Lord or Tyrant?

[Elf Witch]

My point is that in my campaign, and as far as I know, in medieval times, it was in the same league, since society was structured that way. It is a default assumption I follow whenever a feudal system is mentioned.

I think this is big mistake on your part to assume this becaue not every DM uses that standard as being true for their setting.

There are a lot of different ways to make a fantasy world.

 

[Fenes]

If a feudal system does not mean inequality, then what does it mean?

 

[kigmatzomat]

The system wasn't inherently unequal until postings became hereditary, which admittedly took very little time. However most political systems develop inequalities once the power structure becomes sufficiently complicated and divorced from the common man. Inequality tends to result in hereditary systems, as successive generations (at least at the top) come to believe more deeply in the philosophy justifying the inequality.

Feudalism basically means a regional defense-focused government, with the masses agreeing to support the military in return for protection. How much "agreement" there was in the early days it's hard to say. The first to develop the fiefdom system could have been a noble defender of the weak or a brutal tyrant; can't say.

Each "lord" acts as the "lord protector" of a region. The King is analagous to "Commander in Chief", responsible for the entire region. The king assigns highly ranked generals (aka Dukes) to protect reaches of the realm (duchies). The Dukes subdivide their territory into smaller regions and assign officers (aka colonels/counts) to these region (aka counties). The Counts subdivide again, creating baronies for their majors. The barons often assign much smaller holdings, closer to households, to their captains (aka Knight Captain). The Knight Captains have their lieutenants (Knights) who are accompanied by the rank and file military & men at arms (aka troops).

The biggest problem is the selection of replacement nobility. It's a simple truism that those raised within the military will have a better chance of developing military skill, just as with any other skill set. Over time it would have resulted in the offspring of officers being consistently among the best candidates for replacing the dead officers. Without a mechanism to allow those not born into the military to learn the skills at a sufficiently early age, a hereditary system is the likely outcome.

More enlightened governments typically form from the still-cooling ashes of a former system that became intolerable to the masses. And thanks to the security provided by the now defunct system, the masses are sufficiently educated to actually make improvements.

So feudalism gave way the european empires, which evolved things like the magna carta, and ultimately produced numerous governments with varying levels of democratic rule. Ultimately the modern democracies will fall either to outside threats or internal forces. We can only hope the next incarnations will be a step forward rather than a step back.

 

[kigmatzomat]

An "enlightened" fief-based government is possible, assuming a decent honor code is instilled in the hereditary lords as well as socio-political counterbalance in the forms of guilds and and judiciary that is impartial to maintain independence. Churches could be interpreted as guilds in this system. The best counterbalance is a ratification by the guild/judiciary of the succeeding lord. As kings often had the ability to grant or strip hereditary titles, this would allow new blood to rejuvenate the system.

Feudalism would then become similar to that seen in the Errol Flynn "Robin Hood" movie, where the nobles are primarily looking out for the good of the people and the people are respectful because their leaders deserve respect more than command it.

Would it last? Nope, nothing does. It would probably last between 10-100 years, until sufficient generations pass that the offspring feel deserving and self important. More than long enough for most campaigns though.

So don't assume that "feudal society" inherently requires inequality.

 

[Numion]

Calling a woman a whore can get you fined in 2007 Finland, so I don't think it would be nonpunishable in a feudal society, however enlightened that might be.

 

[Elf Witch]

Calling a woman a whore can get you fined in 2007 Finland, so I don't think it would be nonpunishable in a feudal society, however enlightened that might be.

woman were often called bad names in the medieval times. Anne Boylen who Henry crowned as Queen of England was called a whore, tramp and a lot of other names by people. On the day she was crowned and was riding through the streets the people were hissing this at her.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

As a DM he can do that and he is not playing the game wrong. It sounded to me that he and his players need to get more on the same page as they were having a misunderstanding of his world's culture and how it works in his game.

One root cause of the issue is that we rotate dm's, and they run sessions for a decent stretch. We each bring our own assumptions to the table and usually the differences don't matter much. Actually, the differences that sparked this thread are not major.

I wouldn't get too excited and say strong statements for or against, because that's stoking a fire that doesn't exist - at least in our game. I hope it doesn't exist in others' games too. :\

One of the solutions we agreed on was a 'lordship sheet' (for lack of a better term), that tracks the relationships between my character and every location, organisation and person he's met. It's 2 spaced pages so far. It's an agreed document that tracks the ebb and flow of social standing, and I'm quite pleased with it.

 

[Elf Witch]

One root cause of the issue is that we rotate dm's, and they run sessions for a decent stretch. We each bring our own assumptions to the table and usually the differences don't matter much. Actually, the differences that sparked this thread are not major.

I wouldn't get too excited and say strong statements for or against, because that's stoking a fire that doesn't exist - at least in our game. I hope it doesn't exist in others' games too. :\

One of the solutions we agreed on was a 'lordship sheet' (for lack of a better term), that tracks the relationships between my character and every location, organisation and person he's met. It's 2 spaced pages so far. It's an agreed document that tracks the ebb and flow of social standing, and I'm quite pleased with it.

That's great that you guys are cool with this. I am glad you posted this thread because it has sparked aome really intersting conversations about social order in DnD worlds in my gaming group.

I think the idea of lordship sheet is really good idea I might steal this idea for the paladin in my game.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Yeah, few social problems are unsolvable when people are committed to discussing things over.

I've attached the draft spreadsheet frame work we're using if you're looking for a place to start. It hasn't been filled out because that's a group effort. Having not run it through practical use, I don't know how unwieldy or effective it is yet.

(WARNING - minor but definite RttToEE named npc spoilers in the attachment!)

 

[Elf Witch]

Yeah, few social problems are unsolvable when people are committed to discussing things over.

I've attached the draft spreadsheet frame work we're using if you're looking for a place to start. It hasn't been filled out because that's a group effort. Having not run it through practical use, I don't know how unwieldy or effective it is yet.

(WARNING - minor but definite RttToEE named npc spoilers in the attachment!)

I agree which why the first advice should always be talk to your DM/players/group when issues come up.

Thanks for the spreadsheet it really gave me some ideas on how to modify this for the paladin in my game. I sent him a copy and he really liked the idea as well.