Does 'upper middle class' exist in the Forgotten Realms? Who does it consist of?

[Uncumber]

Hey everyone,

Question is pretty much in the title!

For one of my characters, I decided that I'd like their parents to have been 'fairly well off'. As in, definitely not nobility, but not too far below that status. I suppose what we'd call 'upper middle class' nowadays.

But having decided that, straight away I ran into a problem, I had no idea what 'upper middle class' parents would realistically do to earn their money. What paid well in the old times? Does 'upper middle' even exist? I seem to see lots of talk about nobles and peasants, but not too much in between. Specifically talking about the Forgotten Realms here.

I'm assuming that selling your trade (smithing, masonry, carpentry, etc) wouldn't make you rich by any standard. Perhaps a shopkeeper? A particularly successful shopkeeper? I'm guessing you could rent out land/and/or property - did that happen regularly? Importing/Exporting goods? I'm just running ideas off the top of my head with genuinely no idea how realistic, common place or lucrative they are. I'm sure there must be a hundred different professions that would 'pay well', but I really can't think of any!

Any information would be really useful, I feel a bit brainless for not knowing this stuff!

[xroads]

I'm assuming that selling your trade (smithing, masonry, carpentry, etc) wouldn't make you rich by any standard. Perhaps a shopkeeper? A particularly successful shopkeeper? I'm guessing you could rent out land/and/or property - did that happen regularly? Importing/Exporting goods? I'm just running ideas off the top of my head with genuinely no idea how realistic, common place or lucrative they are. I'm sure there must be a hundred different professions that would 'pay well', but I really can't think of any!

I'd say you're looking at being from a merchant class family. The merchant class were people who made their money buying and trading goods.

They didn't have the same power & influence of a noble, but they often were wealthier (though not always). In fact, the rising power of the merchants was a source of contention since they ended up butting heads with nobles.

[GlenSmash!]

The Forgotten Realms contains many examples of societies and governments and vast stretches for wilderness and frontier with no government at all.

I agree with xroads that a merchant class is most likely what you are thinking of though. I'd expect see a lot of that in big cities like Waterdeep and Neverwinter.

And in smaller trade towns farther away from landed gentry I would expect to see more of those folks really running the show.

[Resileaf]

The upper middle class would generally be known as the 'bourgeoisie'. Merchants, traders, bankers, particularly skilled artisans and smiths... Maybe some industry owners (lumberyards, quarries, etc).

[nickl_2000]

I could also see a few more options in there that would probably still be considered part of the merchant class

1) Business owners. They own several taverns or maybe a large trade shop in a larger
2) Land owners who rent the property to share croppers.
3) Part of the family of a cleric who is in charge of a large temple in a city. This may not be exactly what you are looking for, but it may fit the bill.

[Willie the Duck]

It's going to depend on how Upper Middle Class you consider 'Upper Middle Class'. 'Just shy of nobility' is also pretty broad. Best bets are what people have mentioned. Also, IRL (so hard to map to FR), there would have been no small share of lesser noble houses, offshoot houses, fourth sons, illegitimate children, plus the alternative path to power and riches which was the priesthood.

[Unoriginal]

Also keep in mind that D&D isn't "in the old times". It's pseudo-very-late-medieval-very-early-Renaissance in principle with everything from steampunk robots to silex-spears wielders walking around.

And in this framework, "nobility" and being just shy of it can mean a lot of different things.

Otherwise, I agree with the others, the "somewhat well-off" category of people generally includes successful merchants and entrepreneurs (including land-owning farmers and ship owners), higher-than-middle-management Guild members, artists who wisely invested their earnings, higher-to-mid-ranking officiers in the army, the local guard, or mercenary companies, and not-too-powerful spellcasters.

In the 5e framework, knowing the formula for a Common magic item would at least land you in the "somewhat well-off" category, provided you were able to commercialize it.

[Knaight]

Generally this works out to successful merchants (though not too successful, that gets into the far upper class but not technically noble range), high ranking artisans (e.g. guildmasters), successful bankers (same deal as merchants), and similar cases. I assume this would also extend to more major religious figures, but I can't pull from history there for obvious reasons - and those might be nobles anyways.

In a rural case these would generally be minor nobles, but there are example of yeoman farmers working large farms with a great deal of help from famers who don't own land, some of which are sort of upper middle class.

[Alabenson]

In addition to the other suggestions, a more Forgotten Realms (or at least D&D) specific option would be former adventurers.

[GlenSmash!]

The fact that most historical nobles were just conquerors or lackeys of conquerors and their descendants makes the discussion pretty interesting as you can have people carving out these little kingdoms in the Forgotten Realms still and establishing an entirely new noble class.

Yet the Merchant class could be relatively untouched or have conflicts with the conquerors' old merchants moving into new territory.

[LibraryOgre]

It would also depend on WHERE. I don't think there's an Upper Middle Class in any incarnation of Thay, nor of Algarond, but non-noble merchants from the Heartlands would certainly qualify.

Since this is 5e, I'd look at page 157-158 of the PH. I would classify "Upper Middle Class" as those who are Comfortable, with occasional bouts of Wealthy... expenses between 60-90gp a month. You probably don't have more than 1 servant for your household (whereas Wealthy likely has a staff). The Wealthy would be the Upper Class, who are not necessarily noble (you would also have nobles who live Wealthy, not Aristocratic... but nobles who live Poor are a staple of the genre, too).

[Catullus64]

One profession people haven't mentioned much yet which seem to form part of the Faerunian "Bourgeoisie": adventurers.

Even if it is something of a contrivance for gameplay purposes, the conditions of Faerun somehow combine constant conflict and supernatural danger with high levels of social and technological development (one would think that the near-constant apocalyptic threats necessary to support annual published adventure modules would put a damper on societal development, but what do I know), such that individuals are capable of accumulating a significant amount of financial, physical, and intellectual capital by plundering ancient ruins and killing owlbears.

Adventure seems to provide a level of social mobility analogous to the trade and banking examples mentioned before.

[GlenSmash!]

One profession people haven't mentioned much yet which seem to form part of the Faerunian "Bourgeoisie": adventurers.

Even if it is something of a contrivance for gameplay purposes, the conditions of Faerun somehow combine constant conflict and supernatural danger with high levels of social and technological development (one would think that the near-constant apocalyptic threats necessary to support annual published adventure modules would put a damper on societal development, but what do I know), such that individuals are capable of accumulating a significant amount of financial, physical, and intellectual capital by plundering ancient ruins and killing owlbears.

Adventure seems to provide a level of social mobility analogous to the trade and banking examples mentioned before.

Good point. Adventurers are the celebrities of the setting and as such exist somewhat outside of the normal social structure. Thus getting both the good and bad that can come with that.

[Resileaf]

Retired adventurers are also an endless source of 'arrow to the knee' jokes. :smallbiggrin:

[diplomancer]

Bankers, goldsmiths, moneychangers.

[Rukelnikov]

Merchants have influence but lack "class" which is, generally, a somewhat defining trait of nobility. For someone "just shy of nobility", make him a member of the aristocracy.

A family that for generations has been running the most prestigious university in a region where true nobles go to study, and has mingled with them for decades or centuries is nobility in everything but title.

[Sigreid]

Some, such as Sir Francis Drake engages in piracy and were successful enough to purchase not only forgiveness from the crown but honors.

[Unoriginal]

There's also the local sheriffs and reeves of villages, and other mid-ranked law or administration people. Maybe a rural notary.


Some, such as Sir Francis Drake engages in piracy and were successful enough to purchase not only forgiveness from the crown but honors.

That was more than "somewhat well-off", though. And Drake ended up a noble (or at least in the gentry).

[tyckspoon]

Merchants have influence but lack "class" which is, generally, a somewhat defining trait of nobility. For someone "just shy of nobility", make him a member of the aristocracy.

A family that for generations has been running the most prestigious university in a region where true nobles go to study, and has mingled with them for decades or centuries is nobility in everything but title.

Stereotypically, the merchant class has money, but does not have the social prestige and privileges of nobility. Meanwhile, the nobility has the social and political clout and is seen as something to aspire to, but often does not have the money required to really uphold their expected responsibilities and expenses (the main source of wealth may have moved from land ownership to trade, for example.. and while the noble's estates mean he's not going to starve and can get enough income for his basic expenses from his lands, he won't have the money it takes to, say, rebuild his castle or outfit his required levy/pay off the king in coin when his own liege comes calling for support in a war.) So the nobles go to the merchants for money, and the merchants bargain for some of the rights and privileges previously retained by the nobility in exchange, and eventually the two classes blend together, with particularly prominent merchants going so far as to outright purchase grants of nobility, and nobles who are tired of being in debt to merchant bankers all the time taking up previously 'lower class' activities that bring in enough money to not be reliant on somebody else for funding.

[Unoriginal]

Specifically in Waterdeep, the Nobles are the one with the money, while the different Guilds are the ones with different near-monopolies.

In Chult you can get nobility status by being rich enough, the old nobility being all but dead and unlikely to be able to claim any holdings, and the only major city left being a ploutocracy.

[Mercurias]

I'd place upper-middle class as a well-off merchant family in the city, particularly one with noble patrons. A tailor who makes outfits for a Duke's special occasions would have more money and status than a tailor making more pedestrian clothing. Mostly you'd be looking for a trade or service tailored for the wealthy that charges more than the standard amount. You might not find an upper-middle class blacksmith who makes fine horseshoes, but a smith contracted to craft arms and armor for military officers and nobles would probably be earning more than normal and have a higher social standing than the a smith making farming implements.

In small towns, farmers of plain foodstuff crops may not be higher than middle class, but a farmer who regularly grows something profitable like tobacco could reach that upper-middle class with the right connections to merchant buyers. The person in charge of the local market would also likely be upper-middle class, or the owner of a profitable inn.

[Rukelnikov]

Stereotypically, the merchant class has money, but does not have the social prestige and privileges of nobility. Meanwhile, the nobility has the social and political clout and is seen as something to aspire to, but often does not have the money required to really uphold their expected responsibilities and expenses (the main source of wealth may have moved from land ownership to trade, for example.. and while the noble's estates mean he's not going to starve and can get enough income for his basic expenses from his lands, he won't have the money it takes to, say, rebuild his castle or outfit his required levy/pay off the king in coin when his own liege comes calling for support in a war.) So the nobles go to the merchants for money, and the merchants bargain for some of the rights and privileges previously retained by the nobility in exchange, and eventually the two classes blend together, with particularly prominent merchants going so far as to outright purchase grants of nobility, and nobles who are tired of being in debt to merchant bankers all the time taking up previously 'lower class' activities that bring in enough money to not be reliant on somebody else for funding.

This is what I meant when I wrote "class", I was referring to refinement, manners, knowledge/understanding of arts & culture. I realise now that the word class could lead to a missunderstanding.

Take for instance Little Finger from GoT, he deals in whores, but he passes for a noble to anyone that doesn't know he isn't actually one.

Take the people from Braavos, they have much more power and influence than Baelish, but no one would ever confuse them for nobles.

[2D8HP]

...For one of my characters, I decided that I'd like their parents to have been 'fairly well off'. As in, definitely not nobility, but not too far below that status. I suppose what we'd call 'upper middle class' nowadays...


I would guess that the "Folk Hero", "Outlander", and "Urchin" backgrounds are right out (too low class), as are "Knight" and "Noble" (too high), and if you have the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, I would rule out "Courtier", "Knight of the Order", "Waterdhavian Noble", and "Uthgardt Tribe Member" as well.

"Charlatan", "Criminal", "Entertainer", "Gladiator", "Guild Artisan", "Pirate", and "Sailor" are plausible but unlikely, as are "Mercenary Veteran", and "Urban Bounty Hunter" from the SCAG.

"Acolyte", "City Watch", "Clan Crafter", "Cloistered Scholar", "Faction Agent", "Far Traveler", "Guild Merchant", "Investigator", "Sage", and "Soldier", and "Spy" seem more likely to me as do the "Anthropologist", and "Archaeologist" from Tomb of Annihilation.

Of all of them "Guild Merchant" seems like the most "UMC" background to me.

[Unoriginal]

This is what I meant when I wrote "class", I was referring to refinement, manners, knowledge/understanding of arts & culture. I realise now that the word class could lead to a missunderstanding.

Take for instance Little Finger from GoT, he deals in whores, but he passes for a noble to anyone that doesn't know he isn't actually one.

Take the people from Braavos, they have much more power and influence than Baelish, but no one would ever confuse them for nobles.

Littlefinger IS a noble, though. He was the Lord of House Baelish, vassal of House Arryn, and it came with some acres of land and a keep.

[Sigreid]

There's also the local sheriffs and reeves of villages, and other mid-ranked law or administration people. Maybe a rural notary.



That was more than "somewhat well-off", though. And Drake ended up a noble (or at least in the gentry).

Well, yes but I would figure there's a mid point between hung as a pirate and national hero. :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

Things get confusing when you have both nobility and an upper class. They take up a similar position, but are part of different models of social organization.

You are a noble by birth, but you are upper class by your property. In theory, nobles should be wealthy property owners and in that case they would be upper class. But in reality, that often wasn't the case.

Once you get a middle class, the whole concept of nobles and commoners as distinctive categories breaks down. A title of nobility doesn't really mean anything anymore.

Generally speaking, I would say the upper class are people who own farmland and use if for economic purposes other than their own food supply, though this would also include mines.

The lower class are people who work are employed by the upper class.

The middle class exist between these two. These are people who run businesses that are big enough to hire people to work for them and to let themselves live at a level of wealth that is considerably above the means of the lower class.

A super oversimplification would be:
If you work for others, you are lower class.
If you work for yourself, you are middle class.
If you have otehrs work for you, you are upper class.

This basically comes down to what others have alredy said: Merchants, bankers, and the owner of "construction businesses" like shipyards, large lumber mills, and so on.

[Unoriginal]

Millers were often the equivalent of upper middle class, in the medieval period. Since people had to pay them to be able to make their grains into flour, and that was a service most farmers required.

They didn't have the most flattering reputation, as a result.

[Yora]

If you were an independent miller, that's a great way to make an income as middle class. First you have to make an investment to create your business (building or buying a mill) and then you make that investment pay for itself.
Though I believe it was much more common in the middle ages for mills to be owned by locals who owned the nearby farms, since they were the only ones with the capital to make the initial investment. In that case the miller would just be a lower class employee. Still probably a better off one like a craftsman, but still earning a wage and not running a business.

[Rukelnikov]

Littlefinger IS a noble, though. He was the Lord of House Baelish, vassal of House Arryn, and it came with some acres of land and a keep.

Damn! That's true, I thought he was the first of his house to gain a title of nobility.

[hamishspence]

I thought he was the first of his house to gain a title of nobility.

Apparently his father was the first lord of House Baelish:

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Baelish

[Max_Killjoy]

If the "Mercenary Veteran" was an officer of a successful unit for a number of years, and lived to "retire", he might well have gathered enough to become "UMC".

[Rukelnikov]

Apparently his father was the first lord of House Baelish:

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Baelish

Yup, I checked that when Unoriginal pointed it out, I thought he had been the first one when appointed Lord of Harrenhall.

[Tvtyrant]

Hey everyone,

Question is pretty much in the title!

For one of my characters, I decided that I'd like their parents to have been 'fairly well off'. As in, definitely not nobility, but not too far below that status. I suppose what we'd call 'upper middle class' nowadays.

But having decided that, straight away I ran into a problem, I had no idea what 'upper middle class' parents would realistically do to earn their money. What paid well in the old times? Does 'upper middle' even exist? I seem to see lots of talk about nobles and peasants, but not too much in between. Specifically talking about the Forgotten Realms here.

I'm assuming that selling your trade (smithing, masonry, carpentry, etc) wouldn't make you rich by any standard. Perhaps a shopkeeper? A particularly successful shopkeeper? I'm guessing you could rent out land/and/or property - did that happen regularly? Importing/Exporting goods? I'm just running ideas off the top of my head with genuinely no idea how realistic, common place or lucrative they are. I'm sure there must be a hundred different professions that would 'pay well', but I really can't think of any!

Any information would be really useful, I feel a bit brainless for not knowing this stuff!

If in a theocracy/magocracy it is going to be the none-mystical manager class. Thay for instance has a wizardocracy who back stab constantly, but need people who run the actual estates for them. Mulhorand is the same with priests and scribes, someone has to run things while the lords wage petty tantrums and practice their killing abilities.

[Xeko]

I admittedly have not read the rest of this thread so if this was mentioned previously, sorry. But I would point out that the Forgotten Realms seems to be Fuedalistic. In most Fuedal societies, wealth alone doesnt make someone a noble, nobility comes from bloodlines, or in extremely rare cases is granted by the King or Queen for heroic deeds to the land. So I would say that the "upper middle class" are the people who have the same wealth of the noble class, but none of the political influence or power that comes with actual nobility. These would be highly respected craftsman, owners of massive trade conglomerates, some retired adventurers who accumulated massive wealth in their youth. I play a character with the guild artisan background that has that kind of back story. He was a master jeweler and merchant, his wares being worn at all be biggest noble balls and such, and even by royalty, before his childhood love was kidnapped and he went out on the adventure to rescue her.

[Unoriginal]

The Forgotten Realms are hardly feudalistic. Maybe in a couple kingdoms they're like that, but not overall.

[hamishspence]

It's common enough in "The Heartlands" for the 3.5 Campaign Setting book to describe it as the default. Similar principles may apply in 5e. Might not be pure feudalism - but there's a strongly feudal flavour.

In Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms - a point is made that most lands have a titled nobility.


In most Fuedal societies, wealth alone doesnt make someone a noble, nobility comes from bloodlines, or in extremely rare cases is granted by the King or Queen for heroic deeds to the land. So I would say that the "upper middle class" are the people who have the same wealth of the noble class, but none of the political influence or power that comes with actual nobility.

In Waterdeep, at least, the nobility is a "closed shop" and establishing a new noble family is virtually impossible.

[Xeko]

The word fuedal isnt really what is important. The point is, nobility in the forgotten realms, and most places for that matter, is not a measure of wealth. You could be the richest man for a thousand miles and not be a noble. And, while it is rare, you can also be a noble who just isnt all that wealthy. So the OPs description of upper middle class as being just shy of nobility is a broad and unhelpful description.

[Unoriginal]

It's common enough in "The Heartlands" for the 3.5 Campaign Setting book to describe it as the default. Similar principles may apply in 5e. Might not be pure feudalism - but there's a strongly feudal flavour.

I feel like it changed quite a bit, but I've never read the SCAG in full.



In Waterdeep, at least, the nobility is a "closed shop" and establishing a new noble family is virtually impossible.

Well tbf, it's because for a while the shop was "open" and the existing nobles said "hell no! No more new noble families" to protect their interest.

[Xeko]

It's common enough in "The Heartlands" for the 3.5 Campaign Setting book to describe it as the default. Similar principles may apply in 5e. Might not be pure feudalism - but there's a strongly feudal flavour.

In Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms - a point is made that most lands have a titled nobility.



In Waterdeep, at least, the nobility is a "closed shop" and establishing a new noble family is virtually impossible.

Exactly. I had said extremely rare cases. It is even more rare in Waterdeep than in other places, but it's not exactly an obtainable goal anywhere in the world. If someone is made a noble, not only are they the best at what they do, not only have they sacrificed much, going above and beyond for their country, but they ALSO happened to be extremely lucky and caught the lords in a good and generous mood. A character could never ever suggest such an appointment for themselves, and doing such is tantamount to treason. It is something the lords decide of their own volition, unprompted. And as such, virtually no player will ever achieve it in the course of a game.

[hamishspence]

There's always the "conquest" route. In some cases, the local ruler actually has a standing offer of nobility to anyone who conquers a specific area and holds it, by building a keep and establishing control.

In Cormyr, there's a standing offer of nobility to anyone who successfully conquers the Stonelands and turns it into a functioning fief.

[2D8HP]

If the "Mercenary Veteran" was an officer of a successful unit for a number of years, and lived to "retire", he might well have gathered enough to become "UMC".


Or even into the upper class like John Hawkwood (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hawkwood)


I feel like it changed quite a bit, but I've never read the SCAG in full....


With so many of the pages being low contrast and small type has anyone besides the authors?

[Xeko]

There's always the "conquest" route. In some cases, the local ruler actually has a standing offer of nobility to anyone who conquers a specific area and holds it, by building a keep and establishing control.

In Cormyr, there's a standing offer of nobility to anyone who successfully conquers the Stonelands and turns it into a functioning fief.

But at that point, what's stopping the conqueror from just, not accepting the noble title and keeping the land themselves? Why be a noble when you could be a king? From my (admittedly limited) understanding, the Stonelands are not technically a part of the kingdom, and the offer of nobility is to anyone who can bring it into the kingdom. Well, why not just create a neighboring kingdom of your own? It sounds more like extortion from the leadership in Cormyr. "If a neighboring land happens to crop up, we will promise not to go to war with them, as long as they swear fealty to us, and pay us taxes."

[Hail Tempus]

The Forgotten Realms are hardly feudalistic. Maybe in a couple kingdoms they're like that, but not overall.FR is odd, because the nobility seems to be more powerful in the cities than in the hinterlands. That’s kind of the opposite of late-Medieval and early-Renaissance Western Europe (which the Sword Coast seems to be modeled on, kind of). Historically, the rural areas were where the nobility held onto power the longest, while cities like London were where the middle class grew out of.

Granted, FR is kind of a mishmash of historic societies, so there are a lot of anachronistic socio-economic systems co-existing. I mean, according to Dragon Heist, Waterdeep doesn’t have a guild for Barristers and Solicitors.

[Montesquieu P.]

Bluntly -- yes, completely overlooked and 'behind the scenes'. Senior guildmasters of the artisan guilds; controlling heads of merchant houses; multi-site banking families; high-ranking church personnel (not just the clerics, but the controlling administrators); and the largest and wealthiest land-holders of the 'gentry' (regional aristocracies, particular to a sub-unit of a larger political entity). At most 4-7% of the overall population.

Two very useful sources: Ferdinand Braudel, particularly his trilogy "Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century ("The Structures of Everyday Life"; "The Wheels of Commerce"; and "The Perspective of the World"); and, David Hackett Fischer, "The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythym of History", form a good start to your research.

One most enjoyable source: Daniel Abraham's fictional works; in particular, his "The Dagger and The Coin" series. (It's the first time I can recall reading a fantasy fiction where a banker is the real center of the story -- and you like her!)

The concept of the 'bourgeoisie' -- as opposed to the actuality -- is a creation of the 19th Century, chiefly by Karl Marx. The reality existed sporadically in some Classic civilizations (the higher equites and lower Senators in the Roman Empire; the regional aristocrats in the Persian (area, i.e. Sassanid and later) civilizations; and most of the 'republic' independent city-states. The argument as to whether such a category existed in the Chinese civilizations, from the Chin on through the Han, Sung, Tang, etc. forward all the way to the Maoist era, is quite lively. Chiefly because under classic Confucian doctrine, the merchants ranked below the peasants and were "supposed" to be harvested by the political/autocratic rulership.

Historically -- in our world -- to be 'bourgeois' was to be removed from the political (as in power-wielding and control-seeking groups) field; and so often the main effort of a successful "upper middle class" family was to tie into a noble family, preferably through marriage but also through a 'quid-pro-quo' (cash for protection).

Whether the higher-leveled adventurers of any class (fighters, bards, wizards, druids, etc.) count as an 'upper middle class' is strictly up to the local DM. Do they have valuables which are portable? Fixed (as in 'real estate')? Do they have sufficient martial power as to require negotiation when it comes to being taxed...or helping to defend their locality? If they have the latter, then there's a great deal of argumentation supporting a claim that they belong to the 'ruling class', not the "bourgeoisie".

[Catullus64]

Historically -- in our world -- to be 'bourgeois' was to be removed from the political (as in power-wielding and control-seeking groups) field; and so often the main effort of a successful "upper middle class" family was to tie into a noble family, preferably through marriage but also through a 'quid-pro-quo' (cash for protection).

Whether the higher-leveled adventurers of any class (fighters, bards, wizards, druids, etc.) count as an 'upper middle class' is strictly up to the local DM. Do they have valuables which are portable? Fixed (as in 'real estate')? Do they have sufficient martial power as to require negotiation when it comes to being taxed...or helping to defend their locality? If they have the latter, then there's a great deal of argumentation supporting a claim that they belong to the 'ruling class', not the "bourgeoisie".

What's interesting is that that line of questioning has a different answer depending on game edition. In AD&D days, when class-as-profession was more thoroughly baked into the game, there were not only firmer rules for conduct and character traits, but also for the kind of power base that characters would amass; lands, dependents, titles, etc. Following your argument, the high-level PCs of that game would have much more easily filled an aristocratic role, with things like alignment restrictions, follower limitations, and basically everything about the Paladin class, being analogous to the social privileges and traditions that accompany aristocracy.

Whereas nowadays, class is more of a broad literary archetype, which mostly only concerns a person's individual traits. What remains, however, is the assumption that PCs will amass significant capital (not only in the mobile forms of treasure, but also the human capital which their abilities and magic represent), without any mechanics dictating what place in society the PCs will attain. Thus modern PCs, so much informed by Forgotten Realms as the default setting of their edition, seem to form more of a commercial class.

I find it mildly amusing how the change in the nature of adventurer PCs could be argued to reflect Marx's view of history, wherein land-based aristocracy, with its exploitation covered up by "romantic delusions", is steadily supplanted by the more mobile, amoralistic approach of the modern capitalist. I can't wait till next edition, when the NPCs seize the means of adventuring.

[2D8HP]

...I can't wait till next edition, when the NPCs seize the means of adventuring.


:amused: Laughed I did!

Also I've had some thoughts along the same line:


...It's high time the NPC masses rise up against their PC oppressors!...

[Mordaedil]

D&D class societies have a limited number of tiers that actually matter, but the further up you get, the more they care about the distinctions amongst themselves.

Slave class: Has no care about anything.
Lower class: No distinctions between the lower classes matter.
Middle class: The middle class is where they begin to segregate themselves from eachother and divine into lower, middle and upper. But the only difference between them is how comfortable their life is.
Upper class: This is where the real distinctions begin and where they start to measure themselves into how purebred and clean their family lines are tracing often back to some sort of royalty or higher nobility.
Royalty: This is where it gets really nasty as the order of birth can designate how valuable your life is and the constraints are equal to a noose around your neck if you are less than perfect. You want for nothing, but you will be horribly judged by everyone below you.

[ChildofLuthic]

Really depends on what you're looking for. Status and wealth don't always come together. Merchant is good, but you might also consider being coming from a family that has established themselves in a guild. The leader of, say, the blacksmith's guild is going to have a fair amount of status and wealth, but won't be nobility and have more of an attitude of "I'm better than other people because I WORKED to be better than other people."

[VoxRationis]

But at that point, what's stopping the conqueror from just, not accepting the noble title and keeping the land themselves? Why be a noble when you could be a king? From my (admittedly limited) understanding, the Stonelands are not technically a part of the kingdom, and the offer of nobility is to anyone who can bring it into the kingdom. Well, why not just create a neighboring kingdom of your own? It sounds more like extortion from the leadership in Cormyr. "If a neighboring land happens to crop up, we will promise not to go to war with them, as long as they swear fealty to us, and pay us taxes."

That sort of arrangement isn't without historical precedent, though. Terms like "marquis" come from the "marches," or border fiefs, that would be set up in unsecure areas on the outskirts of a king's territory. A greater degree of power and independence came as a reward for the service of securing what was otherwise a military liability. As for why one would not declare independence (which does happen from time to time), I would posit that not only is it generally a poor idea to directly defy a more powerful lord who is offering you good terms, but it will save a lot of logistical hassle to be part of a kingdom rather than a separate country, and if one is ever attacked by a more significant force than even one's capable self can handle, it will be easier to solicit aid from one's liege than from one's (irritated) neighbor (who desires one's land, which he considers to be stolen).

[Sigreid]

I believe if you look at it historically, until relatively recently people climbed to noble status when they amassed enough power that they became dangerous to the established order. At that point, you have two choices. You can either attempt to destroy them or you can bring them into the power structure. If you attempt to destroy them, this will likely be a dangerous endeavor and may cost you everything if you misread your ability to do so. If you offer them a place in the current power structure and they accept, they get legitimacy and security for their power and you get their power reinforcing your power structure.

[Knaight]

This is what I meant when I wrote "class", I was referring to refinement, manners, knowledge/understanding of arts & culture. I realise now that the word class could lead to a missunderstanding.

Everyone has manners, everyone has knowledge/understanding of arts & culture and refinement is just an arbitrary label used to make the particular manners and arts & culture of the wealthy nobility somehow count for extra. Class is wealth, power, connections - the rest is just trappings.