Feudalism for D&D

[Sword of Spirit]

The internet has consistently failed to provide me the simple answers regarding feudalism that I need to design my world. Since I know many of you have already done your homework, I figured I'd ask here.

First: I understand that feudalism was a mess and there are exceptions and complications to everything. But I'm just trying to get the gist of it--I can make my own messes.

My basic understanding is that you have your king or emperor or what-have-you at the top. He grants lands (usually encompassing most, but not necessarily all, of his own lands) to some nobles in return for military support and/or other stuff. They can in turn split up some of their lands amongst their own vassals, in exchange for goods or services. Then you have your serfs who farm the lands and pay their taxes to whoever happens to be their immediate lord.

Plus, there are a variety of noble titles, some of higher rank than another.

Blah, blah, blah. That's easy to find in half an hour.

But what I can't find a good answer on is how the title related to the hierarchy. This should be a fundamental thing you just, you know, straight up explain in any article about it. But no. Apparently that doesn't occur to the scholar as important enough to mention in an overview.

But it's pretty darn important for setting up a D&D world.

Now, the old Rules Cyclopedia gave me the impression that there were constant subdivisions corresponding to the titles. So the king might divide up his lands amongst 6 dukes, who divided up their lands amongst 3-8 counts (or earls) each, who in turn divided up their lands amongst 3-8 (totally arbitrary number) barons, who maybe even divided up their lands amongst untitled knights and generic "lords." Plus, there were several other ranks in this pyramid scheme that might create additional tiers.

I'm finding no evidence for that arrangement online. Maybe I misunderstood what I read in the Rules Cyclopedia (quite possible), or maybe they were just making up stuff for D&D purposes (ditto). What I am finding is that there was a variable degree of subinfeudation, and that there were a whole spectrum of titles (differing by time and location, blah blah blah). But again, I can't see if there was any relation between title and hierarchy of vassalage/land ruled, etc. And if the hierarchy of titles wasn't correlated with the hierarchy of land/vassalage, what the heck did the title represent? Just abstract degree of respect and honor accorded?

Could anyone provide me with that important missing link in the data?

 

[Saul Goode]

 

[Celebrim]

But what I can't find a good answer on is how the title related to the hierarchy. This should be a fundamental thing you just, you know, straight up explain in any article about it. But no. Apparently that doesn't occur to the scholar as important enough to mention in an overview.

But it's pretty darn important for setting up a D&D world.

Ok, first, it differs from country to country. In England, an Earl was a pretty high rank. In France, it was not. In Sweden, the word 'knight' implies more the connotation of 'ronin' or 'bandit' than it does noble. So, pick a country for your model.

Secondly, keep in mind about what you said about it being complicated and full of exceptions, because it was. While in general a Count was in theory of lower rank than a Duke, some of the Counts of France rose to be of the first rank among the nobility.

Now, the old Rules Cyclopedia gave me the impression that there were constant subdivisions corresponding to the titles. So the king might divide up his lands amongst 6 dukes, who divided up their lands amongst 3-8 counts (or earls) each, who in turn divided up their lands amongst 3-8 (totally arbitrary number) barons, who maybe even divided up their lands amongst untitled knights and generic "lords." Plus, there were several other ranks in this pyramid scheme that might create additional tiers.

I'm finding no evidence for that arrangement online. Maybe I misunderstood what I read in the Rules Cyclopedia (quite possible), or maybe they were just making up stuff for D&D purposes (ditto). What I am finding is that there was a variable degree of subinfeudation, and that there were a whole spectrum of titles (differing by time and location, blah blah blah). But again, I can't see if there was any relation between title and hierarchy of vassalage/land ruled, etc. And if the hierarchy of titles wasn't correlated with the hierarchy of land/vassalage, what the heck did the title represent? Just abstract degree of respect and honor accorded?

Could anyone provide me with that important missing link in the data?

You pretty much have the right of it. What the rules cyclopedia describes is sort of the idealized system of how it was supposed to work. But over time it would vastly diverge from its idealized form, leaving the title just an abstract degree of respect and honor.

For example, one of the big problems any lord faced was that after he granted fiefs, his vassals might each effectively control more resources than he did. This would make it impossible to compel a vassal to behave without the cooperation of his other vassals. And a lord that wasn't a particularly good money manager would often borrow money from his vassals, and if he couldn't pay it off, he'd pay it off in more land. Eventually many lordly families reached the point that they held a title but little else. Meanwhile their former liege's family had grown in wealth and power, until they encompassed basically all the lands held in theory by their former liege. This problem surfaces up and down the whole of the feudal chain, so that you actually will find serfs that are wealthier than their lords and to whom their lords owe money.

And keep in mind that at its heart, feudalism was little more than government through private contract. And every single one of those private contracts could be different, and often had a very great many qualifiers on them. In particular, the feudal system differed from the modern system in that it was assumed that a person had full right to control how his property was used after his death.

 

[thanson02]

The internet has consistently failed to provide me the simple answers regarding feudalism that I need to design my world. Since I know many of you have already done your homework, I figured I'd ask here.

First: I understand that feudalism was a mess and there are exceptions and complications to everything. But I'm just trying to get the gist of it--I can make my own messes.

My basic understanding is that you have your king or emperor or what-have-you at the top. He grants lands (usually encompassing most, but not necessarily all, of his own lands) to some nobles in return for military support and/or other stuff. They can in turn split up some of their lands amongst their own vassals, in exchange for goods or services. Then you have your serfs who farm the lands and pay their taxes to whoever happens to be their immediate lord.

Plus, there are a variety of noble titles, some of higher rank than another.

Blah, blah, blah. That's easy to find in half an hour.

But what I can't find a good answer on is how the title related to the hierarchy. This should be a fundamental thing you just, you know, straight up explain in any article about it. But no. Apparently that doesn't occur to the scholar as important enough to mention in an overview.

But it's pretty darn important for setting up a D&D world.

Now, the old Rules Cyclopedia gave me the impression that there were constant subdivisions corresponding to the titles. So the king might divide up his lands amongst 6 dukes, who divided up their lands amongst 3-8 counts (or earls) each, who in turn divided up their lands amongst 3-8 (totally arbitrary number) barons, who maybe even divided up their lands amongst untitled knights and generic "lords." Plus, there were several other ranks in this pyramid scheme that might create additional tiers.

I'm finding no evidence for that arrangement online. Maybe I misunderstood what I read in the Rules Cyclopedia (quite possible), or maybe they were just making up stuff for D&D purposes (ditto). What I am finding is that there was a variable degree of subinfeudation, and that there were a whole spectrum of titles (differing by time and location, blah blah blah). But again, I can't see if there was any relation between title and hierarchy of vassalage/land ruled, etc. And if the hierarchy of titles wasn't correlated with the hierarchy of land/vassalage, what the heck did the title represent? Just abstract degree of respect and honor accorded?

Could anyone provide me with that important missing link in the data?

Actually, if you want something to use as a base, I would recommend "The Time Travels Guide to Medieval England" by Ian Mortimer. They have a great breakdown of feudal social systems and it is so detailed that you could build and run a whole campaign with it.

Recommended to any gamer who likes historical or historically inspired stories.

 

[Morlock]

Yeah, it was complicated because it wasn't as codified as you seem to want it to be. Most of them were a few generations removed from some warlord who killed people and took their stuff to become "noble"...if that. And most of them lived in a time where they were subject at any time to becoming warlords who killed people and took their stuff to remain "noble."

I think that's the central point to remember: the codification tended to follow the power, not the other way around.

feudalism was little more than government through private contract.

This.

Actually, if you want something to use as a base, I would recommend "The Time Travels Guide to Medieval England" by Ian Mortimer. They have a great breakdown of feudal social systems and it is so detailed that you could build and run a whole campaign with it.

Recommended to any gamer who likes historical or historically inspired stories.

That sounds really interesting. My problem with going to sources is that they're so often concerned with stuff that isn't that interesting to me. E.g., I'd much rather read about how the peasants dyed their clothes than about which bandit lord killed which bandit lord and took his stuff, while historical sources seem to be the opposite.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Thanks for the answers!

One of the things I'm really going for is a simple way to divide up a kingdom on a map at a high level, and then I can always add complexity later. Here's what I've come up with so far.

I'll create rough tiers of rankings. Something like this:

Tier 1 - Kingdom*
Ruler
-King/Queen

Tier 2 - Duchy/Principality
Ruler
-Duke/Duchess
-Prince/Princess

Tier 3 - March/County
Ruler
-Marquess/Marquis
-Count/Countess or Earl

Tier 4 - Viscounty/Barony
Ruler
-Viscount/Viscountess
-Baron/Baroness

Tier 5 - Estate
Ruler
-Baronet
-Knight
-Untitled lord of the estate/manor

*You could place Empire as a higher tier if relevant.

Titles/domains within a tier are listed from higher to lower rank/honor.

Then I can basically say that a ruler within a tier (and his domain) are vassals (and the land is contained within the domain of) a ruler of a higher tier, and it is most common for that higher tier to be the one directly above it.

I can customize which titles are used and exactly where they fit in the tier structure to add variety to different lands. Regardless of customization, the tiers themselves are what determines the way lands are subdivided. Title within a tier merely represent who is consider to be a position of higher honor. Ie, a marchess is "above" a count in rank, but they are both Tier 3 rulers, who are usually vassals to Tier 2 rulers, and usually have vassals of Tier 4. For purpose of sanity in design, you would not have a count be a vassal of a marchess, since they are both Tier 3, and organizationally equal.

As far as use in kingdom design, that means that all I should have to do to set up a framework for a kingdom is do this:

Political Mapping
1) Divide the kingdom up into a few Tier 2 domains. If desired, toss in a Tier 3 or Tier 4 domain or two that isn't part of a Tier 2 domain.
2) Divide up each Tier 2 domain into Tier 3 and Tier 4 domain, slightly favoring Tier 3.
3) Divide up each Tier 3 domain into Tier 4 domains, perhaps having one or two Tier 5s that aren't part of a Tier 4.
4) Divide up each Tier 4 domain into Tier 5 domains, probably leaving a decent sized area that doesn't have a Tier 5 domain (the direct domain of the Tier 4 ruler).

If doing top level design, I don't have to do each step until needed. I could just do step 1 and maybe 2, and then do additional steps as characters enter the region and/or I have free time.

This is the kind of description I would like to have seen in a D&D book, because it tells me what I need to know from a practical design viewpoint to map political regions that "feel right", even if they aren't 100% historically accurate.

 

[Balesir]

I'm afraid in general there wasn't anything so neat or regular.

In England, for example, the only ranks generally extant were landed knights, barons (i.e. direct vassals of the king) and earls (who were all also barons). Dukes, when they existed, were royal - usually kings sons.

In Germany/the Holy Roman Empire, things wer quite different, with independent or quasi-independent rulers of many ranks - grafs, margraves, dukes, archdukes, grand dukes, etc., etc.

France and Italy were different again.

It might help to understand where feudalism originated. It was a blend of the Roman structures of a Dux Bellorum ("duke of war") in charge of a geographical area and its limitanii (frontier troops) and the Comes (=> "count") in charge of the comitatenses (field army). The term for the field army itself came from the plural of the word "comitatus" which was a "company" or "following" among Germanic tribal warriors. Originally, these troops were paid out of taxes that were levied on land throughout the Empire. As the imperial beuraucracy decayed and collapsed and money was no longer centrally minted or taxed, however, the local leaders adapted by "cutting out the middleman" and just awarding a portion of the produce of the land to the soldiers directly - in the process getting them to take on some of the governing functions in the land on whose bounty they were to subsist.

If you want a good "game structures" source, I suggest either Pendragon or Hârn. Both have somewhat simplified, "gamified" treatments of feudalism that, nonetheless, bring a decent "feel" of a feudal society.

P.S. By the way, a female Marquis (or the wife of a male Marquis) is called a Marchioness.

And, [MENTION=6776981]Morlock[/MENTION], if you are interested in the medieval way of life I recommend "Life in a Medieval village" by Frances and Joseph Gies - a very nice overview of how medieval country folk lived and worked. The same couple also wrote "Life in a Medieval Castle", "Life in a Medieval City" and "Cathedral, Forge and Waterwheel", and they are all worth a read, IMO.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, in many ways it's a lot like modern corporations: some dude is the Assistant Vice-President of Product Solutions, which means he gets the Coffee for the office; while in a other place, a simple Manager has a lot of power and influence.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, in many ways it's a lot like modern corporations: some dude is the Assistant Vice-President of Product Solutions, which means he gets the Coffee for the office; while in a other place, a simple Manager has a lot of power and influence.

I'm generally not a fan of analogies, but that is actually a brilliant one.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm generally not a fan of analogies, but that is actually a brilliant one.

They are, tautologically, of analogical use at best.

But it seems to be relatively constant across social structures that titles are haphazardly given, at best, and do not necessarily correlate to power or responsibility.

Also, corporate structures and feaudalism are possibly more than analogical in relation; a startup entrepreneur and a post-apocalyptic warlord require similar mindsets, one could argue, and chains of command and delegation are naturally emergent features, I would propose.