There are a lot of excellent and insightful points being made here. Many are in fact ones we have taken into deep consideration since the beginning of the New World; others are newly illuminating.
I feel as though there are two central points of contention, both important: 1) the accuracy of the term 'Serf' within Hermertia and 2) the historical connotations of the term. I'll explain my take on each issue separately:
Hermertia's Use of "Serf"First off, one aspect of this discussion that you might not necessarily be aware of is that the term 'Serf' was adopted specifically for the creation of the New World; before that, in Old Hermertia, the term 'Freehold Lord' was actually in fact the one used. It was an accurate term then, but we changed the name when we traveled to the New World explicitly to reflect the changed dynamics of land claiming and the process by which newcomers start out in Hermertia.
I have talked in several places about how the Old World did not require newcomers starting out under a liege - this system was implemented in the New World as a direct result of avoidable tensions coming from players scrambling for plots of land and preassuring each others' borders in an increasingly disorganized world. When we adopted the vassal system for newcomers - this one has itself suffered some controversy, but I do think that on the whole it is an improvement; I'd be more than happy to discuss this matter as well but perhaps in another discussion - we recognized that a new term was needed to reflect the changed dynamic resulting from new players no longer being able to claim land freely but instead creating their first works on the land of their liege.
So this is the origin of the term and the rationale behind it. Now, in regards to accuracy:
I will propose the idea that the Nobility structure of the Mercurian Empire does not seek to emulate real historical hierarchical structures, but instead merely co-opts historical terms in an attempt to provide a somewhat relatable structure of rank that nevertheless comes with its own distinct and different interactions and relationships. Bear with me.
So, we employ the historical terms of Serf, Count, Duke, and King - yet we adapt the historical definitions to suit our in-game purpose in crafting the lore of the world of the Mercurian Empire. These terms are thus molded into new concepts and given new definitions different from strict historical accuracy. Duchies and counties and kingdoms across the Europe of antiquity varied greatly in size, while the constitution of the Empire lays out specific sizes for these areas. Dukes and Counts could be appointed or take hold of power, but nothing resembled the international Council of the Crowned which appoints in unanimity our independant nobles.
So if we accept that we are purposefully altering the strict historical definitions of these terms to better suit our world, I feel as though we are able to do the same with the concept of a serf. We are in complete agreement as to the historical nature of serfs across Europe - but we are creating a new definition for this term to better fit the relationships between Hermertia's newcomers and nobility and this in my opinion means that we are not beholden to historical accuracy.
There are also a couple of misconceptions in this thread I'd like to quickly address, specifically concerning the practical power of serfs in Hermertia. The legal protection of serfs is well established and does not need to be expounded upon; when you are voted in to the server you become a member of Hermertia, equal under the law. Furthermore, I am absolutely committed to the active participation of
every member of Hermertia in our social and political processes: to this end, serfs are not only guaranteed the right to participate politically, vote, and introduce legislation,
they are absolutely encouraged to do so. The entire purpose of a recent reorganization of parliament was to provide a clear avenue for serfs to contribute - in "Proposed Legislation" every voice is equal and if this is being misunderstood we must surely take steps to address that. Serfs can also vote in Cabinet elections - the only restrictions on political participation are a) running for a Cabinet position and b) the separate voting powers of the legislative houses themselves.
I am also, however, greatly cognizant that this discussion of co-optation of historical terms leads us right to:
Negative Historical ConnotationsSo, let me start out by saying that we as a community have always been aware of the historical connotations of the term. One of the first questions in the FAQ - which I wrote - addresses the issue:
Quote:
Does a rank of Serf mean I’m a slave?
No. As a serf, newcomers to Hermertia are afforded the full legal protections and responsibilities of a member of the Mercurian Empire. This rank simply states that you have not yet had the opportunity to spend a great deal of time in Hermertia; with hard work and commitment, you will not need to be a serf for a long time if you don’t want to be.
Now, the question and answer mostly discuss the term as it is relevant to Hermertia, and while this goes a way to addressing historical connotations inside Hermertia it does not address the general negative connotations that may be felt by the use of the term itself. This is, of course, a fair criticism. From what I can recall of the original conversation that led to this term being adopted, it was very much in the purpose of selecting a general historical term that was both common and described in some way the relationship between land and individual. It was very much in the agrarian theme, even if Hermertia doesn't exactly fit that mold, and I can promise you that slavery was
never even thought to be implied - as our FAQ excerpt shows. But here we are in a bit of a pickle, because I have just described our general thought process as never leading to the kind of subjugation, oppression relationships that characterized historical serfdom while also knowing that the presence of these kinds of relationships in historical serfdom is unambiguous.
What it comes down to in the end is our belief that our marked subversion of the historical term is/was enough to prevent those negative connotations from affecting the use of the word. I can't deny that the possibility is there, but de drew from a fair sample size in the form of our community when we made the decision and received no indication that the term might be a mistake. I am of course always prepared to accept alternate opinions.
So, I do hope that this goes some way to articulating the thought process and addressing your concerns and questions. I have no doubt missed some, but this is a discussion that should be continued. And if this is term that we decide must be revised, we -
including the serfs - have the ability to do that.