Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Derren" data-source="post: 5982913" data-attributes="member: 2518">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 questions1. 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).</blockquote>

Verification