How do you justify feudalism?

[ThurlRavenscrof]

Basically my thought process on worldbuilding is this:

You've got NPC people who live hundreds of years, NPC people who are innately born with magic, NPC priests and acolytes who can easily heal people, NPC druids who can easily manage crops and livestock and could even probably cast goodberry, NPC humans who can easily learn ritual caster or magic initiate feats.

In short, you've got a lot of availiable magic.

It seems to me like a middle class would naturally emerge in this world. A middle class always emerges when there is a lot of power or free time that becomes available.

So how does anyone justify having a feudal society in a settlement that doesn't have an evil alignment?

It's hard for me even to justify monarchy led by humans. What 600 year old elf citizen would respect the authority of a 35 year old human monarch? Unless I guess all cities are segregated by race... but that carries some serious implications about multiracial adventuring parties thundering around the town and it doesn't make sense that almost every NPC speaks two languages.

[Consensus]

Usually with romanticism, the king is noble, unless he's evil, then he's not, obviously :smallwink:. But honestly, god-kings are more my style and that works just as well. Also generally I don't assume magic/education is that wide spread. Feudalism worked because of peasants and serfs, and they weren't the most educated of folks.

[staylost]

Those are great thoughts that I think we all have to deal with when we look at fantasy worlds in general.

Some solutions are:

1) Magic isn't really that common - only the rare few have access to magic, and though they are powerful, they could be killed by feudal lords with masses of soldiers, or they have insinuated themselves into positions of power, or yet further still others have isolated themselves completely from society.

2) Though elves may be able to become old, their physiology and maturity don't work like ours. Perhaps a 600 year old elf doesn't know much more than at 60 year old human because there are limits to what a mortal mind can hold?

3) Fantasy is a world of myth where our feelings and yearnings are given a dreamscape upon which to play. Some logical inconsistencies are left drifting on the wind so that we can feel our way through to beautiful worlds and stories that our hearts yearn for.

[Kotenkiri]

My knowledge of DD Lore is limited here we go.
Magc isn't that common per say like a tiny percent of the population develop magic power like 1,000's among millions. Also not everyone will develop their magic that much.

NPC adventures are not that numerous in grand scheme of things and do have tendency to die in their line of work.

Races who live hundreds of years also develop differently. An elf is consider an adult around 110 with dwarves around 50.

An elf's nature also makes them poor leadership material as they take things less serious than other races. Dwarf are less political and tend to stick to their own clans.

[Lunali]

PCs are exceptional, most people cannot take feats or even level up, they just get better at what they do. People that do get power are likely either brought into the nobility through some system or make themselves into nobility or the equivalent.

[Expected]

Elves naturally lean toward the Chaotic alignment and value freedom. I doubt they would fully respect a ruler even if he or she were elven, let alone older than they.

The Wizard class is essentially a normal human, with no innate spellcasting (e.g. a Sorcerer) and are able to cast spells because of their copious amounts of study in the arcane arts. By comparison, the average commoner--whom is most likely illiterate--would hardly be able to comprehend the material. Besides, the PC's we play are adventurers and are the ones who stand out amongst commoners. This may be why we are able to do feats that NPC's only dream of.

[Darth Ultron]

In short, you've got a lot of availiable magic.

Though note the rich nobles will have all the magic the common folk do....plus they are rich nobles.



It seems to me like a middle class would naturally emerge in this world. A middle class always emerges when there is a lot of power or free time that becomes available.

Maybe, maybe not. For a ''middle class'' you need just about everyone to get magic. And a lot of people don't have the ability or skill to cast magic. Worse, even if everyone does get magic a lot of people, not everyone can use magic effectively.

And magic does not translate directly into technology well.



So how does anyone justify having a feudal society in a settlement that doesn't have an evil alignment?

Well, the rich and powerful have more magic and more powerful magic. And a lot of the ''folks'' would be dependent on the rich and powerful for magic.




It's hard for me even to justify monarchy led by humans. What 600 year old elf citizen would respect the authority of a 35 year old human monarch? Unless I guess all cities are segregated by race... but that carries some serious implications about multiracial adventuring parties thundering around the town and it doesn't make sense that almost every NPC speaks two languages.

Well, age has nothing to do with it. Someday, you will be ''old'' and have a boss ''younger" then you, maybe even half your age. You still have to listen to them.

Though the average 600 year old person would not overly care about ''a kingdom" all that much...but also likely would not live in one. The average elf does not overly live among humans, they have their own places to live. Not everywhere in the game world is a melting pot.

Most people speak at least two languages....some even more.

[Thundersteel]

Rather than trying to justify a monarchy, I would suggest you pursue this line of thinking further, and play around with how the presence of the supernatural affects the power structures of your world.

Enchantment spells, in particular, have huge political ramifcations; the ability to rise to power when you can mind control others is great magnified.

Perhaps power is maintained by a precarious balance between the king, the high priest, and the archmage?

Perhaps your nation is ruled by a bloodline of sorcerer kings?

Perhaps you have an overt monarchy, which is secretly controlled by a shadow government of enchanters and mages?

Perhaps you have a power struggle between educated guild-mages (wizards) and the innately magical (sorcerers)?

A magocracy seems like a very likely outcome for a world with magic, and can serve as a potential metaphor for real-world systems of oppression (such as feudalism).

[ThurlRavenscrof]

I get what you all are saying that magic is rare... but surely it wouldn't be for long. Just like in our world, literacy was once rare but it only takes a few generations for it to become the norm because it's so obviously useful.

And unlike literacy, magic only takes 1 in 100 people to learn it to make a significant difference in lifestyle. Even if only one person in a town can cast speak with animals once a day, that town would have a significant and worthwhile advantage in animal husbandry.

I mean in our world, people are willing to devote 4 years and tens of thousands of dollars into a batchelors and statistics show that barely matters at all. Wouldn't an NPC be willing to devote equivalent time and money to something that does matter and could potentially benefit everyone they know?

[Tiadoppler]

Basically my thought process on worldbuilding is this:

You've got NPC people who live hundreds of years, NPC people who are innately born with magic, NPC priests and acolytes who can easily heal people, NPC druids who can easily manage crops and livestock and could even probably cast goodberry, NPC humans who can easily learn ritual caster or magic initiate feats.

In short, you've got a lot of availiable magic.


I agree with everyone who said things along the lines of "not everyone has the potential of being a PC". When I write campaign settings, potential PCs are usually one in a million people who have amazing capabilities and the capacity to learn quickly. So, most people are 'commoners' or 'peasants' or 'merchants' or whatever, and don't spend their lives accumulating ASIs and combat abilities, but rather Expertise and improvements in Tool Use.

Yes, there is magic and it's sometimes available but it's usually expensive - too expensive for most people to use regularly. If you make a world where magic is cheap and everyone (or even a significant percentage of people) has class levels, it will be a very different campaign setting than the one most D&D players are used to.




It seems to me like a middle class would naturally emerge in this world. A middle class always emerges when there is a lot of power or free time that becomes available.

So how does anyone justify having a feudal society in a settlement that doesn't have an evil alignment?


One premise of feudalism in the real world was that the monarch protects the kingdom, but cannot afford a big enough army, so he gives big chunks of land to "nobles" and in exchange they raise local forces that can be called upon at need (in the US, a very rough equivalent might be each state's National Guard), but would usually remain at home as a workforce/defense force.

In D&D, having each town maintain a military unit is pretty sensible. Travel is slow and dangerous, and there really are terrible monsters waiting in the dark. Each town or village needs a local military force with enough teeth to drive off trolls, giants and basilisks. If there was a monarch with too much land and not enough money, a feudal-ish system would make some sense. If there was a city wealthy enough to sustain significant urban middle class, feudalism would likely fall apart fairly quickly.

I usually write non-feudal campaign settings where there is a fairly competent local government which pays for things like infrastructure (roads and bridges!!) and defense. Feudalism (as a game setting) isn't that interesting to me personally.



It's hard for me even to justify monarchy led by humans. What 600 year old elf citizen would respect the authority of a 35 year old human monarch? Unless I guess all cities are segregated by race... but that carries some serious implications about multiracial adventuring parties thundering around the town and it doesn't make sense that almost every NPC speaks two languages.


Why justify anything? This monarchy is run by a human monarch. Other species might choose to live there or not. Why wouldn't the 600 year old elf respect the 35 year old? The 35 year old has an army and a nation following them. When push comes to shove, geriatric elf there can take a deep breath and just admit that government A and government B and government see-I-live-longer-than-you all work okay for their people.

Is it absolutely necessary for every member of a society to respect all of their political leaders? Most people would say no, insert a complaint about their local government, and the just keep trying to live their own lives in peace.





I get what you all are saying that magic is rare... but surely it wouldn't be for long. Just like in our world, literacy was once rare but it only takes a few generations for it to become the norm because it's so obviously useful.

And unlike literacy, magic only takes 1 in 100 people to learn it to make a significant difference in lifestyle. Even if only one person in a town can cast speak with animals once a day, that town would have a significant and worthwhile advantage in animal husbandry.

I mean in our world, people are willing to devote 4 years and tens of thousands of dollars into a batchelors and statistics show that barely matters at all. Wouldn't an NPC be willing to devote equivalent time and money to something that does matter and could potentially benefit everyone they know?

The question is: can anyone learn magic, or is it genetic/random/imposed by an outside source? Is it really something that 50% of people can pick up in a few years, or is it 20 years+ of schooling to learn Light and Thaumaturgy? That's really up to your campaign setting.

There's no problem with writing a high magic setting in D&D, where cities have special plazas for Gate spells to land in, to prevent traffic jams, and you have to file a request in triplicate two weeks before casting Wish within city limits. That's fine and fun, but it's not traditional D&D. Why would anyone bother going adventuring at level 1 if the city guard all have bachelors degrees in Criminology and cast 7th level spells?

[ThurlRavenscrof]

Most people speak at least two languages....some even more.

Yes because our cities aren't segregated by language. So the fact that NPCs are multilingual suggests their cities also aren't segregated by language. Which suggests much of the game world is a melting pot. Which suggest many NPCs are aware of the presence and use of magic even if they aren't born with that ability.

[Telok]

You can't use PC rules for NPCs. The two only coexist in combat and during opposed skill checks. As a result of removing NPCs from the rules in this manner you cannot reliably use anything in the books to model or predict outcomes. Thus world building is entirely on DM and setting/module writer wishes without needing to consider or care about any rules.

Want to have one kingdom with an army of 3000 knights that's on the brink of destruction because of a CR 12 dragon? Do it. Want a city with magic street lamps that need weekly recharging but there's only one mage in town who can't even cast the right spell? Do it.

It was decided that rules stifle creativity. Thus NPCs are not bound by rules outside of conflicts with the PCs.

[Tanarii]

Unless you have fairly powerful magic, transportation and communication are still an issue.

Monsters might be a serious threat too, preventing large communities from arising in the first place. Especially if you're running a classic post-apocalyptic D&D setting after the fall of empire. (Which provide all those handy dungeon and wilderness adventuring sites.)

[ThurlRavenscrof]

Im enjoying reading this thread; thanks for all of your comments.

And I want to draw attention to the Stawman Fallacy. That's when you blow up an argument to outrageous proportions and then knock it down.

Im not suggesting homebrewing rules to make NPCs act like PCs... there is a stat block in the back of the MM that gives a ton of NPCs magic. Acolytes, druids, mages... even cultists get spells. Cults don't only choose educated people. Mostly they choose average people. So even average people can learn spells in a few short years. Thats just RAW.

What Im asking, and what many people have been answering, is how do you justify feudalism in a world that already, according to the rules, has a lot of magic.

Some people are saying magic users are 1 in a million or 1 in a thousand. So thats how monarchy can survive. And Im saying that I think more people, like 1 in 100, would have learned this power because its so worthwhile.

So I'm also asking to those people specifically, how do you justify only 1 in a 1000 or more npcs knowing magic. But that's only a side topic to the main and more important question.

[ad_hoc]

I think you are discounting the impediments.

Monsters are an obvious one of course.

But then there is also the structure of the planes. There are forces that embody chaos for example which fight against the notion of steady progress towards more regimented society.

Magic is also not science. It is fickle. PCs are special. Rules are written to facilitate the adventures that the PCs go on. Continual Flame doesn't have a set duration but that doesn't mean that it will last forever for example. All sorts of things can happen to it.

The divine right of kings is also at the heart of a monarchy and in D&D there are actual gods intervening in affairs of the people.

[ad_hoc]

And I want to draw attention to the Stawman Fallacy. That's when you blow up an argument to outrageous proportions and then knock it down.


That's Reductio Ad Absurdum

[Tiadoppler]

What Im asking, and what many people have been answering, is how do you justify feudalism in a world that already, according to the rules, has a lot of magic.

Some people are saying magic users are 1 in a million or 1 in a thousand. So thats how monarchy can survive. And Im saying that I think more people, like 1 in 100, would have learned this power because its so worthwhile.

So I'm also asking to those people specifically, how do you justify only 1 in a 1000 or more npcs knowing magic. But that's only a side topic to the main and more important question.


How do I justify only 1 in a thousand people knowing magic? In my campaigns, anyone can learn magic, but it has requirements. These are my justifications for magic being rare:

A wizard learns magic through intense and expensive study. It's not like learning a bachelor's degree: it's the culmination of 20+ years of training using rare materials for experimentation, and the process might cost thousands or tens of thousands of gold pieces in addition to living expenses. Village mages and cultists are drop-outs who managed to memorize a spell or three, picked because they sounded cool: they couldn't necessarily learn any spell, because they don't have the full technical understanding to figure out new stuff. Not everyone has the aptitude, patience, or money, but lots of people would love to be wizards. Think of little kids saying "I want to be a doctor when I grow up" compared to the number of people who end up being doctors when they grow up.

A sorcerer has generally some genetic or external empowerment. They're like superheroes. This guy got powers in a magical accident that would have killed most if the circumstances had been any different. This guy was born with strange powers. This guy did an experiment on himself that should have liquefied him, but instead granted him cosmic might. Lots of people kill themselves trying to become sorcerers.

A warlock makes a deal with something generally distasteful and has to pay a terrible price. Sure, lots of people would like to have a warlock's power, but they don't want to sell their soul (remember, in D&D, souls are demonstrably real, and so are afterlives. Selling your soul is a BIG deal), or can't find a devil, or don't have anything that a Great Old One would want.

Clerics/paladins require raw, honest faith. Legitimate belief. That's not that rare, but many of them decide to serve their communities in some lesser capacity, accepting a humble, low-level existence rather than seeking out power in the name of their deity.

There are a few NPC casters who are level 1-3 (without the PC benefit of a generous stat array) in most towns. A few Cure Wounds per day is very helpful to a town of a thousand people, but it doesn't completely solve medical care. I haven't noticed many cantrips, level 1, or level 2 spells that completely break the concept of poverty/village living/etc. If you have some cool use cases, please let me know! I love thinking this stuff through.




How do I justify feudalism in these campaign worlds? Generally, I don't use feudalism, but if I did, I'd say:

I have a reasonable (to me) justification (see above) for spellcasters being fairly rare, and level 4+ spellcasters being doubly rare.

Most low level spellcasters would not be able to threaten the status quo (armies of fairly experienced conventional soldiers, or even a dozen armored knights), but would likely be granted some property, or even a regular income in exchange for their services and loyalty.

More powerful spellcasters are prime examples of people who would quickly be granted nobility by the king. They have great and terrible powers, the tools needed to raise and lead armies, and lots of utility in peacetime. First, this would encourage spellcasters to be generally grateful and loyal to the king. Second, it'd place them in a position of wealth and power, so they'd be tempted to maintain the status quo, rather than aiding a revolution that could remove them from power.

[Caesar]

And I want to draw attention to the Stawman Fallacy. That's when you blow up an argument to outrageous proportions and then knock it down.


A strawman is simply providing a weak or false argument under the pretext that it supports the main argument, only to disprove it and create an illusion of rhetorical victory against the main argument. You don't have to make it outrageous. You are conflating reductio ad absurdum.

[nweismuller]

Bear in mind also 'feudalism' and 'serfdom' are not the same thing. Even if there's a growing middle class and no forced labor in society, as long as the governing relationships are structured as a series of reciprocal contracts between lords and vassals, you have a feudal society. The key issue you have to address is a means to keep the feudal lords restrained so as not to infuriate the burghers and freeholders they're governing. Both 'constitutional feudalism' (where there is some sort of representative body that advises and checks the local baron) and a strong and independent church that isn't a total bunch of Dark Ages asshats that serves as a check on baronial power are possibilities there.

[Magzimum]

It's D&D. You can create whatever world you like.

Seems to me that this thread should have started to discuss some basic assumptions, and only then argue what kind of world that would lead to. People in this thread argue about the world, but do not agree even on some basic foundations that such a world should be built upon. As a result, this discussion will likely lead to nothing.

[Unoriginal]

This thread, as far as I can see, has the problem of presenting an unsupported état de fait and then asking for justifications for its existence, when it doesn't exist as presented by default.



Im not suggesting homebrewing rules to make NPCs act like PCs... there is a stat block in the back of the MM that gives a ton of NPCs magic. Acolytes, druids, mages... even cultists get spells. Cults don't only choose educated people. Mostly they choose average people. So even average people can learn spells in a few short years. Thats just RAW.

One, cultists don't get spells through studies, they get them through contact with occult extraplanar entities.

Two, that plenty of those NPCs have magic from one source or the other does not mean that there are plenty of them in the world. The large majority of people are represented by the Commoner statblock.



What Im asking, and what many people have been answering, is how do you justify feudalism in a world that already, according to the rules, has a lot of magic.



It seems to me like a middle class would naturally emerge in this world. A middle class always emerges when there is a lot of power or free time that becomes available.

See, the thing is, feudalism in our world had a "middle class" too, in the sense that there were rich merchants, yeomen, burghers, and the like, who were not nobles nor priests but still had a profitable status which placed them above the common people. Feudalism does not prevent this from existing.


Someone who spent a decade or so learning magic or so will certainly get relatively rich, if they find someone who can afford their rates.


If you want, I can find the quotes from the books talking about the rarity of spellcasters, what kind of (not-traditionally-feudal) government structure the default setting has, and the like.

[sophontteks]

The merchant class existed in feudalism, so there was always this middle class of sorts, though they had little political power. The middle class as we know it is a pretty new idea from the 17th century. Its not a natural phenomena and it has nothing to do with free time. Since the industrial revolution and the rise of the middle class we have been working harder then ever. Its more to do with technology and new economic ideas.

So first I'm pretty sure not all of Faerun is feudal. Merchants have much more power in the south, like in Calimshan. There you can rise to power without being born into nobility and because they depend so much on trade rather then on farming, merchants end up being pretty powerful. I mean just check out the "City of Spells" its a city very close to how the OP thought society should look like.

But in other parts farming is the main squeeze, and the other big issue is security. There is a need for the serious local protection a lord can provide, and the lord in turn needs serfs to farm his lands. Economies are very much local, likely because the dangers of the world have made it difficult to create larger systems able to replace this local protection. So the people are very concerned about sevurity, not so much about their rights (these tend to be conflicting things). They need that local military force looming over them to keep them safe from the endless raids.

Faerun is a very dangerous place. Its like the Apocalypse is always a day away. It's very hard to speak of economic reform under such conditions. And really its hard to speak of economic reform under any conditions. Like in America industrialized agriculture out-produced traditional farming to the point where the north was out-producing the south in farming output, yet the south shunned new agricultural innovations. There was no need for them to change and it took a really bloody war to cause that change.

What i'm saying as a final point is, even if better systems are possible, it takes a great effort to actually see that system come to life. Afterall, is anyone looking at our modern economy with the belief that this is truly the best we can do with the resources we have at our disposal? Or are we running an obsolete system ourselves, resisting new ideas and systems in favor of how its always been.

[GreyBlack]

Basically my thought process on worldbuilding is this:

You've got NPC people who live hundreds of years, NPC people who are innately born with magic, NPC priests and acolytes who can easily heal people, NPC druids who can easily manage crops and livestock and could even probably cast goodberry, NPC humans who can easily learn ritual caster or magic initiate feats.

In short, you've got a lot of availiable magic.

It seems to me like a middle class would naturally emerge in this world. A middle class always emerges when there is a lot of power or free time that becomes available.

So how does anyone justify having a feudal society in a settlement that doesn't have an evil alignment?

It's hard for me even to justify monarchy led by humans. What 600 year old elf citizen would respect the authority of a 35 year old human monarch? Unless I guess all cities are segregated by race... but that carries some serious implications about multiracial adventuring parties thundering around the town and it doesn't make sense that almost every NPC speaks two languages.

It's fairly easy; just place your setting in a post-apocalypse.

After societies collapse, the power vacuum tends to lead to a return to more local rather than global political structures. We saw this with the fall of Rome in our world, and same in the Bronze Age Collapse. Despite these marvelous technologies never dreamed of before, these societies devolved into a series of local lords each competing for control. As lords swear fealty to each other, we see the rise of feudalism.

Your world doesn't have to mirror this, but the base assumption in older editions of D&D was that the dungeons you were looting were the remnants of these older/dying civilizations. The elves are dying, dwarves are retreating into their mountains and humans are being left to pick up the pieces of this shattered world. A few brave adventurers are willing to endure these trials and earn their fortune at the possible cost of their lives.

Of course, with the advent of some later editions (I'm looking at you, 3rd) this kind of thinking is left by the wayside, but even then you couldn't make your own artifact weapons, which leaves the impression that, even despite all the power available to the PC's and the world at large, so much knowledge has been lost that it seems mythic in comparison.

[Malifice]

Have any core DnD worlds actually been primarily feudal?

Maybe Cerillia/ Birthright to some extent. None of the others are.

And by none of the others, I mean Greyhawk, Faerun, Krynn, Eberron, Athas etc.

They're generally a conglomeration of magocracies (most of which have fallen victim to some kind of catastrophe via a civil war, hubris or both), a massive 'free city' somewhere, and several largely wholly independent nation-States that closely resemble modern Nation States and are totally antithetical to any kind of medieval feudal organisation.

[Unoriginal]

Have any core DnD worlds actually been primarily feudal?

Maybe Cerillia/ Birthright to some extent. None of the others are.

And by none of the others, I mean Greyhawk, Faerun, Krynn, Eberron, Athas etc.

They're generally a conglomeration of magocracies (most of which have fallen victim to some kind of catastrophe via a civil war, hubris or both), a massive 'free city' somewhere, and several largely wholly independent nation-States that closely resemble modern Nation States and are totally antithetical to any kind of medieval feudal organisation.

Well, the DMG states the default assumption is more or less "There is a lord who rules over a city/town/territory and keep it protected, with other local nobles helping if the place is big enough, and the smaller settlements in the neighborhood have a sheriff or other official appointed by the lord", with no real mention of serfs or the like.

So no, it's not feudalism, though nobles often own land.

[Cybren]

Most d&d settings don’t actually feature feudalism. They’re typically closer to early modern Europe with fairly centralized states and growing nationalist sentiments

[ciarannihill]

So no, it's not feudalism, though nobles often own land.

It sort of depends if manorialism is a vital part of your definition of feudalism or not. It seems to be a point of some debate among historians from what I gather, because both clearly existed simultaneously, but is it correlation or causation? I legitimately don't have enough knowledge to have a terribly educated opinion, but my gut says that it would be tough to sustain feudalism without manorialism, but perhaps not impossible, it's hard to say for certain -- historical "what if"s are always a can of worms.

[Unoriginal]

It sort of depends if manorialism is a vital part of your definition of feudalism or not. It seems to be a point of some debate among historians from what I gather, because both clearly existed simultaneously, but is it correlation or causation? I legitimately don't have enough knowledge to have a terribly educated opinion, but my gut says that it would be tough to sustain feudalism without manorialism, but perhaps not impossible, it's hard to say for certain -- historical "what if"s are always a can of worms.

Well, does it really matter for this discussion if feudalism *could* exist without manoralism? Since in our world it didn't and so the concept is thought as including manoralism by default except by experts. And especially because OP was more talking about how it affected non-nobles.

If you keep feudalism to "this guy has vassals, who also have vassals" among the ruling class, then it doesn't really matter for people outside of it.

[Asmotherion]

Fate, Destiny. The King is chosen by a Deity or Deities, perhaps the whole of a Pantheon to represent them. The head of some Clergy (Representing the Pantheon Revered by the Locals) Blesses the Noble who assends to the throne, and dessides who have a righteus claim to the Throne, as the Gods reveal. Different Gods may propose different Kings, and this may result in a fight for who is more right, dividing countries in two.

I imagin the gods voting among the Nobles; Whoever gets more votes gets to be king, the next is next in line etc.

So, in a Pantheon with multiple Chaotic and Evil Deities, an Evil King would be more probable to happen than in one in wich the majority are Lawful and Good Aligned.

Kings on the other hand are still mortals, and can get corrupted, even if they have been approved for their past deeds by the Gods. Power can corupt after all, if one does not use it responsivelly.

On your seccond point: Overall, even if you're 600 years old and have Almost Omnipotent Magical Powers, it will still be hard to beat the actual Omnipotent Being Counsil's desision that this Guy is more fit to Rule than You (and everything that might come in your way to prevent you from going against that decission, unless you get favor with one or more of them).

[ciarannihill]

Well, does it really matter for this discussion if feudalism *could* exist without manoralism? Since in our world it didn't and so the concept is thought as including manoralism by default except by experts. And especially because OP was more talking about how it affected non-nobles.

If you keep feudalism to "this guy has vassals, who also have vassals" among the ruling class, then it doesn't really matter for people outside of it.

Fair point. I try to prevent myself from falling into the "adding complexity via knowledge that may or may not actually be useful to the discussion at hand" trap, but it is known to happen. :/

I had always kind of assumed that in a DnD styled world that nobles and lords largely made use of magic and such to embolden the same kind of (flimsy) justification they used in our world to rule: That they were in some way special or another type of being to commoners.

Except that in "DnD-Land" there's actual magic, some of which is hereditary (sorcery), based on creed or philosophy (paladin oaths), inheritable (knowledge or magic items) or achievable with means/knowledge of it (pact magic).

So despite having more thriving cultures, common people generally don't question that those in power are in power because they generally have more power, militarily and magically.

[Theron_the_slim]

I like the "magic is dangerous AF to learn and use, especially when instructed poorly" approach.

When there is a possibility for a student who learns burning hands to fry his own face, you are creating a bottle neck which mostly serves to prevent a lot of amateur spellcasters.
Also learning magic should be pretty time consuming obviously.
Also the much needed, qualified teachers would be usually hesitant for numerous reasons. Teaching a person magic makes them potentially very dangerous (and I don´t even talk so much about killing people with fire, but stuff like charm person/suggestion or other sneaky stuff).
Misuse of magic by a student and potentially to face the consequences of that as the teacher, that´s dangerous stuff.

As result of all these downsides there could and should be a good deal of superstition involved with the idea of learning and using magic.
Farm Boy: I wanna become a wizard.
Towns People: Can you please find an other way to get yourself killed? Preferably one that doesn´t drag a dozen o us with you.


The nice thing of that approach is that you are easily able to work it in your world via quests instead of exposition (honestly, most of my favourite low level side quests start with the premise of magic gone wild)

A would be alchemist blows up and creates a lot of oozes while doing so.

Some guy that failed the academy and came back to his home ... and died there. The next person who walked in there also died. A few more people went inside, some died, others reported different horrible sightings (ghosts, monsters, falling objects, fire, etc.). As the group explores the house they find some arcane material, the dead (including our failed student) and a few shiny objects. As one of them picks up one specific item, he sees weird stuff hurting him.
The failed student wanted to create an item that could cast the Phantasmal Force Spell, but instead of casting the spell, he and all others who touched the shiny/slightly valuable item got randomly effected by the spell.

Some Farmboy went missing for weeks after being suspected to have stolen a lot of money. The trail leads you towards a cellar, door locked from the inside. After Lockpicking/Doorbusting your way inside the group finds a corpse with wounds that suggest a spell that hit him, a spellbook and some notes with spell descriptions. If a magic user in the group Arcana-checks the book or high enough or has the spells himself he realizes that some of the Details in the book are wrong "That´s somatic component is wrong, this wouldn´t work right". They can figure out that the guy was sold some defect spell instructions and blasted himself.



Ideally you set the tone for magic and get a nice side quest without a direct villain at the end.
Also, making magic this dangerous thing also makes the use of it more nuanced. Maybe your players cant use magic everywhere because a lot of people see it as dangerous. Also the players can feel a bit more like badasses, even at lower levels, because they are actually able to use this dangerous power.

[KorvinStarmast]

So how does anyone justify having a feudal society in a settlement that doesn't have an evil alignment?
(1) Justification is not necessary. It's a genre convention, a trope. D&D is not a reality emulator. Overthinking can obstruct fun.

(2) The WoTC version of D&D seems to be in the late middle ages heading towards Renaissance in terms of its "feel" and a lot of the illustrations. Bards and Trubadors, depending upon where in Europe, grew in post Crusades Europe. (Chansons du Geste and romances were 12th-13th century IIRC)

(3) Power tends to concentrate, even nowadays. (See the influence of 1 per centers ... and that's as far as I will take that.

(4) Wealthy families had a vested interest in staying wealthy. Modern feudalism, as it were, could be modeled by the Rothschild or Windsor, or Vanderbilt or Rockefeller or Kennedy families ... but on the political side, because more pluralist forms of government have arrived, thanks to technology and ideological changes, that's a very soft analogy.

(5) Magic needs to be both rare and dangerous. What isn't specified in D&D source books, due to a marketing decision I suspect, is that for every wizard who makes it through apprenticeship to first level, there are a few who fail, get burned out, or die. Various literary tropes about the dangers of summoning imps or demons, or tapping into the raw forces of the universe through magic, abound. Time and again, magic is dangerous stuff and hard to control. That flavor was present in early D&D editions, not so much recently.

(6) Feudalism came into the game originally from the wargame model: feudal/medieval miniatures combats were, due to historical accuracy considerations (read Chainmail, any edition) by default the armies of kings, princes, queens, emperors, and dukes. To a certain extent, that momentum/inertia has carried forward.

(7) You can set up an oligarchy instead of a strict feudal system; the nice thing about doing that ( ithink the Lords of Waterdeep in FR are a bit more "oligarchy" than anything else) is that it creates built in tension within the ruling circle that you can create rich plot points out of.

(8) Post apocalypse is all over D&D these days, what with sunderings and spell plagues. A key "post apocalypse" reference that informs the trope is "fall of the Roman Empire" ... and as mentioned above, that's where the ruins and old keen stuff is guarded by all of those monsters, so speaking of which ...

(9) Externalities. The assumption is that there is a hell of a lot of open space between concentrations of civilization/settlements. It's all of that open space, be it woods, prairie, swamp, dessert, mountains, or the open sea that is where monsters live. Population density isn't enough to elbow out the wild. All of this is a counter to the attempts at spreading the settled/civilized world.

(10) Conflict. Be it town against town, elves versus dwarves, my duchy versus your duchy, or my high school football team versus your high school football team, Group Identity and Feudal structures actually fit together pretty well; it starts local and may scale up. When it can scale up to a barony, or to The Great Kingdom/Aerdi (Greyhawk), or Cormyr in FR, great, there is still a matter of aggregation.

(11) City states precede countries and nations. As Malifice pointed out with is allusion to city states (Greyhawk being the prime example; Waterdeep is a close cousin) the Iron League (WoG) is an interesting echo of the Hanseatic League of northern and central Europe, which was a case of "Feudalism in transition to a more distributed economic/political system" ...

[BaconAwesome]

So how does anyone justify having a feudal society in a settlement that doesn't have an evil alignment?

Well, you certainly don't have to do feudalism.

In my own campaigns, I tend to assume that the threats are dangerous, from raids by nearby groups to dragon attacks and demon incursions, so the aristocracy tends to be disproportionately people who gave managed to acquire class level abilities or similar. You also have some people who are very good at doing other stuff the realm needs, like logistics or trade or whatever, but in any case, there's a lot more mobility than you might see in an actual medieval society.

[strangebloke]

A feudal society can exist in any of the following situations:

(1) King has a powerful sorcerous bloodline
(2) King is chosen by the gods
(3) King is bankrolls the wizard school, and sometimes they help him out in thanks. They could make the money themselves, but they prefer to focus on research.
(4) Magic users are feared and hated and if one tried to rule the country there would be a popular uprising.
(5) Magic is rare and its a small country and the King with his 500 men-at-arms is a completely terrifying force


Remember, too, that not all, or even most of your fantasy civs should be feudal. Let's look at famous fantasy civilizations:

Waterdeep: Oligarchy, with a lot of wizards, merchants, etc.

Shire: Anarchy

Lothlorien: Theocracy (Galadriel effectively being a godess)

Faerunian Drow: Theocracy

Thay: Magicocracy. (to start with)

Uthgard: Tribal council

[PhoenixPhyre]

One issue with the "there are stat blocks for lots of spell-casters" argument is that not all stat blocks need to be in all worlds. A very high caster-frequency world would have archmages on every block, while a world like mine (high magic in potential, but low average) has like 2 in the entire main play area. Maybe 100-1000 total, world-wide. And they aren't exactly social.

My setting places limits on the maximum power achievable by a person. PCs are special in that they have indeterminate potential (can reach level 20-equivalent if the campaign continues). Most people can't. Study all they want, they'll never be able to cast spells. A few can learn cantrips. A few of those can learn 1st level spells. Etc. This applies to adventurers that retire--whatever power they had accumulated before they retired must have been their cap. So if a campaign ends at level 8--they're level 8-equivalent from then on.

I still don't do feudalism, because feudalism per se isn't interesting to me.

[CharonsHelper]

If you go by super old-school D&D, eventually adventurers WOULD become lords. If a feudalistic society is willing to be flexible enough to incorporate most of the world's badasses, it would be much more likely to survive.

Though - it also depends upon the edition. In 3e past level 10ish armies hardly matter, but in earlier editions and 5e a group can take out characters of considerably higher level.

Really though - I don't see why a crazy powerful mage is that much more likely to disrupt feudalism than any other form of government besides a mage-ocracy. :P

[Resileaf]

It takes a lot for people to rock the boat of what is familiar to them. A feudal society will not stop being feudal if things still work out for them. Do the peasants have plenty of food available thanks to clerics blessing the crops? Why rebel against the Lord and risk having your cleric dead in the fighting? It's not like the Lord is bothering you, he's just asking for the usual taxes and occasionally asks your young 'uns to come fight in some war. As long as he's not actively oppressing you, you'll live a long and relatively happy life and won't want for more.

A political revolution is a long and bloody affair, and it won't happen unless there's no other alternative, and even then it's very possible and likely that it will fail (the king also has mages in his employ to keep the common people down if he wants).

[Nifft]

As far as I can tell, D&D Feudalism is a series of formalized service & protection agreements between individuals.

Each of these individuals owns land and commands others (through similarly formalized service & protection agreements between individuals), so the relationships will aggregate into a hierarchy of command over a territory.


This formula for Feudalism is useful for D&D because formalized service & protection will work great for the Lawfully inclined, while agreements between individuals will suit the needs of those who are Chaos-oriented. That means you can have a stable government which reigns over a wide variety of different outlooks, with none of them particularly oppressed.

[Armored Walrus]

I just try not to think too hard about it and I notice that my players really don't, either. ;)

[Corsair14]

Without reading the rest of the thread. Feudalism exists because you need people in dedicated positions that are fighters and troops. When the king calls, the lord and his troops have to go. Therefore you need people to grow food so you can feed the people not growing food themselves. Also serves to provide money so the lord can equip his troops which equipping soldiers was fairly expensive. A sword will take several days. Even cheap leather armor might take a few days to make(someone has to make the rivets and buckles). Chainmail might take a month. Any kind of plate and you are talking months of work. Realistically feudalism is a employment management system in a system of limited resources. Everyone is needed regardless of their station. Doesnt mean that its all benevolent and good. You still have the station situation where lords feel they are above everyone else, the warrior types feel they are below them but above the folks slinging mud and cow poop in the fields.

Add in fantasy as was mentioned. Magic is rare. Sure you might have a druid in larger woods. Sure there might be a cleric or two at the temple in bigger cities who can cast good berry. But not every holy person is a cleric, not every dude with a robe and a staff you meet in the woods is a druid. All of them have far better things to do than to continously cast their spells on mundane things for other people every day.

[Chaosmancer]

Another aspect to remember (and we often ignore for our wizard PC) is how expensive things are.

Unskilled labor gets 2 silver per day, a poor lifestyle is 2 silver a day.

A spell scroll which contains a single use cantrip or 1st level spell costs between 50 and 100 gp. It is fairly likely that a permanent teaching tool like a spellbook would be more expensive, so let's go 100 per spell. Two cantrips and a 1st level spell would then cost around 300 gold. If we assume married couple of farmhands they have an excess 2 silver a day, they need 3,000 silver, 1,500 days (around 4 years) of work then to buy a simple spellbook. With a teacher most skills take 250 days of training, easy to double for self taught, so to get proficiency in magic we are likely talking another two years to master the basics.

So six years and a ton of money, while living with threadbare clothes and barely enough food, if a spellbook market even exists nearby. Or, they could use that 4 silver a day to improve their living conditions, fix the roof, buy a cow to get more money and work towards that 1 gold a day modest lifestyle.

It is hard to learn magic, and while low level magic might become fairly common over time, that's only arcane magic. Divine and Druidic magic is granted, meaning the gods or nature spirits give it. And likely they only have a finite amout of power to give out.

So, expense still plays a massive role in this. It is possilbe to scrimp and save for magical tomes to read, but it is easier to buy other goods, services, and training to improve your means so fewer people would go about it.

Meanwhile, old wealthy families can have libraries of instrusctional tomes, afford tutors, and they have the time to learn. So it is far more likely they'd have magic and could even make it harder for the commonfolk by simply buying magical tomes before they can, and then they control the knowledge and they make deals where they allow the village to have a low level wizard if he swears loyalty to the family in exchange for the education.

Staus Quo maintained

[Unoriginal]

Shire: Anarchy

The Shire is a democracy.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Shire is a democracy. More to the point, the Shire is an anachronism, as is Bilbo's time keeping device in The Hobbit. :smallwink:

[KorvinStarmast]

Meanwhile, old wealthy families can have libraries of instrusctional tomes, afford tutors, and they have the time to learn. So it is far more likely they'd have magic and could even make it harder for the commonfolk by simply buying magical tomes before they can, and then they control the knowledge and they make deals where they allow the village to have a low level wizard if he swears loyalty to the family in exchange for the education.

Staus Quo maintained Bingo. I like the way you peeled the onion in that whole post, but this part directly covers the OP question. Further that point, only rich people's kids become candidates for clerics (sorta like real world feudalism in a lot of ways) and so the power remains concentrated in the ruling class.

[Unoriginal]

Further that point, only rich people's kids become candidates for clerics (sorta like real world feudalism in a lot of ways) and so the power remains concentrated in the ruling class.

People don't "become candidate for clerics", and it's not something your social status has any incidence on. Clerics are chosen by the gods, and they can choose anyone they damn wish.

Of course, that only applies for the "divine power" thing, not your rank in an institutionalized religion. The PHB directly points out some people become priests as a way of social advancement.

Makes me thing that a "Le Rouge et le Noir" situation could be fun in a D&D context.

[PhoenixPhyre]

People don't "become candidate for clerics", and it's not something your social status has any incidence on. Clerics are chosen by the gods, and they can choose anyone they damn wish.

Of course, that only applies for the "divine power" thing, not your rank in an institutionalized religion. The PHB directly points out some people become priests as a way of social advancement.

Makes me thing that a "Le Rouge et le Noir" situation could be fun in a D&D context.

This whole thing (that clerics are chosen directly) also makes one of my favorite character personalities possible--the reluctant cleric. Not reluctant to be an adventurer (since that's annoying), but reluctant to be a cleric. The god chose him and empowered him, but he'd rather be...anything else. So he argues with his god, talks back, and otherwise breaks the mold of the "faithful holy warrior that is always super obedient to his deity."

[GlenSmash!]

This whole thing (that clerics are chosen directly) also makes one of my favorite character personalities possible--the reluctant cleric. Not reluctant to be an adventurer (since that's annoying), but reluctant to be a cleric. The god chose him and empowered him, but he'd rather be...anything else. So he argues with his god, talks back, and otherwise breaks the mold of the "faithful holy warrior that is always super obedient to his deity."

I'm currently running a reluctant Zealot (ironic I know).

He's happy to use some sweet radiant damage, but not so keen on being chosen by a war god.

[VoxRationis]

From a political and military standpoint, feudalism existed in Europe because the military situation (frequent low-level fighting spread over a large area) and political situation (general fragmentation of authority and lack of a centralized state) was best dealt with by having decentralized groups of comparatively small, mobile, well-armed forces, rather than large standing armies of drilled infantry. In a fantasy world like D&D, this is even more true. Because people (both PCs and NPCs) are capable of becoming significantly stronger on a personal level, strategies that emphasize use of individual strength and expertise are more useful than in real life. Even a mid-level PC or NPC is much more effective than any real-life knight could expect to be. Thus, the solution of having life-long martial experts has greater returns on investment than in real life. On the problem side of the equation, there are perennial threats that battalions of infantry will be inefficient at dealing with. 1,000 conscripts with spears and gambesons may cost less than a fighter or wizard, but they will be unable to properly fight most monsters, falling to any special abilities the monster might have and failing to concentrate enough force to kill it. Only on an open field could they hope to bring it down, and that's only if their morale holds up against seeing their fellows scythed down like stalks of wheat.
The greater efficiency of high level over high numbers is mirrored on the strategic level. A wizard or cleric of mid to high level can solve problems that no number of low-level figures, even if they all had cantrips and 1st-level spells (which is not likely to be possible in many campaigns), could. My current character, for instance, can instantly coordinate forces over hundreds of miles by virtue of having the sending spell and knowing the lords in charge of those forces. Since my DM wants to play Dungeons & Dragons, not Lords & Logistics, the campaign generally tries to carry us away from doing such things, pitting us against more exciting threats while armies do things in the background, but it's still a notable advantage, one which the technology- and organization-based enemy cannot match (they try with a system of signal towers, but it's much slower than "instant," requires more maintenance, is vulnerable to attack and interception, and requires that the recipient be on the tower network). It's also much more efficient in terms of resources to move a party around than to march an army everywhere that trouble could brew, especially when the possibility of monsters cropping up unexpectedly is factored in.
Thus, a structure based on maintaining a class of lifelong experts in martial matters, distributed through the land and sallying from periodic strongholds to contend with threats as they arise, makes more sense in a fantasy setting than it did in real life.

[Sigreid]

Its justified the way it always is. It's a dangerous world. The people need a professional protector. When enough look to the same person you have a king that the people pay to protect them (taxes) and since he has martial power he becomes the defacto law. With poor communication and mobility, he cant administer and protect all his lands so he subcontracts his authority and responsibility by creating lords. These lords may subcontract to lesser lords. And it can all work really well until the nobility realize they have all the military might and believe they can do whatever they want and start wanting more land/wealth/servents.

[CharonsHelper]

...good stuff...

Good arguments.

Though - such a fantasy feudalism would probably mix in a good bit of meritocracy with the feudalism rather than aristocracy & feudalism as was historically the case. (Though as has been mentioned up-thread - being the child of nobility would still give the advantage of starting education/equipment that peasants couldn't afford.)

I think part of the confusion in this thread is the mixing of aristocracy & feudalism (while they were historically linked - I believe that feudalism is just the system of fealty up and down and doesn't technically require that the titles be inherited).

[BoxANT]

elven illuminati is real, you think they're not controlling everything from the shadows?

either that or it's the dragon cults... sometimes gets confusing

or is it the mind flayers? yuan-ti? great old ones?

[Darth Ultron]

I get what you all are saying that magic is rare... but surely it wouldn't be for long. Just like in our world, literacy was once rare but it only takes a few generations for it to become the norm because it's so obviously useful.

It's not just that magic is rare, it's also how the magic is used. Even if everyone in a kingdom, at least half the people would just waste it.



And unlike literacy, magic only takes 1 in 100 people to learn it to make a significant difference in lifestyle. Even if only one person in a town can cast speak with animals once a day, that town would have a significant and worthwhile advantage in animal husbandry.

I don't think one or even a couple would have that much impact.....and again, you have the skill of use.


Yes because our cities aren't segregated by language. So the fact that NPCs are multilingual suggests their cities also aren't segregated by language. Which suggests much of the game world is a melting pot. Which suggest many NPCs are aware of the presence and use of magic even if they aren't born with that ability.

Cities are divided by language and social groups. All throughout history you can find ethnic neighborhoods. Though 5E does not have much ''setting" information.


What Im asking, and what many people have been answering, is how do you justify feudalism in a world that already, according to the rules, has a lot of magic.


Magic does not equal an easy Freedom or even Middle Class. Again, the rich and powerful will always have more of everything, including magic.


Have any core DnD worlds actually been primarily feudal?

Birthright to some extent. None of the others are.

And by none of the others, I mean Greyhawk, Faerun, Krynn, Eberron, Athas etc.


All of the Classic D&D settings are not feudal. The more accurate way they are is the American Frontier.

[Vogie]

There's also other reasons that feudalism would crop up, independent of magic use.

For example, land management. If the true wealth of a nation in your world is in the value of the land, those who have control/ownership of that land will be the ones with the political power, and possibly the monetary power with an appropriate application of taxation.

In such situations, It doesn't matter if you can shoot fire from your hands or live until the age of 600, the real power of the realm is land ownership, and the most that those flame-tossers can hope for is a decent marriage into that sweet money, someone with huge... tracts of land.

That may show up in the game as:

Land ownership coursing through Certain individuals families, causing bane and boon as it passes. If a PC's family is wiped out, suddenly they may be forced to return to the homestead to take over affairs.
The land (itself, or perhaps the spirits/deities within) may choose the ruler of that area, in a sort of Feudal Ex-machina-rchy. This works best with a feudal confederacy.
Magic being tied to the land - in addition to druids, you may have"hedge wizards" are warlock-esque magic users that gain their magic as though that physical location was a patron in itself, and are powerless outside of that zone.
Leylines in certain areas may overpower, underpower or wax/wane the magical abilities in each area. This may be a static zone, where those interested in a specific type of magic will set up shop (All diviners hang out in the divination zone!), or something that shifts. If that shift is predictable, you may have a sort of planned magical migration between locations by the magical middle class.
If there's a HighKing/Emperor that has the final say over a area (that is, a feudal monarchy instead of a feudal confederacy), they may simply change the ownership at their own whim. Do they want the people who can live an excessively long time (possibly outliving themselves) in lifetime appointments? Would they rather want to gift it to their older friends and/or champions that will eventually pass on?

[the_brazenburn]

Here's how.

Random 1st or 2nd level wizard: Down with the system! Down with the lords! The mages should be in charge!
Noble: Oh, are you sure? You know, I've got thousands of gp here... And I'm being backed up by guards and my own PC-class bodyguards...

The nobles are nobles for a reason. Most people aren't going to get to first level, let alone higher than third. The few that do probably become lords themselves, because more powerful lords or even kings can hire them.

[Ganymede]

I'm currently reading through Waterdeep: Dragon Heist thinking "What feudalism are you even talking about? This place is ruled by a large council, has a robust police force, has a burgeoning middle class with organized unions, and engages in public works. It is basically Post-colonial Boston but with troll incursions."

[Kane0]

If Battletech can manage future space-feudalism, I'm sure D&D can in fantasyland :smallwink:

[KorvinStarmast]

It is basically Post-colonial Boston but with troll incursions."
Sounds like the internet to me. :smallbiggrin:

[VoxRationis]

elven illuminati is real, you think they're not controlling everything from the shadows?

either that or it's the dragon cults... sometimes gets confusing

or is it the mind flayers? yuan-ti? great old ones?

There are so many secret evil organizations and factions in the Monster Manual that there should be a board game where everyone picks one and a map of [Faerun/Oerth/procedurally generated setting] and fights over who gets to rule the mere humans from the shadows.

[Kane0]

There are so many secret evil organizations and factions in the Monster Manual that there should be a board game where everyone picks one and a map of [Faerun/Oerth/procedurally generated setting] and fights over who gets to rule the mere humans from the shadows.

I would be surprised if there wasnt one already.

[Darth Ultron]

Feudalism broke down, fell apart and ended for a lot of reasons, not just a 'middle class'.

The big one was the rise of the professional soldier. Before 1300 ish, all most all troops were part time and gathered from the common folks. After, you get the more modern idea that someone will be a soldier for a living.

The Black Death and the Crusades both killed off a lot of people. Less people made the whole system less stable and crumble.

Plenty of peasants never even tried to fit into the system, and simply were not part of it.


So, in a lot of cases magic won't help a poor peasant much. If they are the type that are 'stuck' and just 'want to farm', then that is what they will do. Worse, even if they have magic, the lord will simply add that to their expected output.

Also, as the lord and overloard and king all have magic, as well as troops, weapons and money, they can easily force the peasants to do anything. And, if any thing, magic only makes this much easier. A single local lord, with just a handful of spellcasters, can easily 'charm and control' a whole town.

Though, again, most D&D worlds published are a lot more like 17th century America then 11th century Europe.

[Dr. Cliché]

You've got NPC people who live hundreds of years, NPC people who are innately born with magic, NPC priests and acolytes who can easily heal people, NPC druids who can easily manage crops and livestock and could even probably cast goodberry, NPC humans who can easily learn ritual caster or magic initiate feats.

In short, you've got a lot of availiable magic.

It seems to me like a middle class would naturally emerge in this world. A middle class always emerges when there is a lot of power or free time that becomes available.

So how does anyone justify having a feudal society in a settlement that doesn't have an evil alignment?

Well, assuming you want feudalism, my suggestion would be to use the fantasy elements to your advantage.

- Kings were often believed to be chosen by God/gods to rule. Well, in D&D, this can objectively happen. If people in a given region worship Tyr, are they really going to rise up against a man they believe was chosen by Tyr himself?

- Bloodlines are often regarded as being important in nobility, but in D&D a bloodline can confer real power. A Sorcerer King could wield great power as a result of his draconic ancestry.

- A man might have done a dark deal to become king. This Warlock King might well have lesser devils as spies and agents.

- Another possibility would be a Wizard King who hordes magical knowledge, only allowing his chosen 'Knights' to view it, and then only certain spells.

- Yet another king might serve as an administrator (whether he knows it or not), with a powerful spellcaster being the real power. The spellcaster might believe that the king makes for a better figurehead (and assassination target). Thus, the king will be allowed to make all the impressive speeches, drink the best wine and handle a lot of niggling matters, whilst the spellcaster will make all the important decisions behind the scenes.

- Hell, the king could have no magic but is simply an expert manipulator. He's extremely charismatic, never appears to be doing anything unpleasant or underhanded, and simply has a way of making people (even those with more physical power) come round to his point of view.

The last one leads to a key point, which is that magic should not be abundant. There shouldn't be an endless supply of druids or sorcerers running around as NPCs. Magical healing should not be so abundant that every peasant will go to the nearest priest and expect to be instantly cured of any and all injuries and afflictions.

In fact, any ruler worth his salt is going to either restrict magic or accept that he'll soon be an ex-ruler. Even outside of the wizard example above, scrolls and magical text - particularly those dealing with higher-level spells - should be incredibly difficult to obtain. Merchants should not be selling scrolls of Wish or Psychic Scream like they're ripe tomatoes. Anyone wanting these things should have to prove themselves worthy to a wizard's guild (which will itself be highly regulated) or to the king himself.

All casters would realistically have to apply for licences or such in order to practise magic (these would ideally take the form of rings or amulets, which allow the user to be restrained remotely). These licences would likely require them to submit to being called up into the army in a time of need, or else doing other specified work on behalf of king and county. Some types of magic might be banned entirely (Enchantment comes to mind, with Necromancy being a close second). But even something as simple as Goodberry or Create Food could be subject to regulation, so that they don't inadvertently disrupt the market.

Basically, there is no way someone should be able to warp reality at their leisure without either making themselves an enemy of the state or submitting to have their powers monitored and potentially reigned in.

Note: I don't consider a lot of this to be evil, merely sensible.




It's hard for me even to justify monarchy led by humans. What 600 year old elf citizen would respect the authority of a 35 year old human monarch?

To be fair, you could easily look at this the other way around. 'He's 35 and already a king? He must be incredibly gifted to be leading his people at such a young age.'

Otherwise, the elf's opinion of the king is irrelevant. Unless that elf is a 20th level caster or has an entire army backing him up, then he'll still have to obey the king's laws or else be subject to fines, imprisonment or even death.

You've also got the plot point that rulers could potentially live for a very long time. Perhaps a Wizard King has been ruling for centuries, thanks to Clone or some other magic.

[Sigreid]

I remeber the Myth game had a section where it talked about how the greatest mages aren't rulers because ruling takes too much time and energy from their studies.

[GlenSmash!]

I remeber the Myth game had a section where it talked about how the greatest mages aren't rulers because ruling takes too much time and energy from their studies.

I like that.

Some Mages might be interested in ruling, but others wouldn't care about such mundane things and would rather pursue pure magic. Some would probably prefer to create there own plane rather than work on conquering this one.

I'm not much for playing spell castes, but they certainly provide a lot of story hooks.

[Sigreid]

I like that.

Some Mages might be interested in ruling, but others wouldn't care about such mundane things and would rather pursue pure magic. Some would probably prefer to create there own plane rather than work on conquering this one.

I'm not much for playing spell castes, but they certainly provide a lot of story hooks.

The overall gist was that ruling and magic are both full time jobs.

[GlenSmash!]

The overall gist was that ruling and magic are both full time jobs.

Interesting.

I think Rand al'Thor struggled with some of that in the later Wheel of Time books.