Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
I love threads of this nature, but I have to say that the initial argument is based on some comparatively questionable assumptions.
While I agree with the sentiment that there isn't really a need to defend Feudalism when you can develop your own histories of the state of the world, I also think that we at this board tend to view Feudalism in a very specific light that ignores the complexities and variances that characterized the history of the concept.
In many ways I think the dynamics of DnD allow for a much more faithful modeling of the early and late systems of Feudalism than our own conceptions allow us. Left to our own devices we late twentieth century capitalists and socialists tend to see Feudalism as far more monolithic, stable, and homogenous than it commonly was. The individuality, instability, and diversity of DnD helps correct this.
Correction #1: The emergence of many powerful institutions and vocations. In DnD you get very powerful wizards, druids, clerics, and rogues who are easily as capable as noble warriors, inevitably they end up being lords in their own right.
This does a lot to recreate the actual emergence of landed and powerful churches, schools, intellectuals, guilds, and merchants who were integrated into the feudal system using a variety of different techniques.
Correction #2: DnD makes it possible for the elite of a society to participate in many more activities than farming and being stable. It also creates a class of adventurers.
While the word adventurers may not have been so commonly used and DnD adventurers tend to travel with a much lighter support staff than was common for the period, the majority of the Feudal period was characterized by rampant instability and a very high degree of individual autonomy for anyone who was willing to take their protection into their own hands. This is one of the most interesting effects of a system that uses explicit social contracts. The adventures of El Cid are pretty acurate in terms of his exploits, if not his background, and if you were to cut down the number in his band from a small company to an adventuring party you would have something that could aptly be described as the best story hour ever.
Another correction this creates is to ruin the modern idea of what nobility means. The idea of nobility in the early middle and dark ages is very very very fluid. A knight is anyone with arms. Everything beyond that is negotiable.
Correction #3: Armies aren't as useful in DnD as we think they should be. This is right on the money. Medieval conflict is often characterized by the lack of large military formations. There were always periods and circumstances in which armies were useful and that's true in DnD as well, but small bands of elite soldiers were the true key to power in most circumstances.
Anyways, my main point would be that the tradition of fantasy that is embodied in DnD is itself based on a reading, primarily literrary, of the medieval world that is in many ways far more accurate than the economic and systematic reading we commonly possess.
While I agree with the sentiment that there isn't really a need to defend Feudalism when you can develop your own histories of the state of the world, I also think that we at this board tend to view Feudalism in a very specific light that ignores the complexities and variances that characterized the history of the concept.
In many ways I think the dynamics of DnD allow for a much more faithful modeling of the early and late systems of Feudalism than our own conceptions allow us. Left to our own devices we late twentieth century capitalists and socialists tend to see Feudalism as far more monolithic, stable, and homogenous than it commonly was. The individuality, instability, and diversity of DnD helps correct this.
Correction #1: The emergence of many powerful institutions and vocations. In DnD you get very powerful wizards, druids, clerics, and rogues who are easily as capable as noble warriors, inevitably they end up being lords in their own right.
This does a lot to recreate the actual emergence of landed and powerful churches, schools, intellectuals, guilds, and merchants who were integrated into the feudal system using a variety of different techniques.
Correction #2: DnD makes it possible for the elite of a society to participate in many more activities than farming and being stable. It also creates a class of adventurers.
While the word adventurers may not have been so commonly used and DnD adventurers tend to travel with a much lighter support staff than was common for the period, the majority of the Feudal period was characterized by rampant instability and a very high degree of individual autonomy for anyone who was willing to take their protection into their own hands. This is one of the most interesting effects of a system that uses explicit social contracts. The adventures of El Cid are pretty acurate in terms of his exploits, if not his background, and if you were to cut down the number in his band from a small company to an adventuring party you would have something that could aptly be described as the best story hour ever.
Another correction this creates is to ruin the modern idea of what nobility means. The idea of nobility in the early middle and dark ages is very very very fluid. A knight is anyone with arms. Everything beyond that is negotiable.
Correction #3: Armies aren't as useful in DnD as we think they should be. This is right on the money. Medieval conflict is often characterized by the lack of large military formations. There were always periods and circumstances in which armies were useful and that's true in DnD as well, but small bands of elite soldiers were the true key to power in most circumstances.
Anyways, my main point would be that the tradition of fantasy that is embodied in DnD is itself based on a reading, primarily literrary, of the medieval world that is in many ways far more accurate than the economic and systematic reading we commonly possess.
