Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

[Lord Raziere]

Speaking of straw men...

I never said that I don't want the PCs to solve societal problems, I said that societal problems are complex and that going in and killing a few obvious scapegoats is not likely to "make the world a better place".

Different problems require different solutions.

For example; say I am running a fairly straightforward sword and sorcery campaign, where the PCs are sell-swords operating out of a frontier city, making their living collecting bounties on outlaws and monsters living in the wilderness. To emphasize the sword and sorcery aesthetic, I decide to make references to slave markets, and opium dens, and brothels, and other unsavory places in the town, maybe I mention people complaining about how taxes are high and the city lord's live in luxury while the poor starve in the street, or that the sheriff is overly zealous in hanging troublemakers.

To me this seems to be a pretty standard game.

Now, if the players decided they wanted to turn the town into an enlightened bastion of modern values, that is totally doable, but it isn't something the players can just do overnight, if they simply attack the town guard, they will likely be killed. Then, if / and or when they do succeed, they better be wiling to spend the time and effort, as well as having masterful skills in economics and sociology, otherwise they are just going to cause chaos and anarchy as people turn on one another in the resultant power vacuum.

Now, the tone I got from Raz, which may or may not have been intentional, seemed to me to be sort of bullying the DM by saying if I don't like every aspect of the setting you worked so hard on, I am going to smash it out of spite, and if you don't let me smash it, I am going to take my ball and go home. Which is an attitude I have seen a lot at the table over the years, and not one I have a whole late of patience with anymore.

So what if its standard? Whats your point? Its unjust. If your justification for ignoring it is that its normal, then I'm sorry, normality is overrated and often not the best thing to judge anything by. If we let normality be what determines what should be done about anything, nothing good would be done at all.

Spite? no. your mistake is not expecting the players to smash whatever plans you have as apart of the normal course of play. This includes societies. Its not that anyone sets out to specifically screw over what you have planned, its that you'll never be able to anticipate what they will or won't care about and what they are willing to do to make it happen. you can't excuse your lack of flexibility by guilt tripping players over things they don't like or care about no matter how hard you work on them. You want players to appreciate what you have done and not destroy the societies you made, that something you must work out beforehand, preferably by finding the players who like that sort of thing. your clearly talking about a different genre than I am anyways, so I don't see why your continuing this discussion when I'm talking about something more superheroic than you.

[Saint-Just]

If you present an obvious bad guy, the PCs are going to want to fight them. It's as simple as that.

If you don't want the PCs to try and deal with social issues they encounter, either don't present social issues or make it abundantly clear that that's not what the game is about before anyone even makes a character

Please look at the page one. It's not even Talakeal's (not Malakal. How do you get Malakal? Phone autocorrect?) position that Lord Raziere's initially answering, it's Ravens_cry. And that position is "as long as the players are comfortable with it, I'm OK having the societies not lining up 1:1 with modern progressive values, even the 'good guys'.". Unless you are taking issue with one particular word in it (and if you are taking issue with it you are projecting modern politics, so we cannot discuss it here) it is the only possible position I would expect to be taken by a sensible person. Fictional societies do not have to have modern (and in fact a particular subset of modern, not just modern as anything people IRL subscribe to at this moment) values to be tolerated by the players.

Following post by the Lord Raziere goes straight to destroying such societies. Which is somewhat surprising because while by the page 3 everyone (including Talakeal) seems to have upped their game to enslaving and waging war (hm, waging war; not something that you usually see as warranting a destruction of society even when the war is an unprovoked aggression, especially in fantasy drawing on pre-modern ideas) initially it all started as "not lining up 1:1 with modern values". Not a hallmark of an "obvious bad guy".

So what if its standard? Whats your point? Its unjust. If your justification for ignoring it is that its normal, then I'm sorry, normality is overrated and often not the best thing to judge anything by. If we let normality be what determines what should be done about anything, nothing good would be done at all.

Spite? no. your mistake is not expecting the players to smash whatever plans you have as apart of the normal course of play. This includes societies. Its not that anyone sets out to specifically screw over what you have planned, its that you'll never be able to anticipate what they will or won't care about and what they are willing to do to make it happen. you can't excuse your lack of flexibility by guilt tripping players over things they don't like or care about no matter how hard you work on them. You want players to appreciate what you have done and not destroy the societies you made, that something you must work out beforehand, preferably by finding the players who like that sort of thing. your clearly talking about a different genre than I am anyways, so I don't see why your continuing this discussion when I'm talking about something more superheroic than you.

That thread started as discussion of how to better express certain ideas while writing up a setting, how to achieve representation etc. You enter and say that you do not like certain ideas (which I am not sure even exist in the setting Talakeal is talking about), and phrase it specifically as "destroying the society" which implies you (or one with ideas similar to yours) comes to play but with intention of disrupting the setting (which is not always but often results in disrupting the play). And when people say to you that it should not b a default assumption that the player gets enough power to destroy the society then you still propose new options to destroy the society by different application of power (still a bit too heavy on the killing; also going from "no civilians harmed" to "execute all nobles") and you still don't understand that it'syour mistake to assume that every player, or party gets the ability to destroy the society, and they can be only held back from it by the GM making arbitrary decisions or by the players restraining themselves.

And note: it's a thread which Talakeal started to solicit feedback. If you now think that you and Talakeal about different genres maybe it's you who should stop with recommendations for a different genre?

[Lord Raziere]

Following post by the Lord Raziere goes straight to destroying such societies. Which is somewhat surprising because while by the page 3 everyone (including Talakeal) seems to have upped their game to enslaving and waging war (hm, waging war; not something that you usually see as warranting a destruction of society even when the war is an unprovoked aggression, especially in fantasy drawing on pre-modern ideas) initially it all started as "not lining up 1:1 with modern values". Not a hallmark of an "obvious bad guy".

In my experience, the difference between "doesn't line up with modern values" and "obvious bad guy" is thinner than it seems and no NPC trying to be "complex" and "grey" is immune to a PC deciding they are completely villainous anyways and not caring what justifications you trying to give them.

[Segev]

Most landowners in my setting are going to be part of the nobility in a fairly strict federal system. Trying to hold onto more land than you can successfully manage or manipulating your children's personal relationships or bodilly autonomy is a dangerous game as your superior can simply remove you from power. It is typically far better to simply share the land with a brother or cousin.

I don't follow why "messing with your children's bodily autonomy" would make your liege-lord upset with you. Children of nobility were always pawns in politics, especially re: marriage. If anything, it's the family that loves their children that is the one that feels the most pressures, because that love might conflict with what's best for their political futures. In a culture where it's perfectly acceptable to switch your sex for personal reasons, it would be even more acceptable for noble children to adopt the sex that makes them the most useful marriages for their families. To the point that refusing would be similar to the young noblewoman who refused an arranged marriage on grounds of not loving him or something equally "frivolous" to the political ambitions of the nobility.

Am I misunderstanding your post's meaning or missing your mark, here?

[Saint-Just]

In my experience, the difference between "doesn't line up with modern values" and "obvious bad guy" is thinner than it seems and no NPC trying to be "complex" and "grey" is immune to a PC deciding they are completely villainous anyways and not caring what justifications you trying to give them.

Have you heard about people RPing in historical settings? Even in situations where players have enough power to make a change, shouldn't like 99%+ of populations start as "obvious bad guys" by your definitions?

And I am not sure what do you mean by "not immune". Unless there are some very strict controls on the PCs behaviour (and that is usually deemed bad) no NPC is immune to PC (or rather players - it's an important distinction to remember) deciding anything. Players can decide they want the NPC's gold, players can decide they do not trust the NPC despite having absolutely zero reason to etc. It's not something preventable. Now for PC's doing something (e.g. killing an NPC because they want his gold, or because they think he's going to betray them, or because he's an incompetent noble who passively enabled an oppression of someone somewhere) there can be countermeasures, sometimes actively preventing them from doing something (a noble has a high-powered bodyguard and wears magical protection) but more commonly a threat of punishment. And if society is stable and not teetering on the verge of collapse a vast majority of population is sorta-supporting the lawful (or customary, or whatever you call it) punishment, especially of killers.

P.S. Please also read the addendum to my precious post, I edited it before I've seen your message.

I don't follow why "messing with your children's bodily autonomy" would make your liege-lord upset with you. Children of nobility were always pawns in politics, especially re: marriage. If anything, it's the family that loves their children that is the one that feels the most pressures, because that love might conflict with what's best for their political futures. In a culture where it's perfectly acceptable to switch your sex for personal reasons, it would be even more acceptable for noble children to adopt the sex that makes them the most useful marriages for their families. To the point that refusing would be similar to the young noblewoman who refused an arranged marriage on grounds of not loving him or something equally "frivolous" to the political ambitions of the nobility.

Almost 100% sure that Talakeal's setting has significantly greater emphasis on the modern values including bodily autonomy and personal choice in general. I do not think it's incompatible with (pseudo-)feudalism. I can even bet a few quatloos that women are not forced into marriages (ability to persistently persuade in private is one thing, but no "I order you and you will do it").

[Liquor Box]

In my experience, the difference between "doesn't line up with modern values" and "obvious bad guy" is thinner than it seems and no NPC trying to be "complex" and "grey" is immune to a PC deciding they are completely villainous anyways and not caring what justifications you trying to give them.

I think this is a key disconnect between you and those arguing with you. Others have perhaps assumed you were saying your character would be justified in killing everyone they have a problem with. You don't care if your character is justified or not, you just want to ill those who annoy you as you see fit. Effectively, you want to run an evil PC.

[Anymage]

Have you heard about people RPing in historical settings? Even in situations where players have enough power to make a change, shouldn't like 99%+ of populations start as "obvious bad guys" by your definitions?

I will say that if the gm has an npc casually use the n word, that is one modern player saying things to try to communicate things to the other modern people who are sitting around the table. Maybe it's just that the society at large has a nasty racism problem. (E.G: 1920s Call of Cthulhu, although the gm should still be very judicious lest the players decide that maybe letting cthulhu eat everyone might not be the worst thing.) More likely, though, it's that the specific npc is a nasty piece of work, that you should dislike them, and that they're being set up as an antagonist. Immediate stabbing might not be a practical solution, but they're still going to cause problems. Whether stabbing is likely down the line depends on genre, but most heroic fantasy tends towards "yes".

Other things that offend modern sensibilities do tend to similarly be used as shorthand to communicate that something is deeply unpleasant. Often you can't do anything about it right now. And in most settings there are a lot of problems so you can't fix everything. Your Shadowrun group may very well dislike human supremacist groups, but figure that the guys trying to poison everybody with magical toxic sludge are a higher priority. Even if the main enemies are the toxics, though, player expectations mean that the human supremacists are a lot more likely to be obstacles than allies. And that it's very likely for the pcs to push back if they do find themselves dealing with human supremacists for a side arc.

[Satinavian]

I am with T on this.

Traditionally D&D was more a game where the PCs are paid by the gnomes to go to the kobold dwellings, kill everyone there and loot the place and not a game where the PCs make gnomes and kobold perfect neighbours that not just forsake violence but forget all past grievances and all prejudices and acceüt each others religions.

I won't say PCs can't change things. But it is really really hard and most PCs never reach a powerlevel where they can completely remodel societies. Or make the new ones work for that matter.



And all of that only matters when people actually want to change societies. But quite a lot of dedicated roleplayers tend to make characters that mostly share their societies beliefs, as outdated as those may be. That is part of "not just playing yourself".


And to use the Shadowrun example before :

Player : I want to fight the Megacons
GM : Sure. Will consider this for your job opportunities and contacts if the rest of the group is on board.

Player : I will end corporatism.
GM : No.

[Verappo]

I would love to see more unconventional gender signifiers, especially given how things were different IRL in different times and places (manly man kissing each other on the mouth, societies where openly crying is seen as a sign of sincerity or humility), but in fantasy I think some norms (which need not to be gendered) are expected or it all ends up looking like a ren fair instead of an actual society (ren fair fantasy is acceptable but not my default assumption for a setting).

It's true that fantasy and especially D&D comes with some expected norms of "well, most knights would wear leather and a sword and most nobility will wear frills and puffy wigs", and I love that stuff too, but the way I interpreted OP's question was on how to create a setting that kind of bypasses the more gender locked aspects of that espected setting, and I'm not sure you can do that by erasing or evening out everything that composes a trans or non-binary identity into a digestible package. If OP is going into this questioning assumptions of representation, than h0e has to question those norms too and think of what it means to make a game welcoming to trans and non-binary people.

As far as celebrated vs acknowledged I do not think it universally holds true. In the XIXth century and earlier literature a lot of time was spent on people struggling with class divisions and while class divisions remain the particular elements has disappeared, particularly the importance of (formal) nobility. A lot of those stories will not work if background changes to the late XXth century. Struggles of "commoners" who may have education, manners, money to achieve recognition; struggles of aristos to keep up appearances even if they know it's suicidal in the long term - they doesn't quite translate.

I don't think that realism is necessarily the intent in this specific case, rather inclusivity is. It's true that our queer culture has developed the way it has partially based on discrimination and division (both transphobia and class discrimination and the others all entrenched with each other in a way that is hard to separate), so I understand why it's hard to think of a made up world where that wasn't the case and we still ended up with a queer culture as rich and wonderful as we have now, it's hard for me as well. But I do think it's a worthy goal to explore the freedom that such a society would provide for gender expression. I mean, a lot of queer people I played with (including myself) love playing multicolored and flamboyant tieflings because it gives them an outlet for exaggerate expression, so I think maybe the world should reflect that wish for a more inclusive and accepting world.

Other than that I would make sure to ask the players themselves what they're comfortable with. I personally don't mind a setting where social issues are present because then I get to be the one to work to make that world better, but it's definitely not something everyone's comfortable with.

Given the above, what would a non-binary or gender fluid character even look like in this setting?

Well, you could have a gender fluid shopkeep that presents themselves with different clothes, make up and expression alternatively based on when the party comes to buy stuff from them, or an otherwise recurring character that can be presented with a fluid expression of their gender. For non binary people you could play with the ideas you presented above. Maybe inside a certain sect of the church the same person wouldn't want to sport the same hairdo as everyone else and decides to change it. Maybe they have short hair and a beard but decide to wear skirts. Maybe they just simply go by They instead of those other optional pronouns. If skirts are a default for those who do not ride horses, then a character who does not ride could choose to wear trousers anyway (I'm picking out an example from what you showed me, but it does not need to be so specific)

To me the crux of the issue is that by flattening out all expression of gender that exist in our world, it risks feeling like the setting you're making inadvertently creates a space where the trans indentities of players that may be at your table are flattened out by proxy. If the church or crown or your job requires their people to wear certain clothes that's fine, but are the individual characters inside them then allowed to wear clothes or present themselves in ways that do not conform to those occupations? Part of the deal with gender identity is expressing oneself based on personal identity, rather than the one imposed by outside forces, so I'm wondering if the setting's conception of faith and institutions would change to be more inclusive as well, or whether new types of expression outside the norm would develop.

I hope this doesn't sound judgemental, I am thinking about the issue as I'm writing so things may read a little disconnected , it's an interesting topic. I hope your campaign goes well!

[Talakeal]

I don't follow why "messing with your children's bodily autonomy" would make your liege-lord upset with you. Children of nobility were always pawns in politics, especially re: marriage. If anything, it's the family that loves their children that is the one that feels the most pressures, because that love might conflict with what's best for their political futures. In a culture where it's perfectly acceptable to switch your sex for personal reasons, it would be even more acceptable for noble children to adopt the sex that makes them the most useful marriages for their families. To the point that refusing would be similar to the young noblewoman who refused an arranged marriage on grounds of not loving him or something equally "frivolous" to the political ambitions of the nobility.

Am I misunderstanding your post's meaning or missing your mark, here?

It is particular to my setting.

Basically, the nobility is holding onto the illusion that they are still the knights of Camelot and operate under an unrealistic code of honor.

They are explicitly forbidden from consorting with witches and forcing people into marriages, and also have their own ideals of chastity and courtly love. Forcing someone to magically change their gender is something that ta frontier warlord would do, and manipulating dynasties and holdings for personal or familial power over the good of the empire as a whole is something greedy capitalist merchants would do, and the nobility needs to believe they are superior to either of them.

Breaches of honor are typically overlooked, but this is the sort of thing that would probably draw unwanted attention.

Your clearly talking about a different genre than I am anyways, so I don't see why your continuing this discussion when I'm talking about something more superheroic than you.

I don't know man, the super hero genre tends to be even worse about changing the world in an effort to maintain a "just like real life" setting. Reed Richards is useless is a trope for a reason.

But yeah, I agree we should just let this lie. I am sorry I got onto you in the first place, I really need to work on my compulsion to argue ever point even if it is off topic and obviously non productive.

Almost 100% sure that Talakeal's setting has significantly greater emphasis on the modern values including bodily autonomy and personal choice in general. I do not think it's incompatible with (pseudo-)feudalism. I can even bet a few quatloos that women are not forced into marriages (ability to persistently persuade in private is one thing, but no "I order you and you will do it").

The difference between a feudal system and a federal system has always been elusive to me.

In my setting you have a landed nobility that are (nominally) descended from the ancient knights of the round table, each sworn to obey they king in all things. As the empire grew through conquest, territory within each territory was divided up between sons, creating a town, county, barony, duchy, province noble hierarchy where every level was honor bound to obey everyone above it.

To me the crux of the issue is that by flattening out all expression of gender that exist in our world, it risks feeling like the setting you're making inadvertently creates a space where the trans indentities of players that may be at your table are flattened out by proxy. If the church or crown or your job requires their people to wear certain clothes that's fine, but are the individual characters inside them then allowed to wear clothes or present themselves in ways that do not conform to those occupations? Part of the deal with gender identity is expressing oneself based on personal identity, rather than the one imposed by outside forces, so I'm wondering if the setting's conception of faith and institutions would change to be more inclusive as well, or whether new types of expression outside the norm would develop.

I hope this doesn't sound judgemental, I am thinking about the issue as I'm writing so things may read a little disconnected , it's an interesting topic. I hope your campaign goes well!

Yeah, that is exactly what I am afraid of as well.

I have intentionally created a setting to be more open to gender expression, but as a result I think I have accidentally erased people who base a large part of their identity in non conventional gender expression.

[Max_Killjoy]

The difference between a feudal system and a federal system has always been elusive to me.

In my setting you have a landed nobility that are (nominally) descended from the ancient knights of the round table, each sworn to obey they king in all things. As the empire grew through conquest, territory within each territory was divided up between sons, creating a town, county, barony, duchy, province noble hierarchy where every level was honor bound to obey everyone above it.

In a feudal system, the ties are far more personal -- ties of blood, fealty, oath, etc.

[Segev]

It is particular to my setting.

Basically, the nobility is holding onto the illusion that they are still the knights of Camelot and operate under an unrealistic code of honor.

They are explicitly forbidden from consorting with witches and forcing people into marriages, and also have their own ideals of chastity and courtly love. Forcing someone to magically change their gender is something that ta frontier warlord would do, and manipulating dynasties and holdings for personal or familial power over the good of the empire as a whole is something greedy capitalist merchants would do, and the nobility needs to believe they are superior to either of them.

Breaches of honor are typically overlooked, but this is the sort of thing that would probably draw unwanted attention.

That makes sense. How...skilled...are the guilt-tripping parents at not-forcing-kids-at-all into doing things? That is, "Well, I would NEVER compel you to do this, but it's for the good of the family, and a GOOD son/daughter would do it," sort of manipulation. It's definitely not dishonorably forcing anything, but rather the definitely noble willingness of the totally-not-manipulated-nor-bullied scion of the family to do things for the good of the family. Honest.

[Anymage]

Yeah, that is exactly what I am afraid of as well.

I have intentionally created a setting to be more open to gender expression, but as a result I think I have accidentally erased people who base a large part of their identity in non conventional gender expression.

If it's any consolation, most settings either ignore the issue or fumble their handling. Like D&D tried to make elves post-gender with their Blessing of Corellon, and wound up feeling like only certain special elves got to color outside the lines.

Say that people care more about presentation than your body type. Have a few NPCs who lean into this, whether trans or genderfluid. (With "do they prefer one presentation, or will they change it up day-to-day?" being the key determinant.) With all the stuff being said about nobles and lineage, you might even have an AFAB prince who will retain his womb and assorted secondary sexual characteristics if that's what it takes to continue his family line, but otherwise presents as, behaves as, and expects to be treated as a man. Add in some artwork of these characters, get some test reads/views from trans board members, and you should be ahead of the game.

(There are a lot of piftalls you can fall into without even realizing it. But just going ahead with your writing helps keep you from overthinking yourself into paralysis, and test readers/viewers let you check your work in a controlled setting before you put it out somewhere that it might cause accidental offense.)

[Berenger]

The difference between a feudal system and a federal system has always been elusive to me.

I don't think those concepts are mutually exclusive. Feudalism is marked by a) the relationship between a polities sovereign and the noble warrior caste and b) by the relationship between that noble warrior caste and their non-noble subjects. A federation is an association of several (more or less independent) polities for some kind of mutual benefit. So, you can, in theory, have a federation consisting of a duchy ruled by a lord (feudalism), a city ruled by an archbishop and his clergymen (theocracy) and two free merchant republics (democracy and meritocracy).

[Yora]

Generally speaking, federalism is a term used only for democratic republics (authoritarian ruling parties and corruption nonwithstanding). Many of the world's largest countries have federal systems. The US, Russia, Mexico, India, Brazil, and Germany being the major ones that come to my mind immediately. The USSR might also have been one.
When you have something like a nation, states, and counties, that's a federal system.

Feudalism also a structure in which each territorial unit on each level is divided into various smaller units on the level below, but that's where the similarities end. In feudalism, the territory is property of a person. The king owns the land and basically rents it out to his counts, who rent it out to their tennants. And the liege can legally take the rented out land away again. There is nothing of that kind in federalism. The chancelor of Germany can not just decide to fire the state government of Brandenburg and hand the government power over to other people. The national government does not simply delegate the handling of local matters to the state governments because it's busy with other stuff. The governing of the states is the sole power of the states, excluding only matters that the states have given to the federal government. The national-federal parliament decides which matters are federal or state issues, and the members of parliament are selected by the people of the states as representatives of the states. Those matters that don't fall under federal law can be governed by different state laws in each state. (Like sales tax in the US, or the eeucation system in Germany.)

[quinron]

That makes sense. How...skilled...are the guilt-tripping parents at not-forcing-kids-at-all into doing things? That is, "Well, I would NEVER compel you to do this, but it's for the good of the family, and a GOOD son/daughter would do it," sort of manipulation. It's definitely not dishonorably forcing anything, but rather the definitely noble willingness of the totally-not-manipulated-nor-bullied scion of the family to do things for the good of the family. Honest.

Also seems pretty ripe for the, "Oh dang, while I was negotiating with that nasty warlord to get them to leave, I accidentally signed a contract without reading the fine print that says I'll marry off my child to theirs! And now it turns out if I don't, they'll kill me! Gosh, I sure hope the family can survive when I do the noble thing and go to my death to protect my children's honor..."

[Saint-Just]

Feudalism also a structure in which each territorial unit on each level is divided into various smaller units on the level below, but that's where the similarities end. In feudalism, the territory is property of a person. The king owns the land and basically rents it out to his counts, who rent it out to their tennants. And the liege can legally take the rented out land away again. There is nothing of that kind in federalism. The chancelor of Germany can not just decide to fire the state government of Brandenburg and hand the government power over to other people. The national government does not simply delegate the handling of local matters to the state governments because it's busy with other stuff. The governing of the states is the sole power of the states, excluding only matters that the states have given to the federal government. The national-federal parliament decides which matters are federal or state issues, and the members of parliament are selected by the people of the states as representatives of the states. Those matters that don't fall under federal law can be governed by different state laws in each state. (Like sales tax in the US, or the eeucation system in Germany.)

My initial objection to the word "feudal" was from the other direction - that a system where the king can just take away land because they think it is too much for one noble to handle is too centralized to be properly feudal, it's closer to absolutism. The idea that the whole country is a property of monarch and nobles are just managers which can be fired just because is definitely not representative of the majority of feudal realms IRL. English writs of attainder had to be passed through the Parliament and still were supposed to be based on crimes or at least disloyalty (whatever the real reasons were). And English king's powers was far from the weakest in Europe.

So yes, the land is property of persons, but it is a property proper if you forgive the pun. Also even in Europe things were never the same in England, Italy, and Hungary, so speaking about feudalism as "rented out land" is misleading.

[Max_Killjoy]

My initial objection to the word "feudal" was from the other direction - that a system where the king can just take away land because they think it is too much for one noble to handle is too centralized to be properly feudal, it's closer to absolutism. The idea that the whole country is a property of monarch and nobles are just managers which can be fired just because is definitely not representative of the majority of feudal realms IRL. English writs of attainder had to be passed through the Parliament and still were supposed to be based on crimes or at least disloyalty (whatever the real reasons were). And English king's powers was far from the weakest in Europe.

So yes, the land is property of persons, but it is a property proper if you forgive the pun. Also even in Europe things were never the same in England, Italy, and Hungary, so speaking about feudalism as "rented out land" is misleading.

In general a lot of "feudalism" is misunderstood through the lens of claims made "by" post-medieval absolute monarchy.

[Segev]

My initial objection to the word "feudal" was from the other direction - that a system where the king can just take away land because they think it is too much for one noble to handle is too centralized to be properly feudal, it's closer to absolutism. The idea that the whole country is a property of monarch and nobles are just managers which can be fired just because is definitely not representative of the majority of feudal realms IRL. English writs of attainder had to be passed through the Parliament and still were supposed to be based on crimes or at least disloyalty (whatever the real reasons were). And English king's powers was far from the weakest in Europe.

So yes, the land is property of persons, but it is a property proper if you forgive the pun. Also even in Europe things were never the same in England, Italy, and Hungary, so speaking about feudalism as "rented out land" is misleading.

I believe that this is a case of de facto power vs. what the rules say on paper. King Poten of the Tate family may, on paper, own all the land in the kingdom of Tate, but Duke Roolor de Facto of the Facto Duchy has the personal loyalty of his retainers and soldiers, and has more money in his coffers than King Poten Tate (by hook, crook, or management skill). If King Poten Tate tells Roolor de Factor that he's divesting him of his titles and land, de Facto could tell his retainers that the King is a tyrant and needs to be deposed, and go to war with the King. Sure, it's technically treason, but given that the King doesn't expect he could win that war, he won't press the issue, most likely.

[Rater202]

Basically, it's a pyramid scheme.

On paper, and for most people in practice, if you're not in the top couple of layers of the pyramid you're gonna get screwed, but if you're smart, charismatic, and ruthless you can come away with a killing and screw over the people above you while he people below you don't even realize they're being screwed over.

[Segev]

Basically, it's a pyramid scheme.

On paper, and for most people in practice, if you're not in the top couple of layers of the pyramid you're gonna get screwed, but if you're smart, charismatic, and ruthless you can come away with a killing and screw over the people above you while he people below you don't even realize they're being screwed over.

You're not wrong for most of your point, but other than potential for "screwing people over" and a hierarchical structure, there's really not much in common with a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes rely on the theory that having the right to sell "shares" downwards has value. The scam/deception (intentional or not) is that this value persists all the way down. Feudalism is based on subdividing landholdings, which has blatantly obvious value limits. The titles in the hierarchy made it clear there was an understanding of the limits.

[Satinavian]

It is more than that. "The King owns all land" was not even true de jure in most medieval countries. Especially principalities and dukedoms let alone prince-bishoprics tended to not belong to a king/emporer even on paper. The kings had land that they owned but it tended to be only a small part of what they reigned over. Well, at least for most kingdoms, it is easier to establish such a special privilege if you found a new kingdom after a conquest.

[Saint-Just]

I believe that this is a case of de facto power vs. what the rules say on paper. King Poten of the Tate family may, on paper, own all the land in the kingdom of Tate, but Duke Roolor de Facto of the Facto Duchy has the personal loyalty of his retainers and soldiers, and has more money in his coffers than King Poten Tate (by hook, crook, or management skill). If King Poten Tate tells Roolor de Factor that he's divesting him of his titles and land, de Facto could tell his retainers that the King is a tyrant and needs to be deposed, and go to war with the King. Sure, it's technically treason, but given that the King doesn't expect he could win that war, he won't press the issue, most likely.

No, I think that even rules on paper never said it in many places. And that is important because people are not utility maximizers so what rules on paper said was influencing how many of the dukes and count will support the Facto and how many will support Tate - unless it's an obvious curbstomp in which case almost everybody will try to get on the winner's good side, but in many situations it was not an obvious curbstomp. And because both Facto and Tate know that it will influence their decisions whether to press the issue.

Duke may owe the king his loyalty and service, but even such thing as withholding taxes is more likely to result in a sort of civil prosecution for money instead of removal; even fighting a losing war against the king was far from guaranteed to result in striping the powers from the current duke (because others may see it as a disproportionate punishment, and so you risk further rebellions). Finally, analogous to the more common ownership of wealth and lands even a death sentence often did not result in estate being appropriated by the king; instead after paying reparations and fines estate was turned to the heir of an executed man (sometimes even the son). So while it's not absolutely equivalent to ownership of property it was closer to ownership of property then to the position of steward/CEO.

Basically, it's a pyramid scheme.

On paper, and for most people in practice, if you're not in the top couple of layers of the pyramid you're gonna get screwed, but if you're smart, charismatic, and ruthless you can come away with a killing and screw over the people above you while he people below you don't even realize they're being screwed over.

First as others has said above it's not a pyramid scheme, it's effects of hierarchy, and it does not necessitate "screwing" anyone (abuses are obvious and prevalent but not necessary). And in your example "screwing" seems to imply deceiving which is not quite the case - whatever you think about distribution of wealth, including taxes, the fact that nobility lived a better life was not even remotely hidden; it was justified as something deserved.

And a "feudal pyramid" is an especially bad simile. It either puts forward something not specific to the feudalism (like classes, or chain of command, or formal titles - note that one pyramid cannot represent even two of those at the same time, because how directly you answer to the king has nothing to do with how wealthy you are, nor a Baron is necessary weaker than a Duke) or it just tries to represent something that cannot be represented as a pyramid: a noblemen can have obligations to two different kings or have two unrelated positions under the same king.

[RegalKain]

Mmm, so. If this is specifically for a campaign you are running for a group of your normal friends/players, I doubt our answers will be super helpful, as we can only look at something from a broad perspective, and your personal party may have wildly different feelings about them. A decent example of this, is most of my players, have a deep-seated hatred for Kobolds. (We had a player who played one, and the character itself rubbed the party the wrong way, in a bad way.) So anytime we see kobolds we sort of off-handling refer to them as vermin, less beings etc. Just because of our own prejudice from previous campaigns. I mention this anecdote because if you have players who have strong feelings (Negative, or positive.) towards sexuality, and gender fluidity, understand you're going to make some of those people angry.

To my personal opinion on the matter, one of the biggest issues I have with the LGBT+ Community and Gender Fluidity (As a bi man myself.) is that so often, people who cling to those groups, make their sexuality, or their gender the forefront of their persona. If you ask many of them what their defining qualities are, many of them reference their sexuality, or their gender. Now, in every day conversation, you can see this as someone who is proud of who they are, and understand the struggles it took them to be able to say that aloud, and not be worried for whatever reason. However, in a setting, where in there is minimal ground work laid, it comes across as forced. "The Captain of the guard who is gay" is forced, it doesn't add anything at all, and it's going to be poorly received by a wide audience, (I am going to just reference a wide audience, not your group in particular.) however, as the party gets to know the Captain, understands he's a man of virtue, and toils endlessly for the good of his city, they grow to love the character, if after a particularly hard mission the Captain says. "You all look troubled and weary, why don't you come by my estate this evening, let my Husband and I cook you a nice meal and you can regale us with tales of your victory?" In my experience (Some 15 years of DMing.) the majority of players aren't even going to bat an eye that the Captain is gay, they don't care (Not in a bad way either.) the Captain is well...the Captain, damn what he does with his genitals, or who he fell in love with, the Captain takes care of us, he's a good person, and he's gone to bat for us several times, THOSE are his defining characteristics. At least, as the players see him.

The point I am making, perhaps poorly. If your characters are defined entirely by their sexuality and gender (Especially in a society that can swap genders with relative ease, and as such there will never be gender norms.) they are going to feel flat, and forced. They aren't "trans" per say, because the world has alchemy that simply swaps gender over, meaning the society as a whole, wouldn't see gender as we do now. (For many, something that is rooted in biology and genetics.) I'd say that most people probably wouldn't really need, want, or care about the gender of anyone else in a given society, we have gender norms, as such genders and "mislabelling" of them, is a problem. This society's language has probably evolved (Dependent on how long the alchemy has been around.) to simply do away with gender, as people are inherently fluid in their genders. If the biology and genetics of the person are also "swapped" they would be masculine for soldiers due to increased muscle density, weight etc, most spies, or cuttpurses would be feminine, due to being far lighter, compact and agile. (As a very, very rough outline, I understand keenly that there are outliers in any scenario.)

I suppose the other question I'd pose is....why? Gender is already a non-issue in the majority of pen and paper systems, it has no bearing on mechanical situations, except what the DM and player impose. A Male orc has no benefits, or negatives over a female Orc, both can be carbon copies of one another mechanically. (I guess there are a few Prestige classes that may have gender locks? I don't honestly know, as we just sort of ignored them in our games, much like multi-class penalties.) If you're just trying to make a statement with your game, think of the audience you're making that statement to, and understand that if something feels forced for the sake of diversity, it's not going to sit well with most people. (In my experience, not the "straight" people or the LGBT people.) I'll just re-iterate the Captain analogy. Don't make gender/sexuality the defining trait of a character, and instead just write a good character that happens to have a non-"normal" (For our world, as I've already expressed your world will be different from what I've read and you've said thus far.) gender/sexuality, and the character will land far, far better.

[Calthropstu]

I don't buy games for artwork. I'd honestly prefer if game rulebooks didn't have any. Monster entries being an exception, and there are few monsters where I care whether they have a penis or not.
So honestly, I'd rather the ratio be 0:0

[Talakeal]

So, basically, in my setting you have a system where the Emperor rules the Empire, Paladins each control a nation within the empire, Dukes control provinces within the nations, barons control counties within the provinces, and lords control towns within the counties. Nobles can boss about commoners within their territories, but are honor bound to obey all superiors and can be stripped over their position at any time by a superior or a council of their peers.

Is this federal, feudal, both, or neither?

I don't buy games for artwork. I'd honestly prefer if game rulebooks didn't have any. Monster entries being an exception, and there are few monsters where I care whether they have a penis or not.
So honestly, I'd rather the ratio be 0:0

I have trouble thinking of a reference book that doesn't include illustrations.

So do you prefer to have a lot of blank space or impenetrable walls of text?

To my personal opinion on the matter, one of the biggest issues I have with the LGBT+ Community and Gender Fluidity (As a bi man myself.) is that so often, people who cling to those groups, make their sexuality, or their gender the forefront of their persona. If you ask many of them what their defining qualities are, many of them reference their sexuality, or their gender. Now, in every day conversation, you can see this as someone who is proud of who they are, and understand the struggles it took them to be able to say that aloud, and not be worried for whatever reason. However, in a setting, where in there is minimal ground work laid, it comes across as forced. "The Captain of the guard who is gay" is forced, it doesn't add anything at all, and it's going to be poorly received by a wide audience, (I am going to just reference a wide audience, not your group in particular.) however, as the party gets to know the Captain, understands he's a man of virtue, and toils endlessly for the good of his city, they grow to love the character, if after a particularly hard mission the Captain says. "You all look troubled and weary, why don't you come by my estate this evening, let my Husband and I cook you a nice meal and you can regale us with tales of your victory?" In my experience (Some 15 years of DMing.) the majority of players aren't even going to bat an eye that the Captain is gay, they don't care (Not in a bad way either.) the Captain is well...the Captain, damn what he does with his genitals, or who he fell in love with, the Captain takes care of us, he's a good person, and he's gone to bat for us several times, THOSE are his defining characteristics. At least, as the players see him.

I agree with you, but the concern is that the setting might be unwelcoming to players who do define themselves by their gender / sexuality or wish to play characters who do.

The point I am making, perhaps poorly. If your characters are defined entirely by their sexuality and gender (Especially in a society that can swap genders with relative ease, and as such there will never be gender norms.) they are going to feel flat, and forced. They aren't "trans" per say, because the world has alchemy that simply swaps gender over, meaning the society as a whole, wouldn't see gender as we do now. (For many, something that is rooted in biology and genetics.) I'd say that most people probably wouldn't really need, want, or care about the gender of anyone else in a given society, we have gender norms, as such genders and "mislabelling" of them, is a problem. This society's language has probably evolved (Dependent on how long the alchemy has been around.) to simply do away with gender, as people are inherently fluid in their genders. If the biology and genetics of the person are also "swapped" they would be masculine for soldiers due to increased muscle density, weight etc, most spies, or cuttpurses would be feminine, due to being far lighter, compact and agile. (As a very, very rough outline, I understand keenly that there are outliers in any scenario.)

Yep, that is pretty much my concern.

I suppose the other question I'd pose is....why? Gender is already a non-issue in the majority of pen and paper systems, it has no bearing on mechanical situations, except what the DM and player impose. A Male orc has no benefits, or negatives over a female Orc, both can be carbon copies of one another mechanically. (I guess there are a few Prestige classes that may have gender locks? I don't honestly know, as we just sort of ignored them in our games, much like multi-class penalties.) If you're just trying to make a statement with your game, think of the audience you're making that statement to, and understand that if something feels forced for the sake of diversity, it's not going to sit well with most people. (In my experience, not the "straight" people or the LGBT people.) I'll just re-iterate the Captain analogy. Don't make gender/sexuality the defining trait of a character, and instead just write a good character that happens to have a non-"normal" (For our world, as I've already expressed your world will be different from what I've read and you've said thus far.) gender/sexuality, and the character will land far, far better.

Mechanically, it doesn't matter. This is all about setting stuff.

I know not everyone feels this way, but I am personally a "fiction first" sort of gamer and the setting is generally more important to me than the rules.

[Saint-Just]

So, basically, in my setting you have a system where the Emperor rules the Empire, Paladins each control a nation within the empire, Dukes control provinces within the nations, barons control counties within the provinces, and lords control towns within the counties. Nobles can boss about commoners within their territories, but are honor bound to obey all superiors and can be stripped over their position at any time by a superior or a council of their peers.

Is this federal, feudal, both, or neither?

Disclaimer: I am NOT a professional historian.

System of delegation sounds a bit like idealized-feudal which never existed IRL. Usually you'll have both great nobles and small nobles answerable directly to the King/sovereign, down to Knights who had no overlord other than King. Depending on time and place you can have weak and poor Dukes who may had have no Barons or Count under them; Counts and Barons wealthier and more powerful than Dukes; sometimes both. Even if Duke were afforded a higher place in formal ceremonies it did not count for much.

I also recommend to change your nomenclature : Barons governing counties? Seriously? Call those noblemen Counts; or call the land unit baronies; or invent original name for one or both (like you did with Paladins), but do not do that. Is that because sub units of England and the US are called counties despite having no counts? Also: generic Lord may be fine, but unless you want to invoke something at least superficially similar to the post-industrial society you may not have enough towns to have Lords in each "county".

I also think that even if you imagine something stricter regulated, like the Roman Empire (at times) you still have too many layers. It's not like 6-layered chain of vassalage cannot exist but it cannot be typical. Neither in Europe nor in the Middle East you'll find such strict organization (I cannot speak about China). So reduce the number of superiors above an average town (unless the Empire is world-spanning AND highly bureaucratic; but in this case why the feudal titles?).

A note about towns: even towns which "belonged" to a noblemen usually had some degree of autonomy compared to villages. So I really, really not sure that having a tier of noblemen which is expected to be about governing towns is a good idea.

Now about removal from power: if they have the possibilty of "stripped of their position at any time" (going by your previous examples not necessary because of treason or even gross incompetence) is definitely not feudal at all; especially if you say that a direct superior can do it (instead of the matter going straight to the top and decision being made by the sovereign). Also: council of their peers - what exactly that implies - all their colleagues under the same superior or some separate board (whether created for each separate case like a jury or acting like some sort of committee on a semi-permanent basis)? And do you need that council and superior to agree or each one has the power of removal independently?

Finally I'd say that a possibility of being removed from power that easily doesn't leave much place for federalism either. Oh, difference in laws and organization can still exists but if Powers That Be can remove at any time (for example by firing subordinates until they agree to change the laws to what the superior says) then federalism is not enshrined in the law.

All in all: despite the titles and possibility of inheriting them sounds like a strongly centralized state, not a feudal realm. Nor the pyramidal structure sounds like absolutist state retaining the trappings of feudalism; rather it's a monarchy in which everything was organized from the centre.

Hm, how much do you know about Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire? Maybe that may work better as a prototype (and you don't need to match eastern aesthetics with that model).

[Segev]

It is worth noting that a number of ancient empires were collections of mostly-autonomous city-states who all bowed to and paid regular tribute to the ruler of the capitol city, who was the emperor. Other city-states were ruled by kings who acknowledged the emperor as their superior.

They often had limited Imperial laws (though there were exceptions), and within their city-states, kings were still sovereign, aside from whatever Imperial laws required of them.

If your emperor does not have a personal fief, but rules the land by delegating to the Paladins, it's pretty iconically Feudal. If he has his own dominion and the Paladins are more federated under him while being feudal kings of their territories in their own rights, it sounds like an empire of kingdoms rather than city-states.

[Satinavian]

So, basically, in my setting you have a system where the Emperor rules the Empire, Paladins each control a nation within the empire, Dukes control provinces within the nations, barons control counties within the provinces, and lords control towns within the counties. Nobles can boss about commoners within their territories, but are honor bound to obey all superiors and can be stripped over their position at any time by a superior or a council of their peers.

Is this federal, feudal, both, or neither?

I agree wit Saint-Just that those are too many levels. You might replace "lords controlling towns" with "knights controlling knightdoms" which might be smaller than a single village. Also yes, counts for counties and barons for baronies.

I know that there are a lot more feudal titles and nobly hierarchies show them. But many of those were basically on a similar level, just more/less important. A duke of a dukedom is ranked higher than a prince of a principality and he ranked higher than a margrave of a march (ok, the latter is not that clear cut), but none of those would usually have any of the others under them. They would all answer directly to king/emporer and have at best count-level nobles under them. Agai, idealized because real world is complicated.


As for your system, it sound like superiors have too much power for that system to really be counted as feudal or as federal. It is without a question a monarchy with a nobility but it seems to veer into absolutism. Which is not surprising, since many historical absolute regimes still had the whole nobly pyramid, just stripped of much of their power.

[Calthropstu]

So, basically, in my setting you have a system where the Emperor rules the Empire, Paladins each control a nation within the empire, Dukes control provinces within the nations, barons control counties within the provinces, and lords control towns within the counties. Nobles can boss about commoners within their territories, but are honor bound to obey all superiors and can be stripped over their position at any time by a superior or a council of their peers.

Is this federal, feudal, both, or neither?



I have trouble thinking of a reference book that doesn't include illustrations.

So do you prefer to have a lot of blank space or impenetrable walls of text?



I agree with you, but the concern is that the setting might be unwelcoming to players who do define themselves by their gender / sexuality or wish to play characters who do.




Yep, that is pretty much my concern.




Mechanically, it doesn't matter. This is all about setting stuff.

I know not everyone feels this way, but I am personally a "fiction first" sort of gamer and the setting is generally more important to me than the rules.

Charts, text, blurbs...
I have seen some reference books without art. It isso much easier because I don't have to read around images. Artwork , barring monster images in their entries, has zero purpose. And the art is always so bad too. Especially modern artists who want to depict "feminine empowerment." The cleric iconic, the rogue iconic and the sorceress iconic in pathfinder for example are all absolutely ugly to me.

I want rules, not art. I can fish for art on many websites. I buy a game for rules. Take your ****ty art and put it somewhere it will be helpful, or at least somewhere I am not forced to buy and look at it as I peruse the rules.