# Social ranks and pseudo-medieval fantasy worlds



## Jon_Dahl (Aug 1, 2012)

Recently I've tried to incorporate a system of social ranks into my Greyhawk campaign. I want to establish a ranking between different social classes so that my players know what the pecking order is. If a merchant and a craftsman have a word against word situation, which one is right by default? A famous knight, the captain of the city guard and the most famous sage in all the kingdoms have been invited to the king's wedding but who gets the best seat? Having some kind of ranking would help in determining such things.

It's not very though. I don't know how to rank sheriffs. And what about freely roaming unattached paladins? What about people that belong to different classes simultaneously? What is the status of the king's personal bodyguard (think of Varangian Guard), is he/she just "professional soldier" too? I don't even understand all the terms. Please see the attachment. What is the difference between a masterless man and a freeman? And what is a freelord? I think if I want to determine the social ranks I need to understand all the aspect of medieval society a little bit better.

Without being too specific, I'd like to hear your opinion on how should a GM/DM reflect social rankings and castes in his/her campaign.

About the attachment: "Adventurers" is my addition. I find this from an old Greyhawk PDF (the name escapes me).


----------



## the Jester (Aug 1, 2012)

Jon_Dahl said:


> What about people that belong to different classes simultaneously?




This one, at least, is easy. If the king is also a professional soldier, you treat him like a king. The higher status always trumps the lower.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 1, 2012)

In a democratic society determining this might be difficult, however in a feudal setting, there are distinct class differences. For example a knight, though probably low on rank among the noble class, is a noble just the same and any diplomatic confrontation between a noble and a commoner - there is no issue, the commoner is always 'wrong'.

Though it might be more difficult to discern the difference between a merchant and craftsmen, although many merchants could be merchant princes, making them practically nobility.

It depends on your culture. In my setting, Kaidan, which reflects Japanese aspect is heavily dependant on the social caste system which defines everything. In Kaidan, a merchant is lower in status than any craftsman or farmer. While a merchant is probably wealthier, a merchant in a Japanese feudal economy does not produce anything, just profits as a middle man, so in Japanese ideology, the merchant is of the lowest class. A merchant will always loose a conflict with a craftsman.

And when you say more than one class, you mean, player class, right? Because nobody is in 2 social classes, even if you were born to one, if you've been elevated or lowered - whatever class you're a member of, you cannot be a member of another social class.


----------



## Nellisir (Aug 1, 2012)

Jon_Dahl said:


> What is the status of the king's personal bodyguard (think of Varangian Guard), is he/she just "professional soldier" too?



He's a hired mercenary.  A prestigious hired mercenary, but still a mercenary.



> What is the difference between a masterless man and a freeman?



My reading is that a masterless man is one who "ought" to have a master, but doesn't.  A serf evicted from his lord's land, for instance.  He could apply to be taken in elsewhere, but he couldn't own land.



> And what is a freelord?



I'd say someone who styles themself a lord and has a holding, but does not owe allegiance to any nation or king, or within a nation, the lord of a palatinate or county palatine.



> I think if I want to determine the social ranks I need to understand all the aspect of medieval society a little bit better.



Gygax did conflate a lot of medieval society together.  Not every country needs or uses every rank.


----------



## Yora (Aug 1, 2012)

For my Bronze Age setting, I keep things pretty simple:

There is high class, which are all nobles, patricians, or politicans, regardless of their actual legal status.
Below them are the citizens, which have full rights but no special previleges.
Then there are free people without citizenship that still made a reasonably good life for themselves.
At at last the low class, which is all the poor who don't own any land or business but have to work for tiny wages or are slaves.

In addition, there are also outcasts and ascetics, who don't have any place in the order of society. In the case of outcasts, they don't have any rights and exist outside the laws, and ascetics can move through all parts of society without loosing acceptance among the other classes. They can help the poor and will still recieve welcome as honored guests in palaces.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 1, 2012)

Jon_Dahl said:


> Without being too specific, I'd like to hear your opinion on how should a GM/DM reflect social rankings and castes in his/her campaign.



My opinion is that he should do it by handwaving what makes sense at the time.

What do you mean by medieval society?  Which medieval society?  At what time period?  Early medieval Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain?  High medieval France?  The Crusader states?  The Moorish caliphate?  The Kipchak Khaganate?  Amongst the vikings?  Amongst the Byzantines?  Amongst the Sassanians?  Amongst the Franks?  The Normans?  Amongst the Grand Princes of Moscow before the establishment of the Tsardom?  Along the Silk Road states of East central Asia?  During the 100 years war, when peasants could amass vast wealth by pillaging France, and the king found himself at the mercy of his nobles?

Your specification is too broad.  And, in addition, I think you want there to be much harder and faster rules than there actually where.  The medieval European world never had a caste system.  Classes were fairly broad (peasants, nobles, clergy) and more fluid than a lot of people give them credit for.  Not only could people move from class to class moreso than a lot of people think, but subclasses rose and fell as societal factors allowed with great frequency.

I don't think Gygax, or anyone else, when they came up with those labels, ever meant them to be more than a fairly handwavey guideline for GMs to use as they saw fit.


----------



## haakon1 (Aug 1, 2012)

*Social Classes in my Greyhawk campaign*

From discussions here on this topic, this is what I've come up with for my 3.5e Greyhawk campaign.  Fairly simple and comprehensive, I think.  I'd hand wave details like whether a bishop outranks a baron or not . . . I'm not sure there's even an "official" answer to that.

------------------------

The socioeconomic classes in Bissel are similar to those in Furyondy-Veluna and Keoland, as all these lands are feudal monarchies.  Serfdom ended in Furyondy-Veluna when Old Ferrond declared itself free of the Great Kingdom in 254 CY, and it was never codified in Keoland, or indeed Bissel.  Nevertheless, economic differences among the common people of Bissel can still be stark.  Below the Baronets, classes can be roughly understood as follows: 


Destitute (Underclass): The destitute have no steady source of funds, and either no living space or a makeshift squatter’s lean to.  Typically they what meager possessions they have everywhere they go. They eat poor quality food, mainly scavenged from settlements and stolen from farms and gardens. They wear all the clothes they own, typically a worn peasant’s outfit. 

 The destitute are typically vagabonds, drifters, criminals, outcasts, or refugees.  They are relatively rare in Bissel.  Half-orcs are assumed to be of this class, and often are.  (In game term, most people in this social class are use the Commoner NPC class.) 


Cottager or Laborer (Lower Working Class): Basic peasant subsistence is 1 sp/day, or 3 gp/month. That's what an unskilled laborer is paid if there is plenty of surplus labor. It's enough to keep an active human male from starvation. It's also the cost of a maidservant in at a castle – she’s not really paid much, maybe an occasional sp at holiday time, but feeding her & keeping her supplied with clean linens and so on adds up. 

 This class works for others for wages/subsistence as a hired hand.  Farm hands, shepherds who tend flocks owned by someone else, dockworkers, freight handlers, day laborers, and ditch diggers typify this class.  They do not own or hold rights to any land of their own.  They typically wear a peasant’s outfit (and own two), and can rarely afford to eat meat. 

 In the country, a cottager would, of course, live in a small cottage, usually provided by their employer. 

In a city, where the economy is more cash-based and employment may be more informal, a laborer might sleep in a ragged blanket on a dry(ish) reed-covered stone or packed earth floor, shared with 30 other men, for 1 cp/day, eating food from the market with plenty of hot broth and porridge for 5 cp/day.  If there’s steady work, that leaves 4 cp/day for patching clothes and drinking plenty of weak beer at 2 cp/gallon.  If there’s no regular work, their meager savings can go fast, with hunger or beggary beckoning.  (In game terms, typically Commoners.) 


Crofter, Sharecropper, or Tradesman (Middle Working Class): A farmer in this class might be a crofter, who owns a poorly developed farm on the frontier or a poor quality farm on marginal land, or a sharecropper, who owns very little land – perhaps just a house and a garden – and rents the rest of their land with a share of the crop.  These farmers likely share expensive tools and livestock (like oxen and a plow) with their neighbors, or rent it from their landlord as part of a sharecropping agreement. 

Though freemen who grow their own crops and tend their own herd, the lot of the crofter or sharecropper is little better than that of serfs.  Most earn about 2 sp/day, or 6 gp/month.  They wear a peasant outfit, and own 2-3 each, including a “Sunday best” version. 

 In a city, a tradesman of this class is an apprentice artisan, or a semi-skilled laborer. 

 A mercenary infantryman also costs about this much.  The money nicely covers equipment repairs, good eating, and booze money.  (In game terms, typically Commoners or Warriors.) 


Yeoman or Journeyman (Upper Working Class): A yeoman farmer owns a reasonable amount of land, a sturdy home, and likely at least one beast of burden (ox, mule, or horse).  In the militia, they may serve as light crossbowmen or longbowmen. 

 In a city, the equivalents are journeymen artisans or the lower professions (such as scribes), or a petty merchant with a market stall.  A teamster who owns his own wagon team, or a fisherman with his own boat would also fit in the yeomanry. 

 Mercenary soldiers at this level of wealth are elites, perhaps horsemen or junior sergeants. 

 A novice or unsuccessful adventurer with income at this rate could sleep 5 to a room (for 1 sp), eat 1 good meal a day (2 sp), with equipment repairs, clothes, booze, and sundries using up the rest. 

 Someone of this class typically owns 2-3 artisan or traveler’s outfits, and earns about 10 gp/month.  Halflings and Gnomes are often assumed to be this class. (In game terms, typically Commoners, Experts, or Warriors.) 


Middle Class:  The middle class are “middle” between the working class and the gentry.  This is not a typical Bisselite – that would be a working class, Cottager, Crofter, or Yeoman – but one whose socioeconomic status is neither low nor high. 

A middle class person owns a pleasant home and wears clothes appropriate to his role, such as artisan’s, scholar’s, or traveler’s outfit, and owns several changes of clothes.  Their income is about 30-40 gp/month. 

In the city, a master artisan, successful merchant, or skilled professional (such as an alchemist or barrister) is middle class.  A soldier with similar income and social status would be a lieutenant.  Dwarves and elves are often assumed to be of this class.  (In game terms, typically Experts.) 


Gentry/Gentleman/Esquire: The traditional definition of the gentry is those who hold enough assets to live on rents without working.  Their income might be 200 gp/month, enough for a stately home, several servants, and a large and fashionable wardrobe. Some gentry may possess great wealth, social respectability, and useful contacts, but they are not nobility. 

 Members of the gentry are often well-educated by private tutors.  Some even go on for advanced studies in the University of Cryllor in Keoland or in Greyhawk City. 

 Those at this level of wealth and prestige who work are likely to be a guild master, a great merchant, a cleric, in law or politics, or in another educated pursuit, such as an artist or alchemical researcher.  Such employment may well be more of a hobby than a source of income. 

 Soldiers who attain a rank of captain or higher are according the courtesies, and the income, of this class.  (In game terms, typically Aristocrats, but Expert and adventurer classes, particular Cleric, Wizard, and Paladin, are also possible.) 

Above this are the nobility, with bishops of the major churches (Pelor, St. Cuthbert, and Rao) treated as peers.


----------



## Dioltach (Aug 1, 2012)

I believe that historically relative rank and precedence weren't always clear to most people. As I recall there are instances in Jane Austen's novels where married daughters or younger sisters try to claim precedence over their mothers or older sisters. There's also a passage in _Mr American_ by George MacDonald Fraser, where the protagonist, Mr Franklin, buys a book on etiquette and throws it away after trying to make sense of social hierarchy. In his experience, the king went first and that was that (this book, mind, is set in England in the early 20th century, and the scene in question included the King, his mistress, his host and hostess, a foreign Marquis, several lords and baronnets and even an American).

Perhaps the most realistic option would be to allow for some confusion or elbow room, where individuals can try to pull social rank on others: a source of intrigue, conflict and gossip. And of course the only there has to be a fuzzy old Herald somewhere who's the ultimate authority on social ranking.


----------



## Jon_Dahl (Aug 1, 2012)

Hobo said:


> What do you mean by medieval society?  Which medieval society?




It's a good question but part of the word "pseudo" is that the exact definition is intentionally vague. I guess the average of all the options you just mentioned and their common denominators would be the right answer to your question. Or just spirit of the age. It's pseudo-medieval, without anything more definitive.


----------



## GSHamster (Aug 1, 2012)

Most social ranks (that matter) go off birth, and the family one is born into, not so much your current job. A person can move up or down a few ranks (at least in the British-style system), but usually not that much.

Another big thing to take into account is marriage. If you have a person of rank X, from what social ranks will his bride come from?

Personally, I'd look at novels from Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer for inspiration.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Aug 1, 2012)

One way of ranking people socially is by asking the questions, "Who do they know, and who knows them? Oh, and how much money do they have?"

The more important people they know, the more social rank they have. 

The more people (with power) who know who they are, the more social rank they are given by virtue of their celebratee.

The more money the have, the more people are willing to grit their teeth and accept them.



Jon_Dahl said:


> If a merchant and a craftsman have a word against word situation, which one is right by default?




In some societies (ie: the Japanese as was previously mentioned), the craftsman could be higher because they actually produce something worthwhile. *But*, the merchant is likely to be richer, and *know* powerful people. Unless you're a well-known and sought-after craftsman, money and connections would probably rank the merchant higher.



> A famous knight, the captain of the city guard and the most famous sage in all the kingdoms have been invited to the king's wedding but who gets the best seat? Having some kind of ranking would help in determining such things.




Captain of the City Guard has connections and a place in the social order, so he is high up on the social scale. 

Since the sage is the most famous in all the kingdoms, he is unique and well known, thus gets higher ranking than someone who is simply a famous knight. There are many famous knights, only one sage is the *best*. While the Captain of the City Guard *is* probably officially ranked higher, the sage is likely to be *invited* as a guest to a higher station by someone.

(Although if the kingdom places great emphasis on military might, all knights might be ranked higher. Things can be difficult that way.)




> I don't know how to rank sheriffs. And what about freely roaming unattached paladins?




Sherrifs should be ranked by the importance of the area they control. Generally the bigger, the more important the sherrif.

Unattached paladins would be counted as clergy, but with a key thing in that since they are unattached, they don't fit into society as much. They would be lower ranked than clergy who minister to a flock, since that gives them political power.




> What about people that belong to different classes simultaneously?




Always use the higher class, unless the person has done something that allows them to be snubbed.




> What is the status of the king's personal bodyguard (think of Varangian Guard), is he/she just "professional soldier" too?




Yes, but it's a question of "Who does the bodyguard know?" the answer, "The King." So he probably gets bumped up to a low noble. True nobles would sneer, but he has powerful friends so that's probably the extent of it. 



> What is the difference between a masterless man and a freeman? And what is a freelord?




A masterless man is not a criminal, but someone who is not serving a powerful instiution (guild, church or noble), this is not necessarily by his own choice. In our modern age, he is 'not employed' by any powerful group. As such, he is pretty much near the bottom of the social order.

A freeman is someone who is not serving a powerful instituation, but it is by his own choice. In modern parlance, he is 'self-employed'. His social position would depend on who he knows and how much money he has. If he knows the right people/has cash, he would be *invited* to a higher position. If not, he would be right beside the great unwashed.

A freelord is probably a noble with only a title, but no lands to go with it. As such he's higher than all non-nobles... but has a hard time enforcing that since he's got no lands, no money, no armies. If he's friends with, or related to, powerful people he would get all respect due his rank... although he would find himself probably shunted off with the lower ranked nobles because he can shuffled around without too much problem. If he has few friends, look out, he might be seated with the commoners since there are only so many spaces available and someone has to be moved to make room... nothing personal mind you...

Social positions are flexible and fluid, but asking yourself, "between these two, who has more influence/money/connections/a stronger place in society as a whole," will often sort things out.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 2, 2012)

It is all about power, the higher the rank, the greater the power base.  It is all about who you know, connections.  Lets call this power level.

Now, what is power...money, land, warriors, water, trade, blood, magic?  This is all based off your game world.  

The best thing to do is create a chart based off your world, create power points and then levels, just add the titles to the levels as you see fit.  example: 

King - 10 power points
then blood family - 8 power points
then church (may be higher than king in some places) - 7 power points
then land owners - 6 power points (1 point extra for every 5 square miles)
then guilds and traders, - 5 power points (1 point extra for every 100000 gp)
town and city officials (if not of blood) - 4 power points
then tax payers - 3 power points
then serfs - 2 power points
then slaves - 1 power points
then the unclean (define like half-orcs or goblins) - 0 power 

Now, just place the titles into the groups.  

So, lets create a NPC, first he is of the blood, power 8, then he is head of the wizard guild, power 5, landowner power 6 = power points 19, this NPC is powerful!  Level 19 and 20 have the following titles: Liege-Lord, Baron, Thane, Regent.  I like Thane, so I use it: Thane NPC

You can make it as complex as you want.


----------



## ComradeGnull (Aug 3, 2012)

Have you watched the (admittedly somewhat trashy) series The Tudors?  It offers a lot of insight and examples of how fluidly rank could work- and it's set at a late stage of the feudal system, when things had become a bit more regular than in the 12th or 13th Century.  One thing you will notice is that the servants of royalty tend to be very highly ranked- they are the sons of dukes and earls and things, or may even hold titles in their own right.  To wait upon the king was a position of honor and influence, even if you were essentially the guy responsible for carrying the king's potty chair (the Groom of the Stool).  

Organizations like the church and military are dominated by family rank and ties.  A yeoman or peasant who joins the church becomes a parish priest at best, more likely a deacon or a choir monk or a lector.  In the military, they become common foot soldiers and rise at most to the rank of sergeant or a similar non-com role.  Members of noble families, meanwhile, send their younger sons into the army to serve as Captains and knights, often as members of the household troops of a powerful noble.  When a noble joins the church, he becomes part of the ecclesiastic hierarchy, serving as a secretary to a bishop or the personal chaplain of a duke, not as the guy who gives communion to turnip diggers.

Rank is the intersection of 1) where you were born and 2) who you serve.  Going into the personal service of someone powerful is probably the best path to advancement, as they may oft to bestow personal favors on you and some of their status "rubs off" on you.  Free men, as we think of them, were in many cases poorer and of lower status than serfs because they had to fend entirely for themselves.


----------



## haakon1 (Aug 3, 2012)

In my campaign, the role of Sheriff has come up twice.  The Sheriff is responsible for the sovereign's justice (in my case, the Margrave of Bissel's justice, since it's a palatine territory) in a defined territory (traditionally a county in the US or UK, but in my campaign, a baronetcy, a set of them, or a territory like a long, major roadway).

My sheriff's don't have deputies, but they do have the power to request assistance from the nobles in carrying out their duties, which makes them fairly powerful and influential.

One of the sheriffs I have is an adventurer who was knighted for heroism and given the Sheriff title because of another achievement the crown appreciated and because somebody should be looking after law and order in the baronetcy around the Caves of Chaos.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 3, 2012)

ComradeGnull said:


> One thing you will notice is that the servants of royalty tend to be very highly ranked- they are the sons of dukes and earls and things, or may even hold titles in their own right.



Indeed. Modern Americans expect to be _upwardly mobile_, but a pre-modern economy isn't constantly growing, let alone growing faster than the population, so most sons of powerful men are downwardly mobile.


----------



## haakon1 (Aug 3, 2012)

mmadsen said:


> Indeed. Modern Americans expect to be _upwardly mobile_, but a pre-modern economy isn't constantly growing, let alone growing faster than the population, so most sons of powerful men are downwardly mobile.




I just read "Lionheart", Columbia Games historically accurate text on England in 1190.

What's interesting is it was much more chaotic than I would have thought.  Lots of castles changing hand within a generation or two, as constant rebellions led to people bein kicked out of the nobility, and younger sons getting bigger roles than they were born too.

The Normans of 1066 were often upwardly mobile -- as were the Marcher Lords taking over Wales, and the Normans moving in on Ireland in the 1100's.


----------



## Derren (Aug 3, 2012)

haakon1 said:


> I just read "Lionheart", Columbia Games historically accurate text on England in 1190.
> 
> What's interesting is it was much more chaotic than I would have thought.  Lots of castles changing hand within a generation or two, as constant rebellions led to people bein kicked out of the nobility, and younger sons getting bigger roles than they were born too.
> 
> The Normans of 1066 were often upwardly mobile -- as were the Marcher Lords taking over Wales, and the Normans moving in on Ireland in the 1100's.




Yes, the most common form of "upward mobility" at that time was through conquest.
In a feudal society how important you are is decided by your land. Nearly everyone of importance (= nobility) had a title which is linked to land. And land was equal to wealth (taxes) and power (levies). More than that, there was a quite rigid structure of who owned fealty to whom which was also decided by title.
But that didn't mean that everything was peaceful. Might made right and the one with more troops could do whatever he pleased. And that wasn't necessarily the king. There were several instances where the nobles did whatever they wanted and the king was pretty much powerless. See the Holy Roman Empire for an example.

Also, the inheritance laws were very strict and organized. You couldn't just write a testament and inherit your title and property to whoever you wanted, but the law declared who inherits and in which order. What made things really chaotic was that nobility only married among each other and daughters were handed around like bargaining chips to form treaties. That lead to the situation that everyone had a shot at someone else title and land if the right persons died or the right documents were forged.

And while that formed the basis of every feudal society there are a lot of differences in the details. Are woman allowed to inherit and at what position? Are the lands and title distributed between the children or inherited to the firstborn? Is the title of king inherited or chosen by election?
Also, if you don't want to simply copy the European  social order there is also room for variance. As someone said before in Asia farmers ranked higher than traders (because they produced). China was quite "modern" as titles could be gained through skill instead of birth. And the caste system of India was even more harsh than the feudal structures in Europe.

To take a shot at the OPs questions


Jon_Dahl said:


> Recently I've tried to incorporate a system of social ranks into my Greyhawk campaign. I want to establish a ranking between different social classes so that my players know what the pecking order is. If a merchant and a craftsman have a word against word situation, which one is right by default? A famous knight, the captain of the city guard and the most famous sage in all the kingdoms have been invited to the king's wedding but who gets the best seat? Having some kind of ranking would help in determining such things.
> 
> It's not very though. I don't know how to rank sheriffs. And what about freely roaming unattached paladins? What about people that belong to different classes simultaneously? What is the status of the king's personal bodyguard (think of Varangian Guard), is he/she just "professional soldier" too? I don't even understand all the terms. Please see the attachment. What is the difference between a masterless man and a freeman? And what is a freelord? I think if I want to determine the social ranks I need to understand all the aspect of medieval society a little bit better.




1. It depends on how wealthy the craftsmen and the trader is. But if they are equal it comes down on culture and who knows more people.
The wedding is easy. it all depends on their relationship to the king and/or the one getting wed. If both are unrelated then by the size of their land. But both of it is trumped if the king wants something from one of them or fears their power.

Sheriffs are a bit tricky as most people think of them as police in the wild west. In medieval Europe they were either much more akin to the major of a small town or village (bailif) which, as far the social order goes, was only slightly above normal peasants or a real sheriff which was a highly respected position directly appointed by a high ranking noble and empowered to speak in his behalf in the matter of law (in a feudal society only the local lord could judge his subjects, or the appointed sheriff for the area).

Unattached paladins are most similar to hedge knights. Least among nobles but theoretically still better than any non noble. But as they are also poor, mostly not owning anything than their horse, weapons and armor, they are often at the mercy of non-nobles who lend them money. When someone belongs to two different classes the highest one counts (although there might be some talk behind his back). The royal bodyguard would not be much higher than the regular soldier unless they are noble of course or related to nobles/the king.
Masterless men is more likely someone outcast no one wants. Beggars, etc and rank lower than normal serves. A free man on the other hand earned their freedom from serfdom either through payment of money or deeds and rank higher than common serfs. But it also depends on how rich/poor they are. A beggar is still a beggar.
A free lord is a lord not owing fealty to anyone (except maybe the king in special circumstances). Their social rank would heavily depend on how well they are doing. Lords of wealthy and powerful free cities would be nearly equal to the king (Lübeck and Hamburg are two examples as both were very prosperous because of the Hanse and the king/emperor had nearly no power over them).

In the end thougt, even in a feudal society, money is a strong equalizer. If the king owes you money (and is not able to simply kill you or disown you) then you are treated much better than what your social status would indicate (see the Fuggers).


----------



## haakon1 (Aug 4, 2012)

Derren said:


> Also, the inheritance laws were very strict and organized. You couldn't just write a testament and inherit your title and property to whoever you wanted, but the law declared who inherits and in which order.




Not true in the period of the Norman Conquest to 1190 that "Lionheart" chronicles.  Right makes right was the true law of the land.

-- William the Conqueror was the bastard son of the Duke of Normandy, and claimed the dead King of England made him his heir.  Two other men claimed it was promised to them.

-- A generation or two later, Stephen and Maud fought each other for decades in "the Anarchy" until Stephen made peace by recognizing the heir the other side wanted.  This is the period the Brother Cadfael mysteries are set in.

--  Richard the Lionheart, Prince John, and their other two legitimate brothers spent most of their lives struggling with their father and each other over their future inheritance, with John Lackland -- who his father gave no lands -- trying to take it all.  "The Lion in Winter" is a good old movie about this period.



Derren said:


> In medieval Europe they were either much more akin to the major of a small town or village (bailif) which, as far the social order goes, was only slightly above normal peasants or a real sheriff which was a highly respected position directly appointed by a high ranking noble and empowered to speak in his behalf in the matter of law (in a feudal society only the local lord could judge his subjects, or the appointed sheriff for the area).




That's not how I remember it.  English circuit courts (to try crimes in the name of the king) date back to at least Norman times, and I think Sheriffs were royal appointees to bring in troublemakers to the courts.

Perhaps there were multiple types of sheriffs, though.

High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and the Royal Forests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Derren said:


> In the end thougt, even in a feudal society, money is a strong equalizer. If the king owes you money (and is not able to simply kill you or disown you) then you are treated much better than what your social status would indicate (see the Fuggers).




Or he declares a pogrom against you so he doesn't have to pay you back!

My point is, the Middle Ages were such a long period, with so much variation across Europe and across time, that you can probably do whatever you want with your campaign and have it be historical accurate-ish, to somewhere at sometime!   It's not as cut and dried and codified as we'd like to think from our post-Enlightenment world view.  Messy and peculiaristic was the overriding rule.


----------



## Zireael (Aug 22, 2012)

I like it when a setting has a power evels table, like the one presented in the topic. Maybe not explicitly stating who belongs to what tier, but still. Anyone knows examples?


----------



## radja (Aug 22, 2012)

Zireael said:


> I like it when a setting has a power evels table, like the one presented in the topic. Maybe not explicitly stating who belongs to what tier, but still. Anyone knows examples?




I know of one example that has explicit power levels. In the 3e setting Scarred Lands there are dark elves (these are NOT drow, for one they are heavily associated with golems). Their society's power structure is something like this (I'm doing this by heart, so I might be off a little):

1. Nalthalos, the dark elf god. Stuck on the prime material plane in a golem body. This pisses him off.
2. The clergy, including mages. The mages saved Nalthalos' divine life by sticking him in a golem body, which killed most mages participating in the ritual.
3. the king, queen and other nobility. They have a god living with them. Ofcourse that god rules their society. Sucks to be a king without power.
4. the military. They can go just about anywhere, not including Nalthalos' private quarters.
5. free dark elves
6. enslaved dark elves


----------



## Jraynack (Aug 23, 2012)

Alea Publishing Group  put out Medieval Life and Laws - though a 4th Edition supplement, it has a lot of good information and a laws system that easily converts to 3E or Pathfinder.

Besides having a degree in History, when I wrote it, I drew from my extensive personal library to create a guide to aid Game Masters handle these issues without having to be a historian.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 23, 2012)

Jon_Dahl said:


> Without being too specific, I'd like to hear your opinion on how should a GM/DM reflect social rankings and castes in his/her campaign.




I usually go with something along the lines of (in order of lowest to highest)

Commoner
Lord
Baron
Earl
Duke/Archduke
King

It should be noted that often nobles had multiple titles.  So the king's wizard might mostly be referred to as a mage, but also have an earldom kicking around, which would determine his actual social rank.

Wealth does not add to social standing, so a "merchant prince" is still just a commoner, and has no additional social advantage over a poor cobbler, though certainly he has a plethora of economic advantages, and may _act_ like he's the cobblers' social better.

Sometimes I might build (or steal) something more unique, for variety's sake.  In the novel _Ill Met in the Arena_ by Dave Duncan, social caste is dependent on how many psychic ancestors you have, with six castes that are represented by colored markings on one's forehead.  I've considered something like that, save with magical ancestors.  But the only reason to do so would be if you plan on running a game where caste is central to the RP.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 23, 2012)

My version of Gygax's Yggsburgh/Eastmark setting - S'mon' s Yggsburgh Blog - has a fairly well developed class system, precedence runs roughly as follows:

(1) Independent Noble Rulers:
Outside their estates they rank
King,
Margrave 
Count/Earl,
Baron
Lord Mayor (eg of Yggsburgh)
But within their estates they are all effectively 'monarchs'  and co-equal.

(2) Foreign nobility - Easterling Kings, Norsemen Jarls etc

(3) Vassal Nobility, usually Barons

(4) Children and spouses of the above, who are entitled to the title Lord or Lady.

(5) Landed Knights 

(6) Untitled Immediate Relatives of Nobles 

(7)  Landless Knights

(8) Relatives of Landed Knights

(9) Commoners - Property Owning

(10) Commoners - Landless

(11) Serfs

(12) Slaves


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 23, 2012)

What I do is use three for each of my levels, one for the Noble-blood, one for Guilds/Church, and one for the rich.  So, you can have King, Pope and Duke all in the same power level but NOT with the same rights.  

To make things more complex, you can put limits on the Titles/power levels.  Like a land owner with a lot of land and money, that is not of blood or party of a guild, can be limited to the "Knight" title.  What this MAY do is make the player think of ways to increase their title and power base, such as joining or forming a guild to even marrage!


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 23, 2012)

*Perspectives ...*

Hi,

Wondering about how this all would fit into the world view of each of the classes.

For most folk beneath Lady/Lord, wouldn't the world divide into:

Outcasts Slaves Serfs "Managers" Lords "Folk Above Lord"

While for an outcast there would just be:

Outcasts Slaves Serfs Managers

The presence of a person too high above one's class would bring immediate deference, with no real differentiation, and a high class person would never interact with their lessers except in very narrow and controlled circumstances (e.g., the pope making an appearance on his balcony).  In those circumstances, the high would be insulated from any direct contact with the rubbish (and would probably have any low individual arrested for their affront if they actually reached the presence of the high).

What that means is that the details of several levels of class (king/baron/lord) would be a practical detail depending on one's station.  A commoner would bow before any Lord or higher, and make sure to do nothing to call attention from the guard, while a Prince would care about the fine details of station to the point of knowing the order of succession and having a strategy for where to place their attentions.

TomB


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Aug 24, 2012)

Nobles should have the power to make peasants explode by staring at them.

Also, low ranking nobility should be possible via feats or some similar mechanic.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 25, 2012)

In a world with magic, the priesthood and magi should have some status due to the military power they represent.  Bards, too, have a significant military impact as their songs can buff a large number of troops.

Church officials especially should be treated as a form of nobility if rulers claim they rule by divine right.  Historically Catholic cardinals were ranked as Princes in Europe and the Pope had at least moral authority over kings.


----------

