Feudalism?

>>50100729
Adventurers are rootless folk who ignore the natural social hierarchy.
Children might look up to them with starry eyes, but your average peasant sees them as dangerous, a nuisance, and all around troublemakers.
Until they save the village from a dragon, of course.

>>50100829
Basically this.
The average peasant will be bound to his land all his life, never ever getting as far as to see the neighboring village over on the other side of the forest.
Self-proclaimed 'Heroes' who wander from place to place upset the order of things, and they are probably looking to fuck your daughter and steal your money too. Your kids will get weird ideas of 'personal freedom' and 'choice in life' if you let them alone with such hooligans, better just get them to take out that troll fast and encourage them to get moving.

File: averagemurderhobo.jpg (55KB, 247x159px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 247x159px

>>50100729
I play DSA (the Dark Eye), which has a very detailed setting so I know exactly how the peasants are going to react to my character.

They are going to scorn him, avoid him, call him names and maybe even try to attack him if he gets to close to their homes. But he won't give a shit, because he is on a mission and he will do it, whatever the cost.

>>50100729
>Seriously, do you have serfs or peasant freemen in your setting, fa/tg/uys?
Yep, gotta have those barbarian feudal kingdoms in the ruins of a once great western empire.
>How are adventurers treated in a world of such ridged social strata?
As the social superiors of the peasantry either because the adventurers are the second sons of minor nobles since they're the only ones who can afford armor and weapons in the west and don't have feudal obligations. Or exotic mercenaries from either the not-Byzantine empire or not-Scandanvia.
>How should I handle social class in my own setting?
If you're going to have adventures in early medieval fantasy Europe your martial players should be second sons of nobility who stand to inherit nothing (this includes titles, if you don't have land in a feudal society you aren't a noble no matter who your dad was) and can afford arms and armor. Or they should be foreigners with no preexisting ties to the local feudal society.

A bit like the peasants in Seven Samurai. Opportunistic and not without their own brand of guile.

One of my favorite moments in that film is the horror of the ronin when they discover the peasants have been killing clanless samurai to sell their armor and weapons.

>>50101377
Wait, why is foreign non-noble mercenaries okay but not local ones? Is there a specific cultural reason for your setting?

>>50101419
He's someone who's gone ultra-CK2.

All you settings need to be able to work with CK2 rules because that's how reality works.

>>50101419
Because any of the locals with enough resources to be a man at arms already have a fixed position in a feudal society. I'd let a player break out of the feudal role he was in, but he'd probably not be too popular with other people from feudal societies.

>>50101494
I've only played 20 minutes of Castille.

>>50100829
Luckily most villagers never realize that it's the adventurers' fault that the dragon left its lair in the first place.

>>50100729

My game takes place in a (supposedly) democratic dystopian free market state ruled by the biggest viking. Only one thing determines your social strata and that's how much money you get. Where you get it from doesn't matter, it's silver coin or nothing. If there's a need, people will fill it. Think of the libertarian free market utopia, but what would actually happen with zero regulation (IE large monopolies gaining control over politics and amassing huge sums of wealth). Fuck feudalism, the last king we had got rolled by the guild armies and they try to pretend he doesn't exist (though that's more cause he was a gnoll and guildsmen would never bow to a mongrel).

>>50101632
That sounds like a setting I would enjoy, do you have more information?

>>50101419
Same as historically; it's easier to get foreign non-noble mercs to drop the pleasantries and actually kill who you want dead, no matter how many titles are affixed after their name.

>>50101632
>Think of the libertarian free market utopia, but what would actually happen with zero regulation (IE large monopolies gaining control over politics and amassing huge sums of wealth
unlikely
Huge monopolies nowadays can only exist because of government intervention.
If everybody could just copy shit freely, huge companies have no leg to stand on.

>>50102684
Why?

>>50102745

Sure thing, but monopolies today also aren't military superpowers, whereas here, they are.

>>50102954
then that's not really libertarian, is it?

>>50102924
Because more often than not they're often distantly related to the other noble, are probably seen with relative distrust, and your own levies aren't going to be as reliable as foreign mercs when putting down a rebellion.

>>50103015
If you control property in a libertarian system you're basically a state.

>>50103060
>If you control property in a libertarian system you're basically a state.


So you could only ever have a libertarian society if everyone agrees to be anarchists?

>>50103060
>If you control property in a libertarian system you're basically a state.
yes, but libertarian implies that society consists of such individual states, whereas your system sounds like it's the megacorps controlling stuff, being de facto states.
So it seems a lot closer to corporate feudalism than anything else.

>>50103015

If you'll note the original post, I said 'Like libertarian wonderland BUT'

This ain't an exact replica of a political system in reality cause that shit's dull.

>>50102954
>monopolies today also aren't military superpowers, whereas here, they are.
>implying mercenary armies can be trusted
Did you even read the prince?

>>50103083

I'd say corporate feudalism is actually somewhat accurate. We just don't have a monarch. It's guilds. the caste structure's somewhat easy to circumvent as well, cause anyone with nothing to lose can dive into some old ruins and potentially wind up a guildmaster because they found some kickass sceptre or something.

Again, I'm not building this of a real world political system, I'm using 'sort of likes' here.

>>50103118

>Implying a mercenary army could topple a major superpower

I know blackwater or whatever they're calling themselves today has a looot of hardware and soldier types, but there's no fucking way they have the tech and logistics to beat a country. We haven't gotten THAT cyberpunk yet.

>>50103083
>libertarian implies that society consists of such individual states
> the megacorps controlling stuff, being de facto states
the difference is?

>>50103118

unless you're implying the guilds use mercenary armies, which they do not. You're born into a guild most of the time, so despite not really having an attachment to land it's SORT OF like a country. regardless, there's enough rivalries and honor wrapped up in it that there's quite a bit of loyalty to one's guild.

>>50103174
libertarian implies that society consists of dudes, each of which is his own one man state.

>>50103073
Yes.

>>50103218
I'm laffin'

>>50103218
>implying the ones who don't own property are worth shit in the "muh NAP" world where property is all

>>50103218

And you think that multiple 'states' couldn't align? I mean I know libertarianism is all about individual liberty but come on, humans band together and take advantage of that numerical superiority. It's kind of our thing. I think megacorps COULD potentially rise pretty quick like that. Sure, a lot of people would fuck off and do their own thing. that just means they don't have reinforcements when the posse takes their shit and divvies it up.

>>50103288
Honestly, I'm completely agreeing when you say libertarianism is bullshit, I'm just saying that

a) what you described isn't libertarianism

and

b) monopolies don't happen because lack of government intervention, but rather because of abundance. If that intervention happens through market laws from an actual government or through CorpSec busting down the doors of bootleggers and dragging them away to get turned into Neurozombies really does not make a difference.

>>50103288
>Band together and take advantage of numerical superiority.

Sure, as long as you as a person are fine with it.

Problem with banding together is much of the time you don't even have a choice. You can be bullied into following rules you do not agree with by sheer weight of peers pressure.

Let's say you're born a Muslim Woman and you're only barely considered a Mammal. Not even a Human.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/saudi-arabia-panel-of-scientists-admits-women-are-mammals-yet-not-human/

So you're supposed to take it because the group already decided?

Libertarianism is more than 'fuck the government', you know? It's essentially crying out to remind others that the individual matters as much as the group. That "unity" achieved by trampling on dissidents only forces them into like-minded groups, which results in more separation.