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

[nharwell]

If we're going to try to enforce some sort of "historical accuracy" regarding feudal relations and caste systems, then by all rights PCs (as "adventurers") should be considered pariahs, at best -- mercenaries, freebooters, vagabonds, and thieves, at worst. The idea of "adventuring" is as anachronistic as the lack of deference that most players are guilty of. Also, I feel obligated to point out that "standard" D&D settings (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc.) are actually much more of a high-late renaissance period, with magic replacing technology. They most certainly are not "medieval" in any way resembling real history.

 

[Sulimo]

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?

Not neccesarily. You could have a world where only those of noble blood have access to magic. That definitely would keep the nobility in power.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Wrong on several levels but an interesting topic. PC's are like Daniel Boone or any other famous self sufficient rugged person. They have no use for pointless political power or the arrogance of station. To the average adventurer you are no more important nor are you due any more respect than your ability to fight and defend yourself guaruntees you.

Adventurers are not your run of the mill people. They are the rare person who cannot stand their 'station' in life.

As a side I would be interested in seeing how gamers from other parts of the world are in this regard though. In America we have almost an inborn contempt for nobility and the caste system of life. Give the average American the chance and he will laugh in the face of someone who was 'born' as a better.

Yet in most games I've played when the PCs meet the local lord it often turns into a staring match between players and DM or a bunch of PCs trying to make threats and brow beat the noble down.

Even if they outgunned a noble by a large margin; their social upbringing even among the most chaotic of them would cause them to fall into a sense of difference as naturally as people put on clothes...

Maybe this is different for Brittish gamers, or other peope from societies with strong class-based social systems.

My gaming experience here in the states has shown me a lot of players who simply cannot understand the idea of a chain of command or of not being equals. Or who feel such a concept would be a damper to them enjoyment of it all rather than an enhancment to the 'simulation'.

It's been even worse in the games I've run than in those I've played in; but maybe that's because I'm seeing it from the other side of the table then.

 

[Sulimo]

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

*doublepost*

 

[Sulimo]

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

Wrong on several levels but an interesting topic. PC's are like Daniel Boone or any other famous self sufficient rugged person. They have no use for pointless political power or the arrogance of station. To the average adventurer you are no more important nor are you due any more respect than your ability to fight and defend yourself guaruntees you.

Adventurers are not your run of the mill people. They are the rare person who cannot stand their 'station' in life.

Thats not neccesarily true. Sure adventurers are 'special' individuals, but I certainly wouldnt agree that all adventurers cant stand their station and are outside a given caste system. Just look at much of the epic fantasy fiction, starting with Lord of the Rings (notably Aragorn) and then the work of other writers like Ray Feist, David Eddings and the like. Alot of that is with bunch of adventurers who are also rulers or nobility saving the world. Most of the characters in these works dont have disdain for their station in life.

I myself have played in mre than a few games where the group has been quite involved in the social structures of a given world. Players be nobles in a given society and so forth.

As a side I would be interested in seeing how gamers from other parts of the world are in this regard though. In America we have almost an inborn contempt for nobility and the caste system of life. Give the average American the chance and he will laugh in the face of someone who was 'born' as a better.

Instead there is the cult of the wealthy or famous.

As an Australian my feelings on the issue are a bit all over the place. It must be noted that not too long ago, our nation decided to stay as a constitutional Monarchy.

And whilst we have no liking for caste systems (be they based on bloodlines, fame or wealth) at least part of the population still has warm and fuzzy memories of the British Empire.

I have to admit, whilst I myself voted to change Australia from a Monarchy to a Republic I was quite sad to here about what has happened to the House of Lords in the UK. Same with the loss of all the old currencies for the Euro.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

It is easy to like your station in life when it is at the top of the heap.

If you want to quote Feist then go all the way. Look at Jimmy the Hand who really didnt care who people were. He treated people like people. His one true goal was to get everyone else to realize how smart he knew he was so that he good be put in charge of Krondor.

Personally as an American I abhore the very concept of nobility. Historically it has meant a group of people who act no better than bullies.

Unfortunately the classic setting of DnD is the caste system of medival Europe. So in a gaming session not to long ago (about 2 months) my character was one of several who delivered a particular scepter to the local King to him the true authority to rule the land he was claiming. Talk about irritating.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

ROFLMAO

This is too funny. First off most DnD is based in worlds with histories that are recorded further back and more accurately than any of our own. Look at the FR for one. So to say DnD is set in a medivel society is simplistic and not quite accurate.

Furthermore most PC's would represent the Middle Class who as it grew larger and larger in Europe had less and less respect or reverence for their "betters".

Finally their "betters" were supposed to be BECAUSE they protected those beneath them. When the local nobility cannot do anything at all except throw around some money to get the job done then their is no reason to expect adventurers to bow and scrape like a bunk of rarely bathed slave serfs.

Because it's a class-based social system where you were brought up to believe those people had a natural place to authority just as much as you were brought up to do your business in the outhouse rather than on the kitchen table.

The mere idea of presuming yourself outside of your station would be as abhorant to you as the idea of presuming you could have a bunch of slaves would be to a 21st century westerner.

There is no concept of 'I deserve this or that because you came to me for help' in this kind of society. There is rather a gratitude for being picked out (at least publicly) and shown to be a 'good doggy'.

You might get granted some kind of minor title (knighted for instance) for your deeds. But you would never presume you had the right to demand such a reward. And getting more than such a minor title would be absurd.

The cases of such presumptiveness on any large scale are rare enough in the historical record. They tend to result in things like the French Revolution or the American Revolution.
On a smaller scale they result in people cast out as bandits or 'food for the gibbet'.

This concept of 'I deserve to be ranked by merit of my abilties' is modern and is generally not present in fantasy. It tends to completely rip apart any social system based on nobility or class by birth.

A society where adventurers started getting this idea into their heads would very quickly find itself rent apart in social chaos until a new order was put together without any nobility.

 

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Not Medieval, Dark Ages

If you think about it, the way all those nobles got their land and titles is that their great, great, great, ... great granddaddies were very successful military men who 9back in the badly misnamed "dark ages") took by force and controlled a piece of land or were lieutenants of very successful military men who were entrusted with the control of land that their boss took. Of course, generations down the family tree, these aristocrats probably don't resemble the warlords they were descended from in terms of ability or temperament, but that's the way most of their families came to power.

Now think how this would work in DnD...

In a frontier wilderness region, powerful characters clear the area of monsters and bandits. These characters are adventurers, mercenaries, leaders of popular uprisings, whatever.

Eventually one or more of these characters takes the Leadership feat, sets up a stronghold and provides protection to the whole area. Other characters do the same. Maybe these are cohorts or allies of the first character and swear fealty to her, maybe they compete with her and there is a series of small wars and someone ends up on top, whatever. Eventually you have a hierarchy of warlords that looks like a feudal kingdom. As this settles down and the region becomes more peaceful, this consolidates into a hereditary feudal kingdom with a hierarchy of nobles descended from the successful warlords.

Of course as the region becomes more and more peaceful the key skills for the nobles become less and less the spellslinging and sword swinging skills that cut a kingdom out of the wilderness way back when, and more and more the diplomacy, bluff and sense motive skills and the alliance and dealmaking that characterise the politician or, in DnD class terms, the Aristocrat NPC class.

Modern adventurers are thus both a threat and a possible ally to the current nobility. The represent the nobility's past. As such, history teaches how powerful these adventurers can be at changing the social order - that's how the nobles’ families originally got where they are. But these adventurers *are* very good at taming wilderness areas on the kingdom's borders and thus expanding the realm. They also provided access to the families lost ancestral skills where the peace of the kingdom is threatened.

So what would be the attitude of nobles to adventurers? A combination of suspicion and manipulation which could swing into hostility or and alliance depending on the adventurers attitudes and behaviour.

Just my two coppers worth...

 

[Corinth]

Much of this could be avoided by taking some time before beginning a campaign through the means (as explained in Dragon #293) of creating a campaign bible.

(Note: The article, by Robin Laws, presents the series bible concept as used in American TV shows and adapts it for use in tabletop role-playing games. Rather informative and useful regardless of your take on gaming.)

About the topic at hand: I agree that this is best dealt with by taking some time to see how nobility arose in the real world and adapting the concepts so that it works within the context of a D&D game. Then explain it to the players in the group so that they can decide from knowledge how their PCs react to those above and below them on the social scale.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Bad example. Gandalf was an Angel in the guise of a mortal who was sent to act as an advisor. Advising was really the whole reason he was on Middle Earth.

A good example might be Gandalf, who despite his great power and mysterious origins among the Valar - was always deferential to the kings and authorities of Middle-Earth. Yes, he did manipulate them when he could to get what he wanted - but he still respected the authority of people like Theoden and Denethor - Hell, he was even showed proper respect to hobbits and dwarves. . .