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

[Ace]

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.

Why should DND societys have a caste type system though?
If you are a Sorcerer or Psion (no books required!)who can kill an army with a few words, summon a dozen demons and fly high above the ground are you really going to go for "divine right of kings"
Power corrupts.

Even Non spell users aren't likely to be all that impressed with divine right or social order after a while. HMM I could be King if it weren't formy lowly birth, I slew the Worm of Gebraks or whatever and yet they treat me like dirt....

An idea forms and our fighter and his buddies are the new rulers. Disobey them and be Geased....

Or less extreme Okay I am a 15th levl fighter and have killed 300 men, I am supposed to bow and scrape to you?
My armor made for me by the Demon lords makes me immune to your archers and I can kill your army in a trice

I suspect the kind would basically have to fight his own battles if he wasn't willing to reward his people. Even Fuedal armies had to be paid in loot or hard cash.
. Even in the high chivalric period people were contentious status seeking and motivated mostly by personal gain.

The thing is in a DND enviroment A king needs heros. Lets say he sends his army of Knights (a bunch of 5-10th level fighters) against a dragon.
You can assume 50%+ casulties and remember it takes years to Ttrain new knights. I suppose he could pay a willing priest to raise them if he had the money but that presumes he wins or another monster doesn't come by or a host of other disasters don't hppen.

As faras social change Don't forget the Black Death and the associated social changes it made.
Or for that matter the Peasnts Uprising of 1381. While the revolution wasn't a success (The leader Watt Tyler was killed) they were able to force the King himself to parley. Now what if what had a mage handy....

DND character especially spell casters possess all the subtle powers of the modern age.

Don't like the social order-- No problem Cause Disease ( Wowwee it's the black death)

Need troops Summon Monster or Create Undead or...
Worried about being injured? Protection from arrows (oops there goes the archer units) and so on

Fuedalism and like social structures exist in a world without DND style magic or lots of monsters. No one can take on a dozen people be wounded then be healed in a day...

A group of knights (mid level) can be obliterated by a few fireballs from a relativly low level mage.

Also the Castles and Forts that are the basis for control in a mideivil society don't work too well in a magic rich enviroment.
It isa lot harder to hide from a peasant uprising when the water is blighted magically, monsters appear from no where and so on.

I see no reason the ridiculously powerfull people would necessarily be impressed by the social order. Yest there might be Court Wizards and the like but not everyone supports a caste system real world examples The Cathars of the Albigensian Hearsey or The Knights Templar who basically got to set thier own rules.

Fuedalism was basically rule by strength (it started in the Dark Ages) keep in place with superstitious mumbo jumbo

In a world with mighty magic in the hands of the peasantry, monsters capable of killing whole cities and heros capable of defeating small armies I see little reason a caste system could survive for long.

 

[reapersaurus]

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. . .

Yes, but see:

Gandalf was a pu$$y.

 

[Bonedagger]

Aahh. Come on guys. This one is easy

If the PCs (Commoners by status) don't show the nobles the respect they command the other commeners will get angry with the PCs for comming and thinking that they know better than what the commoners have been doing for generations (They to have their honor). The result will likely not be a pleasent stay in the area.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

Third bloody time I've tried to reply... Grrrr.

Arcady: Interesting point of view, but I would disagree. First off, I'd like to say I'm a little bit suspicious of your motives. You are, after all, the "noble" PC in the group of "commoners", and as such you would not be the player forced to have his PC act in a subservient manner to another PC. I don't think that's a fun way to play for many people, and in fact would lead to resentment in many cases. It also wouldn't suprise me if you suddenly saw a proliferation of "noble" PCs. From a simple out of game point of view, a policy like the one you support seems like a bad idea.

Another question I have is what happens to PCs who do not wish to confrom to societies rules. Many people enjoy playing the "rebel" type character, such as Robin Hood or Hans Solo. Would there really be a place for such PCs in the kind of game world you are talking about? Or would Chaotic characters automatically be thrown into the stocks for refusing to bow down and pay homage to someone they don't respect?

I don't have much time left, and I don't want to write another really long reply and have it lost, so I'm ending this post here. I'll probably respond again later.

 

[Bonedagger]

Sure playing a noble have many advantages but at the same time they are, for the commoners, not one of 'us'. They will not be trusted in the same way as other PCs. Certain behaivor will be unfit for them and they will be a familiar face to those who live in the area were they are knowen as noble (Or they could not expect others to treat them as nobles- It's about being acknowledged). They will in other words have a reputation to maintain. They will also be a knowen target to thugs and others who will need 'easy money'.

 

[S'mon]

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. After all, who is going to be more valuable to him in the future - a petty lord who has land (by his sufferage) but barely two coppers to scrape together, or the heroic PC who has already proven his worthiness?

This is a good case where the king should Knight the PC, or maybe give him a minor barony. Most noble lines _do_ trace their lineage back to adventurer types, even in the real world!
A 10th level PC who has loyally served the King for several adventures/quests can reasonably expect to be knighted IMO. Medieval class system is not a 'caste' system, upward mobility is possible, although 'new' nobles will always be looked down on by 'old nobility'.

 

[Ruvion]

Don't know if some1 has already pointed this out...but...

Originally posted by hong
...Robert E. Heinlein's Conan[*]...* 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.

I believe it was Robert E. Howard that wrote Conan (although Heinlein is also a respectable sci-fi/fantasy author that dealt a lot of human condition issues in his novels).

 

[S'mon]

In an actual medieval society the Lords were expected to defend their lands by personal force of arms, or die trying. In the typical feudal areas of my campaign world, Barons and Dukes are typically pretty high-level Fighters who have battled many enemy forces themselves. There are civilised areas where the 'aristocrat' class is common, but if you're running something resembling 12th-century Europe most (male) nobles should probably be Fighter-class. I tend to use the Aristocrat class for female nobles, who can ride well, use weapons in any emergency, defend the land if their husband (father/son) is away off campaigning, but are not professional killers. Your typical Dark Age or medieval noble was, literally, a professional killer - and their 'divine right' was closely linked to their ability to slaughter the enemy. Most PCs should be able to respect that.

If there's a giant dragon threatening the kingdom that the King _can't_ deal with but the PCs can, IMO the PCs can reasonably expect noble titles of their own if they kill it at the King's command, and a reasonable cut of the dragonhoard - 50-50, most likely. They are not going to be treated as peasants - either they'll be co-opted into the nobility or they'll be treated as a threat and squelched. BTW being able to kill a dragon doesn't necessarily mean you can beat an army of lower-level Fighters & Warriors with some Wizard & Clerical back-up (it might, but not necessarily).

 

[Kichwas]

Arcady: Interesting point of view, but I would disagree. First off, I'd like to say I'm a little bit suspicious of your motives. You are, after all, the "noble" PC in the group of "commoners",

That goes just beyond bordering on some kind of accusation.

A false one though if you read the full extent of what I've been saying.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

Arcady: It's not an accusation, I'm simply pointing out the fact that if your DM was to enforce such a code of conduct, your PC is not going to be the one that will have to become subservient/deferential to another PC. I'm just pointing out that most players do not want to have to their PCs play servant to another PC.