PCs lack of respect for the 'caste' system of your typical fantasy society

[SableWyvern]

Moreso chain of command/military than serf/nobility, but I have fond memories of a PC whose party had a military unit attached to it (and under their overall command).

In the middle of a big fight, some bad guys cast a lot of darkness. Things had been going well to that point, but the PC in question decided to start calling the troops to himself.

In many a campaign, this would have been a positive thing, to be rewarded.

IMC, the unit's commander immediately began to scream to his troops to continue listening to him and to ignore the PC. After the fight the PC got a HUGE reaming out by the unit commander (even though he was theoretically under the PC's command) -

What's your command experience sir? Do you want my men killed sir? I do what you say, sir, but in the middle of combat you do not assume tactical command, sir. Except there were probably fewer sirs and a lot more expletives. The PC was thoroughly humiliated, and I had a ball.

In some circumstances, PCs in my campaign can get away with a lack of respect; in many they cannot. Often times I have been able to get PCs to back down (although usually with a degree of reluctance) just by playing an NPC with the inner confidence he would actually have.

I guess the fact that my players know that I don't make all fights "fair" helps. If someone makes blatant or veilled threats towards arrogant or otherwise insufficiently humble PCs, there's always a fair chance they can back themselves up. Possibly an even bigger bonus is that many of my players are not used to how much tougher a d&d PC is than an average git.

 

[hong]

I was going to make a big long post but it seems that Tsyr said most of what I was going to.

Me too!

In any case, there's no law that says a fantasy society _has_ to have a rigid class structure like those that existed in medieval times. Even in the canonical sources like LOTR, Robert E. Heinlein's Conan[*] and the Lankhmar novels, references to social class tend to be few and far between. There are "kings", "queens" and "lords", but everyone else seems to be an undifferentiated mass.


* A true genius was REH, as seen by how he founded Scientology after a bet with L Ron Hubbard that he couldn't start his own religion.

 

[Kichwas]

Another problem specific to D&D is polytheism, none of the nobles can definitively declare the divine right to rule...there are too many opposing gods.

Rome.

Egypt.

Japan.

China.

Aztecs.

Inca.

 

[ninthcouncil]

Another problem specific to D&D is polytheism, none of the nobles can definitively declare the divine right to rule...there are too many opposing gods.

Even in polytheistic cultures, there would tend to be "ruling" gods who stood higher in the heirarchy than the others - Zeus, Jupiter, Odin etc. That was their role, and the role of their devotees (the ruling class) in the society. There is no sense of this in the default D&D "pantheon", which is an incoherent mess designed around a game mechanic (alignments).

Something that's always bugged me - this "Saint" Cuthbert. Of what religion is he a saint? HIS OWN? Talk about redundancy.

If you want to see how a pantheon (or, even better, a set of pantheons with complex relationships to each other) should really work, look at Runequest. You won't find any of it in the core books- yet. It will be real interesting to see how Deities and Demigods handles this....

 

[Tsyr]

The typical DnD pantheon is unlike the Roman, or the Japanese, or... well, pretty much any earth pantheon.

It's more akin to all earth pantheons smushed together.

And in most DnD settings, trying to claim "divine right" would actualy be a Bad Thing (TM). Kingpriest of Istar, anyone? In a setting where gods of very real forces that have visibile effects on daily life, trying to claim linage from a god is not going to have the same effect.

 

[Jezrael]

Rome.

Egypt.

Japan.

China.

Aztecs.

Inca.

In the main though, D&D is pseudo-European medieval
(or medireview ); of which I was mainly talking about social structure wise, sorry for the confusion...though you are right about those other countries having working govs/nobility w/polytheism.

One advantage that they did have in those cultures was an overarching pantheatic "ruler". In FR at least (I don't know about other settings) AO doesn't really take an interest in things mortal too often.

Anyways, point taken.

 

[Henry]

BE WARNED - IT'S LONG!

Here's the only problem - a pseudo-medieval society wouldn't exist in a "by the book" D&D campaign, because of the "outsider" nature of the campaign, and the upward mobility of adventurers.

Thinking logically about it - adventurers, by virtue of exploring old ruins, earning debts of gratitude from nobility and merchants, gaining popularity due to their exploits, etc., have access to wealth and power - the two things that any noble wants. By their very nature, the PC's would be nobility all their own - after all, nobility was defined not just by manners, but by actual wealth and property ownership. Knights of the sword were often just thugs who won enough land and property to upkeep armor and a horse. (Knights of the bath were too, in some cases, but I'm talking about ones who "earned" their status rather than being born into it).

Keep in mind the situation of the merchant and free classes after the European Plagues and the late middle ages. After the black death wiped out 1/3rd of the labor pool, it went from having TONS of cheap unskilled labor to having a labor shortage. This as well as the rise of merchants and cities threw the power shift to one of an upwardly mobile culture with the "trappings" of class. Nobles still had power for centuries afterward, but what changed the strata was that merchants often had more fiscal power than the nobles - and this leads to political power, eventually.

Even in a staid culture where tradition took hold with a rabid bite, it only took about (What? 200 years? About 10 generations?) for egalitarian concepts to take hold in England. Even in our "modern society," it took 100 years post-civil war before America had its Civil Rights Movement towards an egalitarian culture for people of color.

Use this as an example of the progress of an egalitarian status among peasantry for a typical D&D world. There had likely been adventurers long enough and in sufficient quantities for there to have been some sort of egalitarian movement in most campaign worlds. It may be better to use a 1700's - 1800's british model of government than a medieval one. You would have a "house of commons" and a "House of Lords" that shared power (even though that power might be slanted towards the nobles).

In order for the Nobility to keep power in a by-the-book D&D world, they would have to have great wealth and power themselves, not the rather pitiful status that the majority of the nobility had in medieval Europe. By nature, most Nobility would likely be retired or semi-retired adventurers, rather than 1st level aristocratic brats who merely expected power.

It would be a better model IMO to think of Noble as the Larry Ellison's, Ross Perot's, and Bill Gates' of their day. PC's would act deferentially to them (because they know how much prestige, influence, and power they hold), but not to the point of bowing and scraping. I don't recall any of Bill's employees bowing and scraping on camera lately.

Just because the world has replaced technology with magic doesn't mean that the world's political situation has not advanced. If you want a medieval political and social situation, it needs to have very very limited magics as well - possibly with access to no spell over 2nd level?

 

[Tsyr]

Just because the world has replaced technology with magic doesn't mean that the world's political situation has not advanced. If you want a medieval political and social situation, it needs to have very very limited magics as well - possibly with access to no spell over 2nd level?

Here here! I've tried to make this point so many times, but it always gets ignored. A DnD society is not a mideval society, it's not a feudal society, and it's not a renisanse society. It's a more primative world technologicly, but magic has replaced (to a large extend) the drive of technology. There very well may have been a mideval period of the world, but there is no reason to think it is now.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

To echo the sentiment of the last few posts.... I don't really see why my character should be deferential and subservient to a guy just because he's a noble. My PC is not Bob the local commoner... he's Arthas, mighty slayer of trolls, ogres, evil wizards, Beholders and Dragons. And he's supposed to bow and scrape before some petty lord?

And if said petty lord going to demand that Arthas do so, it's clear that he's a tyrant and it's Robin Hood time. I just don't see why PCs should act like common servants and serfs when in the presence of "nobility".

 

[Aaron L]

Adventurers are people who do accept the social order and have broken out of it to aquire power for themselves. Most adventurers are probably insufferably arrogant, and live within their own little society in which only more powerful adventurers are recognized as social betters. (Think of Lan saying "yes m'lord" and bowing and scraping to ANYONE. He shows respect for the Amyrlin, and that's it.) Adventurers are ambitious, arrogant people, who become very powerful as a matter of survival. This does not condone adherence to social structures that say you are stuck in the position you are born into and have to live with it. Adventurers are the revolutionaries and powerseekers who break conventions and forge their own destinies.