D&D 5E Dnd World Demographics Excel Tool - Rarity of Classes and Spells

[Yaarel]

I view undead as maintaining a partial connection to the actual person. This part is incomplete and confused but is still part of the person.

In this view, undead labor can be exploitative and cruel.

Constructs however are automatons. These are ethically fine.

 

[Ixal]

Wrong focus.

If undead or constructs are essentially infinite sources of labor, the living people that manage to be serfs are the lucky ones. Most of them are destitute.

Most people whos work could be replaced by simple undead would already be destitute.
Or they would be farmers, having to fulfil their obligations to their lord with manual labour and would not mind not having to do it and instead tend their farm for longer. Remember that the entire economic system used to be very different in the times most fantasy games seek to emulate.

 

[ph0rk]

having to fulfil their obligations to their lord with manual labour

The point is that in a world with cheap undead and constructs, manual labor is worth much less, possibly worth nothing, in much the same way skilled kitchen labor is worth little to a McDonald’s franchise.

Remember that the entire economic system used to be very different in the times most fantasy games seek to emulate.

Not just that, but the economic system in a world with standard levels of DND Magic the economy would be even more dystopian than a feudal system, because there is no need to feed the serfs.

Either you have money, magic, land, or can steal or kill things really well, or you will probably starve.

 

[Ixal]

The point is that in a world with cheap undead and constructs, manual labor is worth much less, possibly worth nothing, in much the same way skilled kitchen labor is worth little to a McDonald’s franchise.


Not just that, but the economic system in a world with standard levels of DND Magic the economy would be even more dystopian than a feudal system, because there is no need to feed the serfs.

Either you have money, magic, land, or can kill things really well, or you will probably starve.

I don't think unintelligent undead would replace farmers. They would replace draft animals and beasts of burden, so a cart would not be pulled by an oxen but for zombies for example. But you still need a living person to steer.
So I do not see why people would starve. Farmers would still be farmers and mainly produce for their own consumption + a little bit extra and skilled labour certainly won't be replaced by zombies anyway. Only untrained day labourer, the poorest of the poor and usually already dependent on soup kitchens might find competition from undead.

Undead labour might have an effect on some branches, for example they could be used for spinning which was very time consuming, but not complicated which might affect prices which in turn might affect normal peasants which also spun thread as second income. But even there, experience matters so a undead might not be able to spin the best thread which might make it not a very economical choice to have an undead for spinning.

 

[ph0rk]

I don't think unintelligent undead would replace farmers. They would replace draft animals and beasts of burden, so a cart would not be pulled by an oxen but for zombies for example. But you still need a living person to steer.
So I do not see why people would starve. Farmers would still be farmers and mainly produce for their own consumption + a little bit extra and skilled labour certainly won't be replaced by zombies anyway. Only untrained day labourer, the poorest of the poor and usually already dependent on soup kitchens might find competition from undead.

Undead labour might have an effect on some branches, for example they could be used for spinning which was very time consuming, but not complicated which might affect prices which in turn might affect normal peasants which also spun thread as second income. But even there, experience matters so a undead might not be able to spin the best thread which might make it not a very economical choice to have an undead for spinning.

They aren't all that unintelligent (skeletons have an int of 6; as do flesh golems; ghouls have an int of 7 ), and there a intelligent overseers available, too, like Vampire Spawn (cr5) and Ghasts (cr2). I assume an int of 11 is more than sufficient.

Serfs weren't valuable because they were skilled, they were valuable because mechanization didn't exist yet. Serfs that don't require food are even better (that is, skeletons, flesh golems, vampire spawn, ghouls, etc).

A medium to high level Necromancer (or wizard who feels like casting Animate Dead regularly) can have a very large labor force that won't strike or complain and do not require food. This is like mechanized farming; and small scale farming wouldn't stand a chance.


Serf labor would be worth much less than it would be a non-magical economy, and serfs would thus starve. In fact, wheat may not even be worth growing as a cash crop because the serfs don't have the funds to buy bread.

 

[Quartz]

I remember a story in which stevedores had been replaced with undead and were causing trouble for the militia. The owners of the harbour were making money hand over fist - no wages to pay - until the necromancer controlling the undead revealed his other plans...

 

[Ixal]

They aren't all that unintelligent (skeletons have an int of 6; as do flesh golems; ghouls have an int of 7 ), and there a intelligent overseers available, too, like Vampire Spawn (cr5) and Ghasts (cr2). I assume an int of 11 is more than sufficient.

Serfs weren't valuable because they were skilled, they were valuable because mechanization didn't exist yet. Serfs that don't require food are even better (that is, skeletons, flesh golems, vampire spawn, ghouls, etc).

A medium to high level Necromancer (or wizard who feels like casting Animate Dead regularly) can have a very large labor force that won't strike or complain and do not require food. This is like mechanized farming; and small scale farming wouldn't stand a chance.


Serf labor would be worth much less than it would be a non-magical economy, and serfs would thus starve. In fact, wheat may not even be worth growing as a cash crop because the serfs don't have the funds to buy bread.

Wheat never was a cash crop. The medieveal economy was very different from today and less money driven. So you can't simply use todays capitalistic view to judge the effect undead labour would have.

Even with a vastly higher food output you are not earning X times more money. Without refrigiration you can't store that food for longer than a season, so most of it is wasted. And the human farmers wouldn't be really affected much by the surplus as they did not produce for a market to earn money but mainly to have enough to feed themselves, so the price of food does not matter to them much. Rather, they would see low food prices as a boon as they could still manage to buy some in the times of need.

On the other side, a overproduction of food would allow a much higher rate of skilled labour than what was historically possible which might have positive effects on the overall development and progress of the nation.

Also, Int 6 is still pretty stupid and probably won't achieve the same results a farmer would.

 

[NotAYakk]

Wheat never was a cash crop. The medieveal economy was very different from today and less money driven. So you can't simply use todays capitalistic view to judge the effect undead labour would have.

Even with a vastly higher food output you are not earning X times more money. Without refrigiration you can't store that food for longer than a season, so most of it is wasted. And the human farmers wouldn't be really affected much by the surplus as they did not produce for a market to earn money but mainly to have enough to feed themselves, so the price of food does not matter to them much. Rather, they would see low food prices as a boon as they could still manage to buy some in the times of need.

On the other side, a overproduction of food would allow a much higher rate of skilled labour than what was historically possible which might have positive effects on the overall development and progress of the nation.

Also, Int 6 is still pretty stupid and probably won't achieve the same results a farmer would.

Farmers where allowed to produce for their own consumption because the machinery of state wasn't that efficient at extracting resources from them, and the consent of the serfs was needed in order to grow the food.

The Malthusian trap meant that the land was more important than the marginal productivity or more people working on it. Those farmers would grow food and keep as much as they could to feed their families, which grew in size (over generations) until there wasn't enough. The local government would attempt to take the food (via taxes) to feed the nobility and city folk, and be resisted as the farmers would rather feed their family than some stranger.

If you can replace the farmers with constructs or undead that don't grow in numbers and don't require food themselves, you don't have serfs who every few generations require aggressive tax collection and/or thinning them out in a war.

Farmers who eat 90% of the food they grow are relatively easy to compete with productivity wise to the owner of the land.

 

[ph0rk]

Wheat never was a cash crop.

But it would have to be when you don't need it to feed your labor force. Otherwise, you wouldn't grow very much of it but for what a handful of elites may wish to eat.

Farmers who eat 90% of the food they grow are relatively easy to compete with productivity wise to the owner of the land.

Why would these farmers have access to the land in the first place, if they'll only eat the bulk of the harvest? What power over and above the Mage-Lord would be slicing out land and giving it to peasants?

The Malthusian trap meant that the land was more important than the marginal productivity or more people working on it.

Yes, only now the people aren't even necessary in the first place to produce anything. And they don't have funds to purchase anything, either.

 

[Ixal]

Farmers who eat 90% of the food they grow are relatively easy to compete with productivity wise to the owner of the land.

Productivity didn't matter much though. This is a modern concept.
Food production was a means to an end, not a source of money. At best you had security because of large stores and maybe some small income (although when you overproduce food who is going to buy it?).
Food could neither be stored for long nor traded over long distances (although undead might help with that) except in very specific circumstances. There was no market you could dump food on and make money that way.

Taxes too were usually not in food but money and it was the peasants job to earn money for the taxes. That sometimes included selling food in the city, but also spinning, labour and many other sources.
So a living serf would often mean higher taxes for the lord than an always working undead.