Information and Leisure =Medieval life and the Halfling Socialists

[Tonguez]

Down in the Mors End threads (Plots and Places) there was discussion of a Workers Senate and whether it was a legitimate item for a medieval city or the insane idea of some Halfling Socialists

Of course the comment was made that Socialism is NOT a medieval notion.

HOWEVER

D&D is not strictly medieval. Three things the people in DnD worlds with all its magic have is
1 Information (everyone is literate) and
2 Leisure Time (due to better health, generally excellent crop yeilds (druids are great!), longer lives)
3. Social mobility - kill a dragon, gain a fortune! PCs as wandering mecenaries with influence

These were key ingredients for development of the Intellectual elite after the Industrial Revolution (on Earth) which lead to such notions as Socialism, Gender Equality and modern Science

Soo with this in mind could a DnD city legitamately feature a Halfling Socialists, Democratic Republic (modern form not Greek Demos). In otherwords how post-modern would a DnD world really be?

 

[hong]

Wasn't the Five Shires from BD&D's Mystara basically socialist?

 

[Henry]

Socialism is not medieval, but communes or commune-like social structures existed at the time. While the feudal relationship was important to foster protection of local noncombatants, the actual social structures in many ways evolved a system of the whole community assisting in various projects. Even outside of Europe, some African villages were living in communal resource distribution systems during the time period.

 

[Alchemist]

I think that as long as one is willing to discard the pseudo-medieval template that vanilla D&D assumes and the feudal society that comes along with it, you're good to go.

Granted, nowhere does it actually say that society is strictly feudal, I think that's just our knee-jerk reaction to the idea of people wandering around slaying dragons. "It must feature kings and their vassals!"

As far as I'm concerned, the higher the magic level of the world, the more modern-like it becomes. I have a difficult time reconciling FR and the common folk not having all the things you talk about, leading to the conditions that spawned socialist (and other sociological) types of ideas. Gender equality is already implicit in the game design, especially compared to earlier editions. I don't necesarilly think that modern science would automatically be spawned. There is already a paradigm in place that quite obviously explains the world and allows for the means to control and manipulate it. In most worlds, the gods take an active hand or their agents display feats of power. There is no ambiguitiy about deity. Part of the turn to science was the rejection of the dogma surrounding religion, since there was no proof. In D&D, there is indeed proof and it'll roast you with a flame strike if you think otherwise.

 

[jgbrowning]

Socialism is not medieval, but communes or commune-like social structures existed at the time. While the feudal relationship was important to foster protection of local noncombatants, the actual social structures in many ways evolved a system of the whole community assisting in various projects. Even outside of Europe, some African villages were living in communal resource distribution systems during the time period.

Communes would be the OP's best best for quasi-medieval. Socialism is not solely dependant upon the three things the OP listed (I don't think he even ment to imply that ).

In RL socialist ideas (at least as most people think of them: concepts of social class and standing being based upon idea of exploitation and the neutralising/minimizing of that exploitation through governmental action) required first capitalist ideas which really didn't develop until after the concept of "Nation State." I'd venture that Nation State concepts are utterly absent in most DnD campaigns. You can't have a functioning nation state and still have adventuers.

just my .002$

joe b.

 

[Mark Chance]

Part of the turn to science was the rejection of the dogma surrounding religion, since there was no proof.

The scientific revolution in Europe was a direct outgrowth of theistic (especially Christian and Jewish) philosophy and theology. All of the pioneers of the scientific revolution were at least some shade of theist, and many were devoutly religious.

The wholesale rejection of dogma, in those few places where it did occur (such as much of France), led not to widespread scientific achievement but to social chaos, terror, and the proliferation of occult societies such as Rosicrucians and the Freemasons.

As Chesterton observed: Once people stop believing in a god, they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything.

 

[Alchemist]

Hrm.

I stand corrected. That's what I get for not thinking about what I'm posting.

It would seem I'm talking about more modern thinking rather than that at the birth of Science. My bad.

 

[Wormwood]

Actually, the idea of a Halfling kibbutz sounds very appealing.

 

[Dinkeldog]

The only error I saw was assumption 1. Not everyone is expressly literate--just the adventuring classes.

 

[Olive]

there are plenty of medieval examples of communal living experiments in medieval europe. almost every majotr heresy of the time involved some sort of class struggle coupled with debates about wealth and common ownership. Read up on the cathars etc. and you might find some inspiration.