I tune with the "Beyond Feudalism" article at WotC I want to ask what everyone idea of feudalism or the entire medieval period is. Because in my experience what most people think of and expect of feudalism and a medieval setting has usually nothing much to do with the historic terms, either because of lack of knowledge or because some elements are simply not wanted.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
What is feudalism/medieval to you?
- Thread starter Derren
- Start date
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
A king rules a defined region, maybe large, maybe small. If large enough the kingdom would be subdivided into baronies or shires. The local rulers whether barons, shire reeves or landed knights owe fealty to the king - perhaps presents of clod of earth, more than likely pays taxes usually collected from the rents of peasants (manorial economics) and tarrifs and other taxes from commercial trade. In addition to payments those owing fealty to a higher lord serves as his military branch so arms himself with weapons, mounts, armor, men-at-arms (at the lesser's own expense) to serve the king in times of war, sometimes a tax is paid in lieu of military service. Each level from landed knight, local reeves, barons, up to dukes (though smaller kingdoms might only have landed knights) owe fealty (loyalty, military service, taxes, oaths) to the king or sovereign ruler above him (Prince, Duke, Baron, Count, etc.) whomever that may be.
Manorial economics is a local lord (landed knight, etc.) owns a small walled manor house, the surrounding lands are owned by the local ruler (sometimes in the name of the sovereign), and serfs work the land, owing rents each year for the worked land and the goods created, pays the local ruler in coin, corn or goods. The local ruler owes taxes to those he holds fealty whether to a baron (with his tax payments) or the sovereign himself (depending on size, hierarchies, etc.)
Sometimes it can be more complex than that, but this is the basics on feudal government and economics for the medieval period (circa 11th century to 15th century, some places later than that, some earlier). I'd suggest that feudal government extended back into the dark ages long before the medieval period.
In D&D/PF aristocratic and military rulers are the landed knights, counts, barons, dukes, king - and not ecclesiastic leaders like clerics, nor wizards, nor rogues (at least not generally). Though a given lord might be a fighter and spellcaster. I'm trying not to confuse feudal government with a magocracy, clericy, oligarchal or other non-feudal hierarchal government systems, though the actual PC/NPC class may vary from the standard fighter or cavalier (that fits a more authentically medieval setting.)
At least, that's how I understand it.
Manorial economics is a local lord (landed knight, etc.) owns a small walled manor house, the surrounding lands are owned by the local ruler (sometimes in the name of the sovereign), and serfs work the land, owing rents each year for the worked land and the goods created, pays the local ruler in coin, corn or goods. The local ruler owes taxes to those he holds fealty whether to a baron (with his tax payments) or the sovereign himself (depending on size, hierarchies, etc.)
Sometimes it can be more complex than that, but this is the basics on feudal government and economics for the medieval period (circa 11th century to 15th century, some places later than that, some earlier). I'd suggest that feudal government extended back into the dark ages long before the medieval period.
In D&D/PF aristocratic and military rulers are the landed knights, counts, barons, dukes, king - and not ecclesiastic leaders like clerics, nor wizards, nor rogues (at least not generally). Though a given lord might be a fighter and spellcaster. I'm trying not to confuse feudal government with a magocracy, clericy, oligarchal or other non-feudal hierarchal government systems, though the actual PC/NPC class may vary from the standard fighter or cavalier (that fits a more authentically medieval setting.)
At least, that's how I understand it.
And how much of that is usually reflected in you D&D or other RPG games? Do the PCs ever come in contact with the laws or are restricted by them?
Also, what about the details? Knights in shining armor? Probably. What about firearms and cannons? What about ships (do they have cannons?)
Also, what about the details? Knights in shining armor? Probably. What about firearms and cannons? What about ships (do they have cannons?)
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
I'm really into the trappings of authenticity to dress my fantasy settings as a great immersion tool, even adding innocuous detail of some authentic subject that the players might be unfamiliar adding both educating properties and something else to pull you deeper into the setting environment. In my continued development of the Rite Publishing Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) (my published homebrew) I try very much to include extensive feudal Japanese culture, government, caste system politics, rice based economy, police state quality of the shogunate though metsuki inquisitor/spies, imperial control on magic use with the Ministry of Onmyodo, yakuza controlled urban districts, etc.
If I were to homebrew a more typical western feudal setting, I'd put in the same effort and detail of authenticity to accomplish it, at least within my standards (its hard to meet my satisfaction, even things I do myself).
I am certain that most published settings/adventures hand-wave much of this historical authenticity, since the setting is intended to be fiction. That's a choice of the developer/publisher. Perhaps their story and concept is more important, and the feudal dress is just stage props, so have no real need for authenticity. I cannot really say, simply guess.
The original Harn setting relied on more authentic feudal details, and probably was a great influence in how I like to present any settings I build.
Regarding knights and since I primarily use Pathfinder, I'd go with cavaliers and cavalier orders, then include extra details specific to the knight's order for story. I'd develope a network of political allies and opponents, among members of the order, between the order and their liege lords, include all the feudal trappings that make it work.
Referring again to my Kaidan setting, there's a product called Way of the Samurai, not only is there plenty of fluff/background information on the samurai caste, all its members beyond just samurai warriors, politics, views on religion, code of Bushido, when seppuku can be avoided honorably, honor itself, and Spock's "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the self)" mentality that all Kaidanese (Japanese share). Beyond the bulk of the PF specific crunch, there's a section at the end called Creating a Samurai Clan, where I convert the GMG city stat-block rules to create unique individual and highly detailed rules for a samurai clan, including sources of income, ruler owing fealty, clan lord, clan lieutenant, etc. I even included 36 samurai kammon or house crests to choose from to depict your custom samurai clan (yes, I get really detailed in my concepts.)
If I were creating an Knight's Order, I'd adapt these rules to apply to a more western theme, though it would be an easy conversion, I think.
While I prefer pre-gun powder settings, personally, I've included gunslingers in Kaidan. I haven't used much cannons, firearms, gun powder in my personal games. I did pick up Razor Coast's Fire as She Bears rules on ships, and do plan to run a ship to ship, ship to shore battle using ships of sail and cannon someday soon, as I am intrigued, though as stated its not something I normally prefer. The rules in that guide seem pretty good compared to others I've read, and I think there's a lot of authenticity in the way that supplement's mechanics meeting its fluff in a believable and immersive way. I will use guns sometime soon (and I'm fine with how PF guns mechanics works for the most part - I've seen many previous versions that I didn't care for).
Last edited:
GMMichael
Guide of Modos
What most people expect of a medieval setting is castles and simple technology. The other elements are not wanted because while a feudal system setting could be awesome, it requires a focus on government, politics, and economics. Two terms of which will lose a player's interest faster than you can say "homebrewed roleplaying game."
That said, my idea of feudalism is a state-style government, highly dependent on written agreements, trust, and taxes (or tribute). Or the catchphrase: 'tracts, tax, and trust.
The contracts were little more than a tangible form of trust, or one's way of saying "this guy has my back."
The trust was the belief that everyone would fill their appropriate roles, i.e. vassals would follow the rules of their lords. If the neighboring lord, sworn to your liege as well, decides to turn his allegiance to the other nearby lord instead, well, you're either in for some big disagreements, or war.
Tax: well, it's one of the certain things in life.
Disclaimer: I did not get an A in my European history course. That I took almost 20 years ago.
That is pretty much the standard definition. The basic set-up is: Vassal offers military power and is granted some means of production to exploit. You can work from that, to make rather unusual arrangements.
For example in Cadwallon RPG, in exchange for fealty in times of war, the "knights" get the right to search the ruins for treasure and keep it. Basically adventurers form the nobility.
DrunkonDuty
he/him
A distinct lack of flush toilets and other essential plumbing.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
The social dynamics are more important than the technology. Maybe nobles have flush toilets... that are actually magic items that teleport the waste. Druids hate those! Elementalists also hate them if they're sending things to the Elemental Plane of Water or the Elemental Chaos.
A feudal society involves a new king giving local military and civil power to trusted friends because the king cannot directly rule more than a few days' travel from his palace. The position of king and noble are inherited. (In some societies, the king had to name each noble, but in general named the heirs of the previous noble.) Alas, over the generations, these friendships don't always last. Just because King William was friends with Duke Robert of West End doesn't mean King William IV will be friends with the 4th Duke of West End. They might even be hated enemies!
Because King William's demesne (directly-ruled land) is small, he can't support a large or permanent army. If King William needs to raise an army, he has to go to the nobles and ask them to raise their own troops, then lead them in combat against that rival king, or powerful monster, or whatever is needed. Needless to say, King William cannot risk upsetting too many nobles, or at the least he can't allow them to get too friendly with each other.
Finally, just because William I was a skilled badass doesn't mean William IV is. William I earned the kingdom. William IV inherited it. William IV might be heavily reliant on advisers who actually run things for him. William IV might get kicked off by Bob I. And then the cycle starts again.
Fantasy imposes at least two big changes:
1) Communications. With easy communications, feudalism puts the king in a stronger position, and local nobles might not even need to exist. Even today, there are local managers and so forth, so hierarchies would remain, but if the "local" army takes orders from the king and not the Duke of West End, then the duke doesn't even have a private army and is much less of a threat to the king.
Depending on the setting, even magical communication might not be enough to empower the king. In Eberron, you can use the gnomish Sivis Guild to speak to your armies... but naturally this means letting the gnomes know your every command. There's only one such guild, so you can't try to split up the messages. Really secret commands have to be hand-delivered, or get a loyal wizard to use the much less efficient Sending spell or ritual.
Even if communication is easy, you still have the "medieval western fantasy" tropes. It just means noble backstabbing doesn't really work as a plot and you have a strong king system rather than feudalism. The king still needs military commanders who might hire adventurers to deal with threats that they can't handle.
2) There are new power groups. In the medieval world, power groups already included nobles (who were really military leaders, if indirectly), the church, and merchants.
In a fantasy setting, the church is more powerful and arcane magic may be politically organized as a guild of sorts. The trope of court mage already exists, but I always add "confessor" to my games. The "confessor" is the priestly equivalent of the court mage, and the king or noble keeps one or more around because healing magic is handy. Of course, the confessor has their own religious agenda and tries to influence the king. D&D generally has many gods, so the confessor has competition. In other words if the king doesn't like dealing with the priesthood of one god they can switch. Religious warfare could be going on "behind the scenes", even if there are numerous gods sharing portfolios and/or alignments!
Mages take more careful handling. In some settings (eg Dragonlance) wizards are an open political power, formed to avoid repression, witch-hunting, and so forth. As wizards are virtually never common, they have to work hard to maintain unity. In DL, good and evil wizards openly worked together on things such as stopping witch-hunting, and presumably dealing with spell or ritual components. At meetings, violence was explicitly forbidden. In the Kingpriest era, a religious army took on the wizards, and fought them to a draw.
In other settings, wizards are generally individuals who survive by personal power and striking alliances with nobles or kings. As wizards are rarely loyal to their lords, they're seem more as skilled contractors. They might be indispensable as a group, but you can always fire one and hire another if they betray you in some way, or just if you don't like them.
And some settings may have both. Every once in a while, a charismatic wizard comes up with the idea of creating a local political group or guild, and find's it's difficult to get strong-willed intelligent people with very different opinions to work together. The most skilled guild leaders would restrict their leadership activities to things that all wizards hold in common - the need for magical resources (spellbooks, spell or ritual components, etc) and, if necessary, fighting off political persecution. A gathering of wizards naturally creates suspicions from locals, so many wizard guilds might be shadowy or not officially exist.
Some players and DMs think that a quasi-feudal system cannot exist in a world where wizards have access to mind control and charms. I disagree. That's one reason why I like the idea of a confessor. This character has a church backing them up, skills such as Arcana or Spellcraft and Insight or Sense Motive and spells or rituals such as Dispel Magic, Break Enchantment or Remove Affliction. Items (including magic bedrooms) that protect the king would be common. Naturally this leaves the rulers dependent on the confessors while possibly also being dependent on wizards. Instead of "wizards rule the world" it's the king rules, but has to spend a lot of effort balancing the needs of the wizards and clergy.
A feudal society involves a new king giving local military and civil power to trusted friends because the king cannot directly rule more than a few days' travel from his palace. The position of king and noble are inherited. (In some societies, the king had to name each noble, but in general named the heirs of the previous noble.) Alas, over the generations, these friendships don't always last. Just because King William was friends with Duke Robert of West End doesn't mean King William IV will be friends with the 4th Duke of West End. They might even be hated enemies!
Because King William's demesne (directly-ruled land) is small, he can't support a large or permanent army. If King William needs to raise an army, he has to go to the nobles and ask them to raise their own troops, then lead them in combat against that rival king, or powerful monster, or whatever is needed. Needless to say, King William cannot risk upsetting too many nobles, or at the least he can't allow them to get too friendly with each other.
Finally, just because William I was a skilled badass doesn't mean William IV is. William I earned the kingdom. William IV inherited it. William IV might be heavily reliant on advisers who actually run things for him. William IV might get kicked off by Bob I. And then the cycle starts again.
Fantasy imposes at least two big changes:
1) Communications. With easy communications, feudalism puts the king in a stronger position, and local nobles might not even need to exist. Even today, there are local managers and so forth, so hierarchies would remain, but if the "local" army takes orders from the king and not the Duke of West End, then the duke doesn't even have a private army and is much less of a threat to the king.
Depending on the setting, even magical communication might not be enough to empower the king. In Eberron, you can use the gnomish Sivis Guild to speak to your armies... but naturally this means letting the gnomes know your every command. There's only one such guild, so you can't try to split up the messages. Really secret commands have to be hand-delivered, or get a loyal wizard to use the much less efficient Sending spell or ritual.
Even if communication is easy, you still have the "medieval western fantasy" tropes. It just means noble backstabbing doesn't really work as a plot and you have a strong king system rather than feudalism. The king still needs military commanders who might hire adventurers to deal with threats that they can't handle.
2) There are new power groups. In the medieval world, power groups already included nobles (who were really military leaders, if indirectly), the church, and merchants.
In a fantasy setting, the church is more powerful and arcane magic may be politically organized as a guild of sorts. The trope of court mage already exists, but I always add "confessor" to my games. The "confessor" is the priestly equivalent of the court mage, and the king or noble keeps one or more around because healing magic is handy. Of course, the confessor has their own religious agenda and tries to influence the king. D&D generally has many gods, so the confessor has competition. In other words if the king doesn't like dealing with the priesthood of one god they can switch. Religious warfare could be going on "behind the scenes", even if there are numerous gods sharing portfolios and/or alignments!
Mages take more careful handling. In some settings (eg Dragonlance) wizards are an open political power, formed to avoid repression, witch-hunting, and so forth. As wizards are virtually never common, they have to work hard to maintain unity. In DL, good and evil wizards openly worked together on things such as stopping witch-hunting, and presumably dealing with spell or ritual components. At meetings, violence was explicitly forbidden. In the Kingpriest era, a religious army took on the wizards, and fought them to a draw.
In other settings, wizards are generally individuals who survive by personal power and striking alliances with nobles or kings. As wizards are rarely loyal to their lords, they're seem more as skilled contractors. They might be indispensable as a group, but you can always fire one and hire another if they betray you in some way, or just if you don't like them.
And some settings may have both. Every once in a while, a charismatic wizard comes up with the idea of creating a local political group or guild, and find's it's difficult to get strong-willed intelligent people with very different opinions to work together. The most skilled guild leaders would restrict their leadership activities to things that all wizards hold in common - the need for magical resources (spellbooks, spell or ritual components, etc) and, if necessary, fighting off political persecution. A gathering of wizards naturally creates suspicions from locals, so many wizard guilds might be shadowy or not officially exist.
Some players and DMs think that a quasi-feudal system cannot exist in a world where wizards have access to mind control and charms. I disagree. That's one reason why I like the idea of a confessor. This character has a church backing them up, skills such as Arcana or Spellcraft and Insight or Sense Motive and spells or rituals such as Dispel Magic, Break Enchantment or Remove Affliction. Items (including magic bedrooms) that protect the king would be common. Naturally this leaves the rulers dependent on the confessors while possibly also being dependent on wizards. Instead of "wizards rule the world" it's the king rules, but has to spend a lot of effort balancing the needs of the wizards and clergy.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
Most D&D settings I see are not feudal/medieval anyway - they have a range up to just pre-industrial-revolution.
What I use most commonly, though:
The rule of man is more important than the rule of law. Kings rule because they are kings, and they have the biggest army.
Pre-gunpowder, for the most part. High middle ages tech, with a few people that have made unique things. The richer you are, the more likely you are to have something like a primitive flush toilet, or running water (depends on the area, etc). I go with the idea that just because a fairly obvious idea didn't catch on in our world, doesn't mean it could not have been invented earlier/later on some other world or parallel. The big, big deal in most of my worlds is usually the block printing press.
Lots of rural people, a few huddled up in towns. A couple of free cities. Maybe one or two large cities.
Magic for the most part has no effect on society - wizards don't give a flip about normal people and they are vastly more concerned with finding a new Whispering Wind variant than they are in working for some king. Somewhat like the Church in our medieval world, wizards for the most part exist outside the whole society thing and go their own way. They don't bother people and people don't bother them. Empowered clerics are rare and they tend to be wanderers or set up their own small church somewhere remote.
What I use most commonly, though:
The rule of man is more important than the rule of law. Kings rule because they are kings, and they have the biggest army.
Pre-gunpowder, for the most part. High middle ages tech, with a few people that have made unique things. The richer you are, the more likely you are to have something like a primitive flush toilet, or running water (depends on the area, etc). I go with the idea that just because a fairly obvious idea didn't catch on in our world, doesn't mean it could not have been invented earlier/later on some other world or parallel. The big, big deal in most of my worlds is usually the block printing press.
Lots of rural people, a few huddled up in towns. A couple of free cities. Maybe one or two large cities.
Magic for the most part has no effect on society - wizards don't give a flip about normal people and they are vastly more concerned with finding a new Whispering Wind variant than they are in working for some king. Somewhat like the Church in our medieval world, wizards for the most part exist outside the whole society thing and go their own way. They don't bother people and people don't bother them. Empowered clerics are rare and they tend to be wanderers or set up their own small church somewhere remote.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
It depends of course, upon the history and beliefs of the people, including wizards in a given setting to how they interact with their society. In a Japan analog, like Kaidan, the emperor is considered of divine origin, being a living version of god on earth. If the wizards believed he is exactly that, defying god isn't something they'd likely do, thus serving the state makes a lot more sense. The Ministry of Onmyodo was a branch of the imperial government which served as the only wizard's academy in all the land, and only they can license someone to practice the arcane arts, so there is an extra connection between the government and practicing wizards - a further reason for wizards to serve the empire, rather than themselves. This is not to say, that sorcerers and witches don't exist, however, they are treated as criminals by the state and the state approved wizards. With the help of shogunate forces, the onmyoji wizards hunt these 'unlicensed' spellcasters to be tried and executed for not using the proper channels as onmyoji do. (Note: since ancient Japanese believed magic was real, the Ministry of Onmyodo was a real thing and actually existed in historic Japan.)
Similar Threads
