-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
PCs lack of respect for the 'caste' system of your typical fantasy society
- Thread starter Kichwas
- Start date
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
If I may add two points
1. In Medieval Times very few (practically nil) commoners went off on adventures unless they were forced to by pressgangs or having their village burnt down by rampaging orcs -or Swiss mercenaries - (at which point they would go and find another Laird to serve)
ergo Very few Adventurer PCs are actually commoners, my guess is that most are minor aristocrats (9th sons of a minor baron sought of thing) or possible 9th sons of merchants (experts) etc etc The few urban commoners that are PCs are probably rogues so not likely to bow and scrape either
2. Not everyone in Medieval times deffered to the Class system - it was merchants in Paris that led the French Revolution afterall,
Priests (Clerics) were not required to bow to nobles (they bowed down to God alone) and I suspect that the same would go for Wizards. Rogues I mentioned above would not necessarily respect the nobs, neither would 'outsiders like Barbarians nor Scorcerers nor Monks.
Which leaves Fighters - Fighters, Paladins, Rangers. Okay Robin Hood was a 'Ranger' who showed very little respect for nobility, Paladins like Clerics only need to bow to their god, Fighter-Adventurers are mercenaries and so will serve which ever noble or merchant or whatever pays the most gold (not a lot of respect for much except that coin)
ergo PCs are those special cases that do not defer to class unless it suits their particular agenda at the time ie when using diplomacy checks to win some favour from a noble
The other thing of course is Race - do Dwarf PCs respect Human Kings? Does the average halfing care if Ugork is the Orcish Warchief? Do gnomes even have a class system they can relate to?
1. In Medieval Times very few (practically nil) commoners went off on adventures unless they were forced to by pressgangs or having their village burnt down by rampaging orcs -or Swiss mercenaries - (at which point they would go and find another Laird to serve)
ergo Very few Adventurer PCs are actually commoners, my guess is that most are minor aristocrats (9th sons of a minor baron sought of thing) or possible 9th sons of merchants (experts) etc etc The few urban commoners that are PCs are probably rogues so not likely to bow and scrape either
2. Not everyone in Medieval times deffered to the Class system - it was merchants in Paris that led the French Revolution afterall,
Priests (Clerics) were not required to bow to nobles (they bowed down to God alone) and I suspect that the same would go for Wizards. Rogues I mentioned above would not necessarily respect the nobs, neither would 'outsiders like Barbarians nor Scorcerers nor Monks.
Which leaves Fighters - Fighters, Paladins, Rangers. Okay Robin Hood was a 'Ranger' who showed very little respect for nobility, Paladins like Clerics only need to bow to their god, Fighter-Adventurers are mercenaries and so will serve which ever noble or merchant or whatever pays the most gold (not a lot of respect for much except that coin)
ergo PCs are those special cases that do not defer to class unless it suits their particular agenda at the time ie when using diplomacy checks to win some favour from a noble
The other thing of course is Race - do Dwarf PCs respect Human Kings? Does the average halfing care if Ugork is the Orcish Warchief? Do gnomes even have a class system they can relate to?
Victim
First Post
Didn't feudalism take root at least partially because it was the most effective counter to Viking attacks on settlements? In DnD, we can assume that monster attacks will be at least bad as raids by humans.
So, landed knights took power because they stop or deter attacks from outside.
Now we fill in using DnD stuff. Adventurers? take power because they can defeat monster attacks.
Using that assumption, then most nobles are or were adventures. Since an adventurer's ability depends more on actual combat experience than training, then to continue to be effective and thus hold their position, their successor's would also have to continue to fight monsters. Also, rulers able to train the children, will out their spell books, equip them with decent stuff etc. Maybe arranged groups would help cement alliances between different families.
So, landed knights took power because they stop or deter attacks from outside.
Now we fill in using DnD stuff. Adventurers? take power because they can defeat monster attacks.
Using that assumption, then most nobles are or were adventures. Since an adventurer's ability depends more on actual combat experience than training, then to continue to be effective and thus hold their position, their successor's would also have to continue to fight monsters. Also, rulers able to train the children, will out their spell books, equip them with decent stuff etc. Maybe arranged groups would help cement alliances between different families.
Arcane Runes Press
First Post
Galfridus:
You took the words right out of my mouth. As an add on to what you said: no matter how good a roleplayer you are, it can be difficult to be properly deferencial to Bob- Fat Guy in a T-Shirt, even if he's supposed to be Bartholomew- Lord of Seven Day's Ride.
Tonguez:
I agree with your points, particularly about race, though I suspect most PCs, regardless of race, would be deferencial out of fear if nothing else. At least for a few class levels.
You took the words right out of my mouth. As an add on to what you said: no matter how good a roleplayer you are, it can be difficult to be properly deferencial to Bob- Fat Guy in a T-Shirt, even if he's supposed to be Bartholomew- Lord of Seven Day's Ride.
Tonguez:
I agree with your points, particularly about race, though I suspect most PCs, regardless of race, would be deferencial out of fear if nothing else. At least for a few class levels.
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
Great first post, ChrisM!
Definitely, there needs to be some DM to players delineation of how the world works, or at the least, their corner of the world. Handouts are a popular way to do this, but it needs to be followed with consistent descriptive examples during play until the ideas and flavor of the world take hold. After that, well placed reminders should come at every session and early in each session.
All good points but it should be pointed out that the iconic characters, like PCs, are of that segment of society that are not the norm. They are removed from cultural expectations only if they wish to be treated differently. If they wish to function within society as others do, they need to conduct themselves within society as required by society. The main bulk of the masses of most communities might have some gripes but they will not be pleased by individuals who upset their way of life. They, from nobles down to shopkeepers, would tend to look unkindly on anarchists as counter-productive to the success and survival of everyone.
Most players will only read the PH, and then only the parts that apply to themselves. Those that read beyond that, tend to prefer the MM as interesting reading. Those that read the DMG won't find much that deals specifically with the setting in which they find themselves beyond vague descriptions of how some things might work. In essence, I am agreeing with you on these points but with some reservations of the level of commitment to which most players will immerse themselves. Essentially it is up to the DM to educate the players to the depth the DM wishes the players to relate and perform and it needs to be in the interest and willingness of the players. Tough to do though not impossible. It's a sales job.
Shown, not told, is the key, IMO. Free will must be inherent, but players should be made aware in advance of the potential consequences of actions in a given situation. After that it is up to the players how they conduct themselves. If you expect them to act in a certain way, the rewards for acting in that way should be compensatory. If no carrot is big enough to get the desired behavior, then you need to substitute a different vegetable. People play for varying reasons and a DM needs to determine the plethora of reasons at his table or take what he gets from players in regard to their level of interest. A DM doesn't need to tailor his world to what the players would make if they ran the show, but he does need to find out what would make a game in his world interesting to the players.
I echoed those sentiments above and agree.
While our approach to explaining this differs somewhat, I concur with the sentiment completely.
ChrisM said:
Definitely, there needs to be some DM to players delineation of how the world works, or at the least, their corner of the world. Handouts are a popular way to do this, but it needs to be followed with consistent descriptive examples during play until the ideas and flavor of the world take hold. After that, well placed reminders should come at every session and early in each session.
ChrisM said:
All good points but it should be pointed out that the iconic characters, like PCs, are of that segment of society that are not the norm. They are removed from cultural expectations only if they wish to be treated differently. If they wish to function within society as others do, they need to conduct themselves within society as required by society. The main bulk of the masses of most communities might have some gripes but they will not be pleased by individuals who upset their way of life. They, from nobles down to shopkeepers, would tend to look unkindly on anarchists as counter-productive to the success and survival of everyone.
ChrisM said:
Most players will only read the PH, and then only the parts that apply to themselves. Those that read beyond that, tend to prefer the MM as interesting reading. Those that read the DMG won't find much that deals specifically with the setting in which they find themselves beyond vague descriptions of how some things might work. In essence, I am agreeing with you on these points but with some reservations of the level of commitment to which most players will immerse themselves. Essentially it is up to the DM to educate the players to the depth the DM wishes the players to relate and perform and it needs to be in the interest and willingness of the players. Tough to do though not impossible. It's a sales job.
ChrisM said:
Shown, not told, is the key, IMO. Free will must be inherent, but players should be made aware in advance of the potential consequences of actions in a given situation. After that it is up to the players how they conduct themselves. If you expect them to act in a certain way, the rewards for acting in that way should be compensatory. If no carrot is big enough to get the desired behavior, then you need to substitute a different vegetable. People play for varying reasons and a DM needs to determine the plethora of reasons at his table or take what he gets from players in regard to their level of interest. A DM doesn't need to tailor his world to what the players would make if they ran the show, but he does need to find out what would make a game in his world interesting to the players.
ChrisM said:
I echoed those sentiments above and agree.
ChrisM said:
While our approach to explaining this differs somewhat, I concur with the sentiment completely.
Rune
Once A Fool
While I agree that fantasy does not necessarily = a feudal-system or a caste-system (class system being a different entity altogether, but more fitting of D&D, I think), in some campaigns (Arcady's for instance, apparently) it is the basis for the society. In those cases, the DM needs to clearly establish what role castes (or classes, if you're going in that direction) play and where the pcs fall in the order of the society. This needs to be done at the very beginning.
For instance, in my campaign (see the sig) I told my players before-hand that I was emphasizing three themes: family, honor, and caste. The societies presented in the setting are mostly very lawful, and caste is strictly adhered to in most circumstances. Furthermore, in the first session, a noble was encountered, and through roleplaying, I illustrated how much weight his nobility had in his intimidating nature (with one line, actually; "You will not address me in that manner, again."). I have had no problems with the pcs underestimating the power of nobility or expressing a disrespect (to their faces, anyway), that was out of place (the barbaric dwarves are a little...barbaric, but they're manageable).
Admitedly, I also have problems come to the pcs more often than they go looking for them and they may well have something to do with their attitudes.
For instance, in my campaign (see the sig) I told my players before-hand that I was emphasizing three themes: family, honor, and caste. The societies presented in the setting are mostly very lawful, and caste is strictly adhered to in most circumstances. Furthermore, in the first session, a noble was encountered, and through roleplaying, I illustrated how much weight his nobility had in his intimidating nature (with one line, actually; "You will not address me in that manner, again."). I have had no problems with the pcs underestimating the power of nobility or expressing a disrespect (to their faces, anyway), that was out of place (the barbaric dwarves are a little...barbaric, but they're manageable).
Admitedly, I also have problems come to the pcs more often than they go looking for them and they may well have something to do with their attitudes.
LoneWolf23
First Post
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with having the PCs stand somewhat outside the Caste System of a conventional Feudal System, or even to have them buckle the system entirely. Fantasy Genre fiction is full of heroes who bend or break the system by virtue of their skill and daring.
King Arthur's Court is primarily made of powerful warriors whom Arthur chose to recruit rather then banish. Lancelot once battled Arthur out of pride before Arthur recruited him. If your kingdom has a wise ruler, perhaps he'd rather make the strong PCs members of his personal court, rather then punish them for their daring.
And who can forget Robin Hood? He litterally bypassed the conventions of Feudal society by raising an army of brigands and highway robbers to battle his enemy the Sherriff of Nottingham. And yet he's hailed as a hero, not reviled as a criminal.
And everyone knows Conan's handicap with "social conventions"...
I'm also reminded of the "Flying Leaps, Deadly Silks" article from Dragon #289, concerning Hong Kong Cinema. There, they described a rule of wuxia: There is no such thing as an anoynymous high-level character. Beyond 7th level, your character becomes famous (or infamous) for his prowess and deeds, and word of his activities spread like wildfire.
But you're also knowledgable of other famous warriors, their fighting styles, their masters, etc. This is because Martial Artists (which, the way I see it, can be replaced by the word Adventurers without changing the subject) live in a kind of half-world outside of normal society. Instead of sticking to your normal part in a rigid society, you've buckled the system to become this being who's physically more powerful then any peasent, yet is lower then them socially because you've removed yourself from society.
Personally, I don't think that PCs in a D&D world should be forced to be respectful to Nobles and Aristocrats simply out of tradition. If the character feels he doesn't need to show a "Weak Maggot" of a noble respect unless he can prove he's worthy of it in a fight... let him play it out. There are always rebels in every culture. Sometimes they change society for the better... sometimes they just get crushed. Either way, it makes for some good adventure material.
King Arthur's Court is primarily made of powerful warriors whom Arthur chose to recruit rather then banish. Lancelot once battled Arthur out of pride before Arthur recruited him. If your kingdom has a wise ruler, perhaps he'd rather make the strong PCs members of his personal court, rather then punish them for their daring.
And who can forget Robin Hood? He litterally bypassed the conventions of Feudal society by raising an army of brigands and highway robbers to battle his enemy the Sherriff of Nottingham. And yet he's hailed as a hero, not reviled as a criminal.
And everyone knows Conan's handicap with "social conventions"...
I'm also reminded of the "Flying Leaps, Deadly Silks" article from Dragon #289, concerning Hong Kong Cinema. There, they described a rule of wuxia: There is no such thing as an anoynymous high-level character. Beyond 7th level, your character becomes famous (or infamous) for his prowess and deeds, and word of his activities spread like wildfire.
But you're also knowledgable of other famous warriors, their fighting styles, their masters, etc. This is because Martial Artists (which, the way I see it, can be replaced by the word Adventurers without changing the subject) live in a kind of half-world outside of normal society. Instead of sticking to your normal part in a rigid society, you've buckled the system to become this being who's physically more powerful then any peasent, yet is lower then them socially because you've removed yourself from society.
Personally, I don't think that PCs in a D&D world should be forced to be respectful to Nobles and Aristocrats simply out of tradition. If the character feels he doesn't need to show a "Weak Maggot" of a noble respect unless he can prove he's worthy of it in a fight... let him play it out. There are always rebels in every culture. Sometimes they change society for the better... sometimes they just get crushed. Either way, it makes for some good adventure material.
Victim said:
Actually, feudalism took root before what most people would think of as Europes Dark Ages, during the Roman occupation of Western Europe. The idea that landowners (curials) held men and slaves in service (they eventually became serfs), and in turn owed taxes and loyalty to their superiors (usually military Prefects and minor Roman nobility), who in turn had the same arrangement with their superiors, and so on all the way to the Emporer is one that had been in practice well before the "fall" of the Empire.
However, having said that, I'd like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that Adventurers would enter the power vacuum created by monster attacks and the like. In fact, I believe that D&D, from it's very beginnings, was set up with that in mind - anyone else remember "Name level" and all the perk that went with it (notably the ability to attract large numbers of followers if one had the funds for it)? Sounds suspiciously like the era in Germany where the large portions of the nobility were replaced by the robber barons...
Chimera
First Post
It seems to me...
That in a D&D Society, being a minor noble would actually be a burden. A job not to be desired by most people, kinda like how I view Management jobs. If you've ever run an organization (like a softball league or a game group or bowling team or anything like that) then you know how much work is involved, often thanklessly. In the D&D world, you've got all manner of dangers around every corner, not to mention the equivalent of small armies (Adventurers) roaming through your lands at will, killing your hired guards and causing trouble. And lucky you, you get to deal with all this crap while putting up with those above you and their insane demands.
Now if you're the upwardly mobile Adventurer type, being a Baron is a nuisance. Being a Duke is a political and social convenience at best, a major headache on most days.
Unless that's your life's goal, which it very well could be for some people. It *is* the proto-typical D&D goal - to carve a new 'fief' out of the wilderness and become a noble yourself.
That in a D&D Society, being a minor noble would actually be a burden. A job not to be desired by most people, kinda like how I view Management jobs. If you've ever run an organization (like a softball league or a game group or bowling team or anything like that) then you know how much work is involved, often thanklessly. In the D&D world, you've got all manner of dangers around every corner, not to mention the equivalent of small armies (Adventurers) roaming through your lands at will, killing your hired guards and causing trouble. And lucky you, you get to deal with all this crap while putting up with those above you and their insane demands.
Now if you're the upwardly mobile Adventurer type, being a Baron is a nuisance. Being a Duke is a political and social convenience at best, a major headache on most days.
Unless that's your life's goal, which it very well could be for some people. It *is* the proto-typical D&D goal - to carve a new 'fief' out of the wilderness and become a noble yourself.
Similar Threads
