Guild Philosophy

Origin
While different philosophers throughout history have suggested similar things, most credit the book “A Treatise on Military Power” as the birth of Guild Philosophy. It was written by Pert Hallendale, a General of the Custos army near the end of the age of nations. General Hallendale was disgusted by the militarily backed nations who were responsible for the hundreds of years of wars, and in particular the irresponsibility of national leaders that led to the creation of the Blood Kingdom. He tried to stage a coup against the government of Custos but was caught and imprisoned. It was while he was in jail that he wrote the treatise. He would be executed, but not before his book had been smuggled from the prison and had begun to be distributed, in whole or in part, to people all over Amikus who were just as sick of the constant imperialistic wars.

It gained widespread popularity and eventually its supporters would force a change in their governments. Some nations, such as Ferus and Tantus, would take the change in stride; others, particularly the Legion of Iuris, would resist the change until armed revolution would leave them with no choice. Today, guild philosophy is officially practiced in all the major nations.

The Philosophy
Hallendale never officially used the word “guild” in his treatise, that was merely an interpretation of his words by the treatise's followers. What he called for was a separation of military power and political power. In particular, the treatise said that there would never be a time where war would be nonexistent and military power would become unneeded, however, when you put the power of military in the same hands as those who hold power over land and peoples the military becomes just another tool in a quest for more lands and peoples. That's the core of the philosophy: those who control the military and those who control the nations need a degree of separation.

The ideology states the theoretical advantages of this separation: The philosophy was put into practice by forbidding anyone who holds land and power from raising or maintaining a military force, and forbids anyone who belongs to any military group from holding land or power. These rules were amended to allow nations to maintain a guard for enforcing the law and protecting their lands from outlaws and to allow military (guild) leaders to buy and build buildings (such as guild halls) but they do not own the land it is on.
 * Wars would only be fought for legitimate reasons. If a military leader has the right to refuse a politician in a war he doesn't agree with, or a war that his practical experience tells him would be impossible to win or detrimental to the people of the military. This protects both the nation's best interests and the soldiers' best interest.
 * Power is put into the hands of the people. Military dictators who oppress the people using force will become a thing of the past.
 * Wars, when fought, will be fought with a set of rules and honor. Without the desire for land and power motivating the military, all they have to gain is repute and honor. This will limit dishonorable and cowardly acts, as well as brazenly savage acts such as looting and rape.
 * The separation of power also protects the nation. By keeping military officials from holding power, you protect political officials from military usurpers.

Effectiveness of Philosophy
There is some debate among scholars as to whether the guild philosophy was actually successful at its initial goals. It is true that several wars are credited to being avoided by guild leaders who refused to go to war by their nation's command, and overall large scale wars have become virtually nonexistent (though border skirmishes and small-scale conflicts are still common). One theory states that this has to do more with the nature of modern guilds than the philosophy that founded them: modern guilds hold malleable defensive allegiances with one another; much of the time attacking one guild at a large scale would lead to several other guilds coming to their aid, however, allegiances are not that strong on an offensive level so any guild starting an offensive campaign will find itself standing alone against allied defenders. This makes large-scale offensive campaigns impractical and unattractive.

On the other hand, guilds are not infallible. Claims of corruption among some of the larger guilds are not uncommon, and some shady deals have gone on in the background that defies the core of the philosophy; guild leaders bribing political officials, thus creating puppets in the government, and likewise rulers secretly putting people into guilds to gain them influence in its operations. Accusations of guild corruption is considered a very serious matter; other guilds will not deal with a guild that they feel is currently suffering from corrupt leadership.

Overall, guilds are considered in a positive light by the general public. The decreased war, increased political stability, and the accessibility of the guilds to the common man makes them quite popular. Old-nation sentiment is mostly held by the elderly, although it has stronger roots in the Legion of Iuris. There is also a small but increasing amount of Individualists, who feel that guild philosophy is not far better than old-nation philosophy in terms of individuals being oppressed by the collective.