Troll Lord Games

Of the past decade or so, in the various C&C and D&D-like games I have played, democracy has reared it's ugly head in a big way. Each different campaign, and even in many published campaign settings I have played, the democratic process is prevalent and in most cases the rule of law. My characters have had meetings with mayors, and other elected officials. I have had a character get caught up in "court proceedings" and even run for election himself.

Why is democracy a thing? Why do so many GMs use this method of governance in their games?

On a side note; paperwork, red-tape, poppycock! In the fantasy versions of democracy there is so much red tape to wade through. I have had characters whom had to fill out forms and follow simple but modern style taxes just to do things wihtin a city envirment. Oh yeah, and banks?!?! WTF. Why are their modern style banks in most of the game I play?

What happened to the despotic nobles, evil barons, and sniveling kings that claim high law based on position and birthright? What happened to the simple gentry working the land for no profit in exchange for protection from the foes of the land? In a game that is supposed to be based on medieval-style customs, why is the modern concepts of democracy and bureaucracy so prevalent in virtually every game I play?

Disgusting.

~O

The political correctness disease worming its way into a setting known for political appointees, nespotism, bribery, and monarchies....

Sounds like a good time for a purge to me. *WEG*

Paladins. I blame paladins.

They are vile beings who ruin too much evil.

Scourge them, says I. Let the barbarians roam free!

When I was working on my first master's degree (Medieval Europe) this thought occurred to me. Why was it that a "D&D/C&C" town doesn't feel like actual feudalism?

I've come to the conclusion that its because as Americans we've really got little experience with any kind of feudal system. At most its the corrupt town mayor or sheriff, that's it. In such situations, power is kept by rigging elections instead of brute force.

Think about it, in most fantasy settings a small town is noted by its mayor not as it should be by the region's local lord or lady. If there are any nobles in the 'town' at all, they're usually foppish types that act more like spoiled frat rich kids than actual blooded nobility.

When I've imposed "realistic" feudal nobility I've discovered it creates resentment among players who aren't used to the concept. After all, the whole idea of being an "adventurer" is working your way up from nothing to power and success. This is an antithetical concept to Medieval feudalism, whose concepts tend to be very class oriented, even caste really. Players get annoyed when arbitrary power is used on them by nobility or peerages, and they translate it as the DM/CK "harassing" them and not the historical emulation it actually is.

So, we end up with democracy and bureaucracy in funny clothes. To meet our modern sensibilities. <shrug>

Mike

PS: Even Victorian views are unusual in some regards, especially European. Its fun to use those on players in Victorious and watch 'em squirm.

M.

I've looked at villages and towns having headmen or mayors. Villages and smaller tend to elect someone while towns and larger are appointed by the noble in charge of the region they are in. In both cases, they merely represent their community to the lord over them. Lesser nobles or relatives of the local lord may be appointed to positions of authority but themselves still have to answer to their liege...and if they shouldn't, out trots the knights and such to put them in their place...or the adventurers for a bit of investigation or plausible deniability.

Is that what you are sort of looking at Mike?

You'd have to ask my players what the City State of the Invincible Overlord, etc... is like. I don't think I present them as Democratic... Plus my players have never run for an office, they kill the guy that had it, and take over.

I guess my experience differs. Seems to me like virtually every fantasy movie and game does have a royal presence. And hahahaha nobilty use UK accents; ordinary people sound like North Americans.

Penny-Whistle wrote:I guess my experience differs. Seems to me like virtually every fantasy movie and game does have a royal presence. And hahahaha nobilty use UK accents; ordinary people sound like North Americans.

And despots have a german or french accent, no?

DMMike wrote:
...
When I've imposed "realistic" feudal nobility I've discovered it creates resentment among players who aren't used to the concept. .... Players get annoyed when arbitrary power is used on them by nobility or peerages, and they translate it as the DM/CK "harassing" them and not the historical emulation it actually is.
...
M.

I'd argue that is a societal reaction built into our populous, especially the younger generations. I just read an article from a university president that called out the average college student of that exact issue (self absorption and victimism and seeing anything they don't like/agree with as harassment. I won't get into the article, as it is a faith based university etc etc etc, but it is a prime example of the same reaction

With that, how can we not expect those reactions ....

That said, like others have pointed out, we 'modern' and 'American' have little concept of history and or the contextual elements that governed it. Heck, most don't even understand reality in the here and now much less history 100, 200, 400 or 1000 years ago.

Few understand that in early America, to call someone a democrat was to insult them and to be ready for a fight/dual . Then, democracy meant mob rule. But, now, democracy is the holy golden calf of the modern citizen. So anything but democracy, in a historic setting, is trivialized, caricature, or misrepresented.

Now on the flip side. I think we at times misrepresent the setting as being completely set in stone static and having no room for movement in the social ladder. Though it wasn't easy, one could advance. I listened to a lecture about Late Medieval, early Modern Europe (French centric, but expanding into Germany, England and a few others) Most 'noble families' lasted 4 - 5 generations at most. Commoners (well the limited 'middle class' so not commoner as we think of it, but not noble) could and did buy their way into nobility.

This set up friction between the old families (and the new families that filled in the gaps when a family died out) who were more militaristic and rural minded, and the new families that bought their titles and were more 'judicial' and urbane minded. Heck, the French court had a position that was in charge of seeing that everyone that bought a title paid the right price, followed through with their requirements and even had an option to by the title for a (limited) heredity so the new noble's son and grandson could inherit it

Throw in the mix, guilds, free cities, and you can have some interesting political situations - same lecture, a minor noble went into a free town through his weight around and the merchant refused to sell him ... (silk I think, but may be wrong). The noble went got a couple of his retainers, accosted the merchant's shop - merchant wasn't home so the wife got roughed up a bit. The town found out about it, almost killed the noble and his followers. Went to the duke and complained, and the noble had to pay reparations to the merchant and the town ...

So, there may be room for adventures causing waves in political circles. However, it would never be through 'running' for an office ...

Ok, time to get of the ole soap box ...

Treebore wrote:You'd have to ask my players what the City State of the Invincible Overlord, etc... is like. I don't think I present them as Democratic... Plus my players have never run for an office, they kill the guy that had it, and take over.

Nice little town ya got here. Be a shame if somethin' were to happen to it...

Aramis wrote:

Treebore wrote:You'd have to ask my players what the City State of the Invincible Overlord, etc... is like. I don't think I present them as Democratic... Plus my players have never run for an office, they kill the guy that had it, and take over.

Nice little town ya got here. Be a shame if somethin' were to happen to it...

See? Aramis is one of my players...

Lurker wrote:I'd argue that is a societal reaction built into our populous, especially the younger generations. I just read an article from a university president that called out the average college student of that exact issue (self absorption and victimism and seeing anything they don't like/agree with as harassment. I won't get into the article, as it is a faith based university etc etc etc, but it is a prime example of the same reaction

With that, how can we not expect those reactions ....

That said, like others have pointed out, we 'modern' and 'American' have little concept of history and or the contextual elements that governed it. Heck, most don't even understand reality in the here and now much less history 100, 200, 400 or 1000 years ago.

Few understand that in early America, to call someone a democrat was to insult them and to be ready for a fight/dual . Then, democracy meant mob rule. But, now, democracy is the holy golden calf of the modern citizen. So anything but democracy, in a historic setting, is trivialized, caricature, or misrepresented.

Now on the flip side. I think we at times misrepresent the setting as being completely set in stone static and having no room for movement in the social ladder. Though it wasn't easy, one could advance. I listened to a lecture about Late Medieval, early Modern Europe (French centric, but expanding into Germany, England and a few others) Most 'noble families' lasted 4 - 5 generations at most. Commoners (well the limited 'middle class' so not commoner as we think of it, but not noble) could and did buy their way into nobility.

This set up friction between the old families (and the new families that filled in the gaps when a family died out) who were more militaristic and rural minded, and the new families that bought their titles and were more 'judicial' and urbane minded. Heck, the French court had a position that was in charge of seeing that everyone that bought a title paid the right price, followed through with their requirements and even had an option to by the title for a (limited) heredity so the new noble's son and grandson could inherit it

Throw in the mix, guilds, free cities, and you can have some interesting political situations - same lecture, a minor noble went into a free town through his weight around and the merchant refused to sell him ... (silk I think, but may be wrong). The noble went got a couple of his retainers, accosted the merchant's shop - merchant wasn't home so the wife got roughed up a bit. The town found out about it, almost killed the noble and his followers. Went to the duke and complained, and the noble had to pay reparations to the merchant and the town ...

So, there may be room for adventures causing waves in political circles. However, it would never be through 'running' for an office ...

Ok, time to get of the ole soap box ...

Fascinating. This is the exact level of stuff I want to incorporate more of into my games. I know these games are meant to be fun, and filled with high-adventure, but also as a GM it's my responsibility to take the players/characters to a different world to explore. If the high fantasy realms of C&C have to be a basic form of current democracy, then what's the point? If the characters want or need to get involved with rulers and rules, they should be expected to explore a system of governance that is unlike our own.

But I agree with DMMike, I have met with some moderate resistance when I was running Yggsburgh/East Mark style adventures where the rule of the land is usually based on a pseudo medieval style government.

Another reason I bring this up, is that I am gearing up for my next C&C campaign set within the Birthright setting of Anuire. That setting is all about the lords, lands, and gentry. I am definitely striving for that game to feel different, and this discussion is the germination of changing up any thought of having democracy in that game.

~O

DMMike wrote:When I was working on my first master's degree (Medieval Europe) this thought occurred to me. Why was it that a "D&D/C&C" town doesn't feel like actual feudalism?

I've come to the conclusion that its because as Americans we've really got little experience with any kind of feudal system. At most its the corrupt town mayor or sheriff, that's it. In such situations, power is kept by rigging elections instead of brute force.

Mike makes an excellent point. It is difficult not to have one's actual experience bleed into one's imaginings. We don't spend too much time in cities in our games, so much of this stuff does not come up for us, but I can see how it happens for others.

However, one thing to remember is that D&D is not medieval simulationism for one important reason: secret sauce.

By secret sauce, I mean monsters and especially magic. D&D should feel very different from a 12th century English town because medieval towns were not besieged by dragons, and had vampires preying on townsfolk, etc.. Not imaginary ones, but real ones. Regularly.

But more than monsters, magic changes much. A small group of teenagers with relatively little training could come to the town and destroy it entirely in a day. Wounds can be healed, famines averted, real curses inflicted (and removed), keys stolen by invisible rascals, even the dead themselves can walk again, either through healing, or malicious necromancy. Not to mention fireballs, power word kills, cloudkills, etc. Just imagine the effect of things like detect evil, or detect lie, or charm spells

Even if these are rare in the world, the players have them, and are thus more like superheroes travelling through a mundane world, occasionally battling super villains.

It is interesting to speculate whether feudalism, a system that came about for fairly specific reasons (rise of christiantiy, fall of roman administration in the provinces, without laws people look to various local mafiosi for "protection", their circles of influence slowly begin to expand until they bump into each other) would even exist in a world of magic and monsters.

Obligatory mention of A Magical Medieval Society - Western Europe 2nd Ed.. It tells you how you might reconcile the ludicrous D&D reality with Earth's historical medieval period.

Omote wrote:

Fascinating. This is the exact level of stuff I want to incorporate more of into my games. I know these games are meant to be fun, and filled with high-adventure, but also as a GM it's my responsibility to take the players/characters to a different world to explore. If the high fantasy realms of C&C have to be a basic form of current democracy, then what's the point? If the characters want or need to get involved with rulers and rules, they should be expected to explore a system of governance that is unlike our own.

But I agree with DMMike, I have met with some moderate resistance when I was running Yggsburgh/East Mark style adventures where the rule of the land is usually based on a pseudo medieval style government.

Another reason I bring this up, is that I am gearing up for my next C&C campaign set within the Birthright setting of Anuire. That setting is all about the lords, lands, and gentry. I am definitely striving for that game to feel different, and this discussion is the germination of changing up any thought of having democracy in that game.

~O

Yggsburgh, that reminds me of the running story we had going on the thread years ago ...

As for helping with resistance ... maybe (I know this goes against game & fun) give them homework to do before even starting their character concept. Give them setting, political, historic info. Have them explore something in it that interest them. You can even ust that to build their character backgrounds and flesh out the world.

Say , .... someone is more interested in guilds, so let him figure out 3 or 4 realistic guild set ups and use them in you town, and have his character be tied into the leadership of one of them. Or if one is interested in nobility, have them read up on the vendetta system between all the different families in Rome, Florence, Milan etc. and how that shape the inter & intra city politics. Then use their info to build some of the world's political hapenings.

Anything to get them involved in (and understand) the differences between our world/era & the setting's .

Aergraith wrote:Obligatory mention of A Magical Medieval Society - Western Europe 2nd Ed.. It tells you how you might reconcile the ludicrous D&D reality with Earth's historical medieval period.

Rgr That !

Go0gleplex,

Mostly, though local villages/small towns could have their own laws and representatives. BTW, these local (ie non noble) rules were called “by-laws” and are where we get the term.

Lurker,

It depends on your setting type. What you describe (purchase of title) is very late Medieval-Renaissance. Early Medieval titles couldn’t’ be bought, but conversely in the Dark Ages it was likely that a good warrior would be knighted on the field for their actions, regardless of their low birth.* Also, this is for Anglo-French-Baltic regions. Obviously, each country has its own timeline in such matters.

* = In the “Dark Ages” (circa 480-800 or so) any knight could make another knight at will. Your rep as a knight depended on not only your ability but also the rank of the knight who made you. For example, a guy made a knight by the king will have more clout than a knight given his spurs by Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Picture!

Aramis,

<shrug> Again it depends on your campaign. I’ve always preferred my fantasy to be low-key, with an elf walking through a human town as something that would result in staring people and finger pointing. Not to mention that to a medieval peasant, there WERE Vampires and monsters out there! The local clergy could do miracles, and invading Mongols and Norsemen were certainly their monsters…orcs and goblins anyone?

Back OT, too many FRPG towns feel like Mayberry having a Renfaire. Liz and I joke a lot about that sort of thing.. Especially the Renfaire trope of peasants greet strangers by casual insults, just like BITD! If that's what you want in your game, fine and dandy. But I lose my suspension of disbelief when I buy adventuring gear at Ye Ole Marte Du Wal!


Mike

DMMike wrote: Back OT, too many FRPG towns feel like Mayberry having a Renfaire. Liz and I joke a lot about that sort of thing.. Especially the Renfaire trope of peasants greet strangers by casual insults, just like BITD! If that's what you want in your game, fine and dandy. But I lose my suspension of disbelief when I buy adventuring gear at Ye Ole Marte Du Wal!

Would you prefer the stereotypical Arabic bazaar? Or perhaps a flea market. Or just not shopping for wares at all.

Not that this applies to you, but some need to have a historyctomy -- too many lobotomized imaginations in players I've dealt with, anecdotally. Nothing wrong with it, assuming that's the kind of game one is striving for. Like the guys who demand that cookies are called biscuits or that only mead be offered in an alehouse (what?) Similar potential issues with "canon settings." So, in my opinion, best to just drop the belief at the beginning... or at least not cling to it.

Of course, some love the historical game and love playing in fantasized versions. Maybe that could be fun. I think Ice Age would be best. Heh.

LOL Oh, you bet Serleran.

Point is, obviously C&C isn't "limited" to historical culture. However, if you ask 99% of gamers what their game world is like you'll get some aspect of the Middle Ages.

A CK can of course create a fantasy world based on their own thing (Empire of the Petal Throne) but a lot of gamers want a 'shorthand' for the culture. Medieval is it for the vast majority of FRPG campaigns.

I enjoy having some internal consistency in my games. <shrug> I'm just that kind of guy!

Mike

" In the “Dark Ages” (circa 480-800 or so) any knight could make another knight at will. Your rep as a knight depended on not only your ability but also the rank of the knight who made you. For example, a guy made a knight by the king will have more clout than a knight given his spurs by Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Picture! "

We mostly think of knights and guys like paladins as good guys in these games -- lawful stupid even -- but that is a distortion. It is so true that history tends to be written by the winners. Knights were more like hired thugs there to protect the property of rich people (who basically stole that land from peasants either by force or decree). Many knights weren't even that benign. They wandered the countryside on a kind of reign of terror taking whatever they felt they were entitled to. I think of them more as outlaw biker gangs than a bunch of Dudley Do-Rights. If you were an ordinary person working the land it would be terrifying to see a group of them pass through your field.

Chivalry was an invention that came along as a code of ethics or aspiration for appropriate conduct. And even those codes didn't really protect ordinary people.

Chivalry really only applied to other gentry. The merchants and peasants weren't covered under its rules. Definitely a might makes right situation. The nobles owned the land because the peasants couldn't really fight them for it. Of course that actually goes farther back to even before the Romans and Egyptians.

The introduction of gunpowder to the battlefield totally changed this though.

I like the idealized, romanticized knights myself; King Arthur's knights, chansons de geste, etc. even with their frailties and sinful natures

That being said there is something invigorating about the lawless and brutal variety as well

What I like about the C&C knight as written is that you don't have to follow that mold at all and still have your knight class. The code you follow is based on your culture, order, etc. and not necessarily that of the aforementioned style.

Following along Kayolan's line about customizing and not having to follow a mol;, back in the 90's my group decided to remove the lawful good restriction on paladins. Paladin as defined is a knight of virtue or a champion of a cause. The lawful good aspect pretty much follows the knight of virtue portion of that definition. What we decided is that there is as much validity in the champion of a cause portion as the virtue. Combining the two, other deities have their own paladins championing their causes and reflecting both their "virtues" as well as alignments. As long as the paladin maintained their champion mindset they retained their powers (which we also retooled a bit based on differing deities). So my paladin was one belonging to a Chaotic Good God of Oceans. I didn't have a warhorse, I had a hippocampus I could summon. We switched out turn undead for water breathing (essential when in full armor on the ocean. ) and such things. But all of this is sort of drifting off topic.

More on topic: I don't really set my market place and stores up as a ren faire but more like a farmer's market. Decide on the local focal resource(s) such as cattle, sheep, and/or timber or wheat which sets the main export or three to attract merchants etc. and then what local level farming and such can produce or can't to set things up for desired imports. So bars, tents, and guild halls have folks bartering for these things, not just a bunch of store fronts with brand X available.