-
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
ninthcouncil
First Post
Henry said:If, on the other hand, the PC has in the past performed several important services for the king, and the king knows demonstrably that the PC has more wealth and power than the petty lord, then the king may well side with the PC over the petty lord.
Good call, Henry - arise, Arthas, by proclamation, new Baron Littlefief! Guards, clear up what's left of the last Baron. Now, Arthas, old boy, about the tax revenues for the coming year ....
MasterOfHeaven
First Post
ninthcouncil said:
Good call, Henry - arise, Arthas, by proclamation, new Baron Littlefief! Guards, clear up what's left of the last Baron. Now, Arthas, old boy, about the tax revenues for the coming year ....
No problem, my king. I have a brilliant plan to make you incredibly popular in this province without costing you a cent. I'll reduce taxes here to almost nothing, and give you 10% of the Dragons hoard in place of the tax revenue. That ought to cover the tax revenues for at least the next 10 years, eh?
Taxes and Economics
Excuse me, Baron, but perhaps you didn't understand. You were contracted to kill the dragon. You did so, and I chose to reward you on top of the contractual financial reward with a Barony. The dragon's horde belongs to the crown, although I remit his carcass and one or two items to you for your valiant service.
Since it equals about 20 years worth of taxes for the entire kingdom, I'll be lowering taxes by 2% per year for the next two or three years. That makes me popular, fattens the coffers of the entire kingdom -- including yours, since you won't have to pay as much in taxes from your new lands to me -- and benefits the populace.
OOC: Now there's only one question. Is this king lawful good: because he IS helping everyone or lawful evil: manipulating his power for his own gain, since he will have -- long-term -- a happier and more productive kingdom which grants him more wealth and power and -- short-term -- the entire hoard?
MasterOfHeaven said:I have a brilliant plan to make you incredibly popular in this province without costing you a cent. I'll reduce taxes here to almost nothing, and give you 10% of the Dragons hoard in place of the tax revenue. That ought to cover the tax revenues for at least the next 10 years, eh?
Excuse me, Baron, but perhaps you didn't understand. You were contracted to kill the dragon. You did so, and I chose to reward you on top of the contractual financial reward with a Barony. The dragon's horde belongs to the crown, although I remit his carcass and one or two items to you for your valiant service.
Since it equals about 20 years worth of taxes for the entire kingdom, I'll be lowering taxes by 2% per year for the next two or three years. That makes me popular, fattens the coffers of the entire kingdom -- including yours, since you won't have to pay as much in taxes from your new lands to me -- and benefits the populace.
OOC: Now there's only one question. Is this king lawful good: because he IS helping everyone or lawful evil: manipulating his power for his own gain, since he will have -- long-term -- a happier and more productive kingdom which grants him more wealth and power and -- short-term -- the entire hoard?
MasterOfHeaven
First Post
Re: Taxes and Economics
His _horde_ is yours, you say? Very well, though I fail to see why you want all those kobold corpses... but to each his own, I suppose.
wolff96 said:
His _horde_ is yours, you say? Very well, though I fail to see why you want all those kobold corpses... but to each his own, I suppose.
I think one thing needs to happen for D&D PCs to be "properly" deferential to their superiors: the DM needs to inform them that this strict caste system exists.
The problem here is that standard three-book D&D is so far removed from actual medieval society that you can't assume anything is going to map directly. It seems to me, for instance, that women are going to be treated much better, spellcasting is going to be more acceptable rather than being a tool of the Devil, and quality health care (in the form of magic) is going to be more available, at least to those with money. It's hard for me to look at the picture of Nebbin or Krusk in the PHB and say "These two guys are going to react exactly the same to the presence of a baron as a medieval serf would."
Which is NOT to say that it's WRONG to have a strict caste system, only that it's unreasonable to assume that five people sitting around a table after reading the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual will have the exact same view of what the society depicted will be like, especially since not all of them will have a clear idea of what a real feudal system is like. If the DM wants the characters to bow and scrape when a noble wanders by, the DM needs to TELL them so.
At the same time, however, I think I'd be a bit miffed if a DM told me that my character had to have a certain attitude towards nobility. Perhaps it's true that 99% of medieval serfs wouldn't think of talking back to a minor lord, but that same 99% would never consider learning to use sorcery (or should I say witchcraft), or running off to the woods and talking to trees, or God forbid fighting a dragon. To say that my character is a bold and noble adventurer but that he has to tow the line when it comes to societal attitudes would chap my hide, to use an Americanism.
The solution, I think, is for the DM to make the consequences clear. If not bowing to the Baron is going to get you beset upon by a dozen guards and clapped in the stocks, say so. And then make it stick. That way I can play my character who resents nobility, and decide in-character whether getting clapped in chains is worth not bowing.
So, to sum up. Not all DMs have the same attitude towards nobility, and not all campaigns have the same social landscape. As always, it's up to the DM to let people know what the game world is like.
The problem here is that standard three-book D&D is so far removed from actual medieval society that you can't assume anything is going to map directly. It seems to me, for instance, that women are going to be treated much better, spellcasting is going to be more acceptable rather than being a tool of the Devil, and quality health care (in the form of magic) is going to be more available, at least to those with money. It's hard for me to look at the picture of Nebbin or Krusk in the PHB and say "These two guys are going to react exactly the same to the presence of a baron as a medieval serf would."
Which is NOT to say that it's WRONG to have a strict caste system, only that it's unreasonable to assume that five people sitting around a table after reading the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual will have the exact same view of what the society depicted will be like, especially since not all of them will have a clear idea of what a real feudal system is like. If the DM wants the characters to bow and scrape when a noble wanders by, the DM needs to TELL them so.
At the same time, however, I think I'd be a bit miffed if a DM told me that my character had to have a certain attitude towards nobility. Perhaps it's true that 99% of medieval serfs wouldn't think of talking back to a minor lord, but that same 99% would never consider learning to use sorcery (or should I say witchcraft), or running off to the woods and talking to trees, or God forbid fighting a dragon. To say that my character is a bold and noble adventurer but that he has to tow the line when it comes to societal attitudes would chap my hide, to use an Americanism.
The solution, I think, is for the DM to make the consequences clear. If not bowing to the Baron is going to get you beset upon by a dozen guards and clapped in the stocks, say so. And then make it stick. That way I can play my character who resents nobility, and decide in-character whether getting clapped in chains is worth not bowing.
So, to sum up. Not all DMs have the same attitude towards nobility, and not all campaigns have the same social landscape. As always, it's up to the DM to let people know what the game world is like.
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
MasterOfHeaven said:
No problem, my king. I have a brilliant plan to make you incredibly popular in this province without costing you a cent. I'll reduce taxes here to almost nothing, and give you 10% of the Dragons hoard in place of the tax revenue. That ought to cover the tax revenues for at least the next 10 years, eh?
Oh goodness me, no... The taxes need to be maintained lest the work force from the adjacent areas get it in their heads to migrate toward your area and away from where I wish them to stay. Of course, I'll accept that 10%... Well, let's make it 20%, as a tithe to the throne, and naturally you'll want to pledge a further 20% to the church.
I'm glad you're bringing up the dragon hoarde at this time since you'll need some guidance in how best to dispense the remaining 60%. I'll have a number of my advisors help with the figures but my initial thoughts are that a further 30% needs to be immediately used to upkeep the defenses of my realm in your region, 10% percent toward the lesser nobles of your area to be sure they are comfortable with the transition, 10% to your personal appearance, a new wardrobe and jewelry as befits your station, and, of course, the final 10% must be sent the the Baron of (such and such) as a pledge of honor.
The crown wishes you to become fast friends with the baron now that his daughter is of marriagable age. She is a distant cousin of the crown and, although not the most attractive girl in the kingdom by any means, her station and marriage to our newest noble will insure that others do not get it in their head that they are all going to be replaced in the same fashion as elevated you.
The Royal ball is in one month's time and I'll expect you to escort her here and make the wedding announcement on that date. You do dance, do you not? Well, no matter, you will learn so as not to embarrasss the crown. Now, I have to sit for a portrait so do not let me keep you from the many duties your position now requires of you. See you at the ball...
MasterOfHeaven
First Post
It's hoard! Hoard! Not horde, not hoarde, H-O-A-R-D! Maybe I should retire from adventuring and become an extremely anal scribe... Realizing that city adventures are definitely not for him, Arthas grabs his horse, rides out of the Kingdom into the untamed wilds, and happily slays Orcs ever after. The End.
Realizing that city adventures are definitely not for him, Arthas grabs his horse, rides out of the Kingdom into the untamed wilds, and happily slays Orcs ever after. The End. The differences between medieval feudalism and the type of society that might exist in D&D is the issue. If the DM decides that there's a social hierarchy, then it's there, like it or not. ChrisM makes an excellent point, however:
Far greater than this, however, is the fact that some players just don't want to participate in this kind of system. A lot of people role-play to fantasize, to play a larger-than-life action hero who doesn't have to report to his boss, follow the speed limit, or fill out tax returns. If you have too many players who are like this, it's hard for a DM to run this sort of society.
Moreover, a lot of DMs have the tendency to create a double standard: PCs are expected to follow these rules, but NPCs, as often as not, will not. Suddenly, the players feel like they are being made to jump through hoops at the DM's whim, not because it's part of the culture.
Lastly, there's player-player issues: some players might create a "lord" just so the other players have to pay him homage, which is a very unpleasant form of metagaming.
For those of us who enjoy roleplaying this type of societal relationship, it's annoying when others don't play along. Ultimately, it is up to the DM to communicate how the world will work (and to enforce it!) -- and to ensure that the players buy in to that style of play.
Far greater than this, however, is the fact that some players just don't want to participate in this kind of system. A lot of people role-play to fantasize, to play a larger-than-life action hero who doesn't have to report to his boss, follow the speed limit, or fill out tax returns. If you have too many players who are like this, it's hard for a DM to run this sort of society.
Moreover, a lot of DMs have the tendency to create a double standard: PCs are expected to follow these rules, but NPCs, as often as not, will not. Suddenly, the players feel like they are being made to jump through hoops at the DM's whim, not because it's part of the culture.
Lastly, there's player-player issues: some players might create a "lord" just so the other players have to pay him homage, which is a very unpleasant form of metagaming.
For those of us who enjoy roleplaying this type of societal relationship, it's annoying when others don't play along. Ultimately, it is up to the DM to communicate how the world will work (and to enforce it!) -- and to ensure that the players buy in to that style of play.
Similar Threads
