due to the women
>> in their lives.
> Non-farming warrior communities have existed in many cultures as a "caste" separate from the local farmers (and sometimes even speaking a different language).
In many of the cases that I'm aware of, there was some intermarriage between the castes, human hormones being what they are.

> Here's what I think currently: an unmarried woman belongs to her father's caste (since that determines the caste of her household). A married woman belongs to her husband's caste. Thus if a minor noble marries the daughter of the local chief of the military brotherhood, she becomes a noble (albeit she still does not entirely lose her military brotherhood caste connections and is likely considered "tainted" by her lower caste origin).
>
> That's for legitimate daughters. Illegitimate children always belong to their mother's caste. If the King decides to tumble in the hay with the daughter of his bodyguard, the kid is of the military caste, not the nobility.
Okay, we're on the same page here (instead of "belongs to", I would say "practices" but this is potahto, potayto stuff).

--Peter Metcalfe