Social ranks and pseudo-medieval fantasy worlds

[Loincloth of Armour]

One way of ranking people socially is by asking the questions, "Who do they know, and who knows them? Oh, and how much money do they have?"

The more important people they know, the more social rank they have.

The more people (with power) who know who they are, the more social rank they are given by virtue of their celebratee.

The more money the have, the more people are willing to grit their teeth and accept them.

If a merchant and a craftsman have a word against word situation, which one is right by default?

In some societies (ie: the Japanese as was previously mentioned), the craftsman could be higher because they actually produce something worthwhile. *But*, the merchant is likely to be richer, and *know* powerful people. Unless you're a well-known and sought-after craftsman, money and connections would probably rank the merchant higher.

A famous knight, the captain of the city guard and the most famous sage in all the kingdoms have been invited to the king's wedding but who gets the best seat? Having some kind of ranking would help in determining such things.

Captain of the City Guard has connections and a place in the social order, so he is high up on the social scale.

Since the sage is the most famous in all the kingdoms, he is unique and well known, thus gets higher ranking than someone who is simply a famous knight. There are many famous knights, only one sage is the *best*. While the Captain of the City Guard *is* probably officially ranked higher, the sage is likely to be *invited* as a guest to a higher station by someone.

(Although if the kingdom places great emphasis on military might, all knights might be ranked higher. Things can be difficult that way.)

I don't know how to rank sheriffs. And what about freely roaming unattached paladins?

Sherrifs should be ranked by the importance of the area they control. Generally the bigger, the more important the sherrif.

Unattached paladins would be counted as clergy, but with a key thing in that since they are unattached, they don't fit into society as much. They would be lower ranked than clergy who minister to a flock, since that gives them political power.

What about people that belong to different classes simultaneously?

Always use the higher class, unless the person has done something that allows them to be snubbed.

What is the status of the king's personal bodyguard (think of Varangian Guard), is he/she just "professional soldier" too?

Yes, but it's a question of "Who does the bodyguard know?" the answer, "The King." So he probably gets bumped up to a low noble. True nobles would sneer, but he has powerful friends so that's probably the extent of it.

What is the difference between a masterless man and a freeman? And what is a freelord?

A masterless man is not a criminal, but someone who is not serving a powerful instiution (guild, church or noble), this is not necessarily by his own choice. In our modern age, he is 'not employed' by any powerful group. As such, he is pretty much near the bottom of the social order.

A freeman is someone who is not serving a powerful instituation, but it is by his own choice. In modern parlance, he is 'self-employed'. His social position would depend on who he knows and how much money he has. If he knows the right people/has cash, he would be *invited* to a higher position. If not, he would be right beside the great unwashed.

A freelord is probably a noble with only a title, but no lands to go with it. As such he's higher than all non-nobles... but has a hard time enforcing that since he's got no lands, no money, no armies. If he's friends with, or related to, powerful people he would get all respect due his rank... although he would find himself probably shunted off with the lower ranked nobles because he can shuffled around without too much problem. If he has few friends, look out, he might be seated with the commoners since there are only so many spaces available and someone has to be moved to make room... nothing personal mind you...

Social positions are flexible and fluid, but asking yourself, "between these two, who has more influence/money/connections/a stronger place in society as a whole," will often sort things out.

 

[Hand of Evil]

It is all about power, the higher the rank, the greater the power base. It is all about who you know, connections. Lets call this power level.

Now, what is power...money, land, warriors, water, trade, blood, magic? This is all based off your game world.

The best thing to do is create a chart based off your world, create power points and then levels, just add the titles to the levels as you see fit. example:

• King - 10 power points
• then blood family - 8 power points
• then church (may be higher than king in some places) - 7 power points
• then land owners - 6 power points (1 point extra for every 5 square miles)
• then guilds and traders, - 5 power points (1 point extra for every 100000 gp)
• town and city officials (if not of blood) - 4 power points
• then tax payers - 3 power points
• then serfs - 2 power points
• then slaves - 1 power points
• then the unclean (define like half-orcs or goblins) - 0 power

Now, just place the titles into the groups.

So, lets create a NPC, first he is of the blood, power 8, then he is head of the wizard guild, power 5, landowner power 6 = power points 19, this NPC is powerful! Level 19 and 20 have the following titles: Liege-Lord, Baron, Thane, Regent. I like Thane, so I use it: Thane NPC

You can make it as complex as you want.

 

[ComradeGnull]

Have you watched the (admittedly somewhat trashy) series The Tudors? It offers a lot of insight and examples of how fluidly rank could work- and it's set at a late stage of the feudal system, when things had become a bit more regular than in the 12th or 13th Century. One thing you will notice is that the servants of royalty tend to be very highly ranked- they are the sons of dukes and earls and things, or may even hold titles in their own right. To wait upon the king was a position of honor and influence, even if you were essentially the guy responsible for carrying the king's potty chair (the Groom of the Stool).

Organizations like the church and military are dominated by family rank and ties. A yeoman or peasant who joins the church becomes a parish priest at best, more likely a deacon or a choir monk or a lector. In the military, they become common foot soldiers and rise at most to the rank of sergeant or a similar non-com role. Members of noble families, meanwhile, send their younger sons into the army to serve as Captains and knights, often as members of the household troops of a powerful noble. When a noble joins the church, he becomes part of the ecclesiastic hierarchy, serving as a secretary to a bishop or the personal chaplain of a duke, not as the guy who gives communion to turnip diggers.

Rank is the intersection of 1) where you were born and 2) who you serve. Going into the personal service of someone powerful is probably the best path to advancement, as they may oft to bestow personal favors on you and some of their status "rubs off" on you. Free men, as we think of them, were in many cases poorer and of lower status than serfs because they had to fend entirely for themselves.

 

[haakon1]

In my campaign, the role of Sheriff has come up twice. The Sheriff is responsible for the sovereign's justice (in my case, the Margrave of Bissel's justice, since it's a palatine territory) in a defined territory (traditionally a county in the US or UK, but in my campaign, a baronetcy, a set of them, or a territory like a long, major roadway).

My sheriff's don't have deputies, but they do have the power to request assistance from the nobles in carrying out their duties, which makes them fairly powerful and influential.

One of the sheriffs I have is an adventurer who was knighted for heroism and given the Sheriff title because of another achievement the crown appreciated and because somebody should be looking after law and order in the baronetcy around the Caves of Chaos.

 

[mmadsen]

One thing you will notice is that the servants of royalty tend to be very highly ranked- they are the sons of dukes and earls and things, or may even hold titles in their own right.

Indeed. Modern Americans expect to be upwardly mobile, but a pre-modern economy isn't constantly growing, let alone growing faster than the population, so most sons of powerful men are downwardly mobile.

 

[haakon1]

Indeed. Modern Americans expect to be upwardly mobile, but a pre-modern economy isn't constantly growing, let alone growing faster than the population, so most sons of powerful men are downwardly mobile.

I just read "Lionheart", Columbia Games historically accurate text on England in 1190.

What's interesting is it was much more chaotic than I would have thought. Lots of castles changing hand within a generation or two, as constant rebellions led to people bein kicked out of the nobility, and younger sons getting bigger roles than they were born too.

The Normans of 1066 were often upwardly mobile -- as were the Marcher Lords taking over Wales, and the Normans moving in on Ireland in the 1100's.

 

[Derren]

I just read "Lionheart", Columbia Games historically accurate text on England in 1190.

What's interesting is it was much more chaotic than I would have thought. Lots of castles changing hand within a generation or two, as constant rebellions led to people bein kicked out of the nobility, and younger sons getting bigger roles than they were born too.

The Normans of 1066 were often upwardly mobile -- as were the Marcher Lords taking over Wales, and the Normans moving in on Ireland in the 1100's.

Yes, the most common form of "upward mobility" at that time was through conquest.
In a feudal society how important you are is decided by your land. Nearly everyone of importance (= nobility) had a title which is linked to land. And land was equal to wealth (taxes) and power (levies). More than that, there was a quite rigid structure of who owned fealty to whom which was also decided by title.
But that didn't mean that everything was peaceful. Might made right and the one with more troops could do whatever he pleased. And that wasn't necessarily the king. There were several instances where the nobles did whatever they wanted and the king was pretty much powerless. See the Holy Roman Empire for an example.

Also, the inheritance laws were very strict and organized. You couldn't just write a testament and inherit your title and property to whoever you wanted, but the law declared who inherits and in which order. What made things really chaotic was that nobility only married among each other and daughters were handed around like bargaining chips to form treaties. That lead to the situation that everyone had a shot at someone else title and land if the right persons died or the right documents were forged.

And while that formed the basis of every feudal society there are a lot of differences in the details. Are woman allowed to inherit and at what position? Are the lands and title distributed between the children or inherited to the firstborn? Is the title of king inherited or chosen by election?
Also, if you don't want to simply copy the European social order there is also room for variance. As someone said before in Asia farmers ranked higher than traders (because they produced). China was quite "modern" as titles could be gained through skill instead of birth. And the caste system of India was even more harsh than the feudal structures in Europe.

To take a shot at the OPs questions

Recently I've tried to incorporate a system of social ranks into my Greyhawk campaign. I want to establish a ranking between different social classes so that my players know what the pecking order is. If a merchant and a craftsman have a word against word situation, which one is right by default? A famous knight, the captain of the city guard and the most famous sage in all the kingdoms have been invited to the king's wedding but who gets the best seat? Having some kind of ranking would help in determining such things.

It's not very though. I don't know how to rank sheriffs. And what about freely roaming unattached paladins? What about people that belong to different classes simultaneously? What is the status of the king's personal bodyguard (think of Varangian Guard), is he/she just "professional soldier" too? I don't even understand all the terms. Please see the attachment. What is the difference between a masterless man and a freeman? And what is a freelord? I think if I want to determine the social ranks I need to understand all the aspect of medieval society a little bit better.

1. It depends on how wealthy the craftsmen and the trader is. But if they are equal it comes down on culture and who knows more people.
The wedding is easy. it all depends on their relationship to the king and/or the one getting wed. If both are unrelated then by the size of their land. But both of it is trumped if the king wants something from one of them or fears their power.

Sheriffs are a bit tricky as most people think of them as police in the wild west. In medieval Europe they were either much more akin to the major of a small town or village (bailif) which, as far the social order goes, was only slightly above normal peasants or a real sheriff which was a highly respected position directly appointed by a high ranking noble and empowered to speak in his behalf in the matter of law (in a feudal society only the local lord could judge his subjects, or the appointed sheriff for the area).

Unattached paladins are most similar to hedge knights. Least among nobles but theoretically still better than any non noble. But as they are also poor, mostly not owning anything than their horse, weapons and armor, they are often at the mercy of non-nobles who lend them money. When someone belongs to two different classes the highest one counts (although there might be some talk behind his back). The royal bodyguard would not be much higher than the regular soldier unless they are noble of course or related to nobles/the king.
Masterless men is more likely someone outcast no one wants. Beggars, etc and rank lower than normal serves. A free man on the other hand earned their freedom from serfdom either through payment of money or deeds and rank higher than common serfs. But it also depends on how rich/poor they are. A beggar is still a beggar.
A free lord is a lord not owing fealty to anyone (except maybe the king in special circumstances). Their social rank would heavily depend on how well they are doing. Lords of wealthy and powerful free cities would be nearly equal to the king (Lübeck and Hamburg are two examples as both were very prosperous because of the Hanse and the king/emperor had nearly no power over them).

In the end thougt, even in a feudal society, money is a strong equalizer. If the king owes you money (and is not able to simply kill you or disown you) then you are treated much better than what your social status would indicate (see the Fuggers).

 

[haakon1]

Also, the inheritance laws were very strict and organized. You couldn't just write a testament and inherit your title and property to whoever you wanted, but the law declared who inherits and in which order.

Not true in the period of the Norman Conquest to 1190 that "Lionheart" chronicles. Right makes right was the true law of the land.

-- William the Conqueror was the bastard son of the Duke of Normandy, and claimed the dead King of England made him his heir. Two other men claimed it was promised to them.

-- A generation or two later, Stephen and Maud fought each other for decades in "the Anarchy" until Stephen made peace by recognizing the heir the other side wanted. This is the period the Brother Cadfael mysteries are set in.

-- Richard the Lionheart, Prince John, and their other two legitimate brothers spent most of their lives struggling with their father and each other over their future inheritance, with John Lackland -- who his father gave no lands -- trying to take it all. "The Lion in Winter" is a good old movie about this period.

In medieval Europe they were either much more akin to the major of a small town or village (bailif) which, as far the social order goes, was only slightly above normal peasants or a real sheriff which was a highly respected position directly appointed by a high ranking noble and empowered to speak in his behalf in the matter of law (in a feudal society only the local lord could judge his subjects, or the appointed sheriff for the area).

That's not how I remember it. English circuit courts (to try crimes in the name of the king) date back to at least Norman times, and I think Sheriffs were royal appointees to bring in troublemakers to the courts.

Perhaps there were multiple types of sheriffs, though.

High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and the Royal Forests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the end thougt, even in a feudal society, money is a strong equalizer. If the king owes you money (and is not able to simply kill you or disown you) then you are treated much better than what your social status would indicate (see the Fuggers).

Or he declares a pogrom against you so he doesn't have to pay you back!

My point is, the Middle Ages were such a long period, with so much variation across Europe and across time, that you can probably do whatever you want with your campaign and have it be historical accurate-ish, to somewhere at sometime! It's not as cut and dried and codified as we'd like to think from our post-Enlightenment world view. Messy and peculiaristic was the overriding rule.

 

[Zireael]

I like it when a setting has a power evels table, like the one presented in the topic. Maybe not explicitly stating who belongs to what tier, but still. Anyone knows examples?

 

[radja]

I like it when a setting has a power evels table, like the one presented in the topic. Maybe not explicitly stating who belongs to what tier, but still. Anyone knows examples?

I know of one example that has explicit power levels. In the 3e setting Scarred Lands there are dark elves (these are NOT drow, for one they are heavily associated with golems). Their society's power structure is something like this (I'm doing this by heart, so I might be off a little):

1. Nalthalos, the dark elf god. Stuck on the prime material plane in a golem body. This pisses him off.
2. The clergy, including mages. The mages saved Nalthalos' divine life by sticking him in a golem body, which killed most mages participating in the ritual.
3. the king, queen and other nobility. They have a god living with them. Ofcourse that god rules their society. Sucks to be a king without power.
4. the military. They can go just about anywhere, not including Nalthalos' private quarters.
5. free dark elves
6. enslaved dark elves