Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 3553152" data-attributes="member: 307">No, it isn't. It is expressed as pay, with a little talk about it perhaps being in trade, but most of the stuff assumes that people are circulating cash in a money based economy. Of course, the idea of capital and commodities, as opposed to tenancy and personal obligations, moves you more towards the modern.They were exceptional, and yet, they didn't do what you said that people did. Wallace was already minor nobility and became . . . outlawed minor nobility. Joan was a peasant, and became a military leader for a extraordinarily brief period, and then she was betrayed and killed. So you have a pair of examples, neither of which really support the idea that social advancement is something that is commonplace (as appears to be the case in the default D&D world), and say little concerning the social divisions between say, commoners and nobility (which the default D&D assumption simply glosses over).Most PCs are not knights, nor are they from any kind of privileged background - at least as a default assumption. Sure there were free persons, but they had limited political authority, and severely curtailed prospects for advancement - and certainly nothing like you see in the default D&D campaign.Study something like The Last Sorcerers and you would be surprised at how little was understood about hos those processes worked.Actually, throughout the renaissance, handcrafts were common, especially for very high technology items - clockmakers, gunsmiths and shipwrights built everything essentially to order. There were some technologies that were more mass produced, but there wasn't significant industrialization until much later (the 17th century at the earliest, and the 18th century to get things into full swing). The idea of the highly skilled craftsman who makes a unique and valuable product available to all who have the coin to pay for it taking center stage as an important social figure (as opposed to a landlord renting farms to tenants for service and produce) is moving into a more modern mind-set.Now you are just being the southern end of a northbound horse.The renaissance took place at different times in different places - evolving in the regions bordering the Mediterranean first and filtering outwards. The paradigm shift took time - and you know that it did. Your "day and date" crap is just a smokescreen you use to make yourself look like you know something special, when all you are really doing is demonstrating the paltry nature of your argument. There was a shift in how society was organized. It didn't take place on a particular day, and it didn't happen everywhere at once, nor did the ideas come fully formed or take root fully everywhere - nothing ever does (and demanding that someone identify such a day and date reveals the requester to be a non-serious individual), but it did take place. The attitudes and assumptions of a 15th century spaniard would be almost incomprehensible to a 13th century castillian, and vice versa. The way Henry V viewed the world was very different from how Henry VIII viewed the world.</blockquote>

Verification