Feudal society in fantasy worlds

'sup dicks.

When does a feudal society make sense for a fantasy world, and when doesn't it make sense?

I get the impression that the very existence of potatoes and guns in a fantasy world, for instance, means that whatever feudal society may exist in the world has to just about come to an end. The notion being that potatoes allow the population of commoners to explode and that guns are relatively easy-to-use force multipliers that commoners can bring to bear against a martially-trained, oppressive aristocracy.

Would this also mean that the existence of healing and offensive magic will also make a feudal society crumble if it's too accessible to commoners?

In a medieval fantasy world, does magic need to be the exclusive domain of the aristocracy in order for the world and its societies to make sense?

>The notion being that potatoes allow the population of commoners to explode

Feudalism in the high middle ages thrived because of large populations, and got fucked over hard when the Black Death made people a lot scarcer resource.

>and that guns are relatively easy-to-use force multipliers that commoners can bring to bear against a martially-trained, oppressive aristocracy.

All the various tyrannical regimes we've had in the last half a millennium would suggest otherwise. And there's nothign remanding that the feudal overlords be particularly cruel and oppressive.

Feudalism was a way of managing a large nation when organisation and communications were so poor that power had to be present and direct. So the king appointed nobles to govern regions he couldn't, and kept them in check by contracts, privileges and social pressure. As a more central government becomes possible feudalism becomes obsolete.

If magic is something requiring training and knowledge then it just reinforces whatever oligarchy is in power, same goes for divine magic if it is tied to the church power structure.

If magic is just something that people ARE then you end up with a magocracy as people born with sorcery will overthrow the muggles in power. Assuming it is powerful enough of course, otherwise you get witch hunts.

>If magic is just something that people ARE then you end up with a magocracy
Why wouldn't this happen if magic is something you can learn through rigorous study?

It would still become the province of the rich, as only they would have the time and resources to spend on study.

Feudal societies are, funny enough, some of the longest lasting and most successful systems of society that humans have developed for themselves. They can be immensely successful for their participants too, typically if that feudal society allows for a middle class. Look at pre wwi Germany for example. Aristocratic feudal monarchy. Fantastically successful society for its participants.

When people are happy, things run well, and people have a reverence for the institutions in place, few feel the need to use the massive non noble population to make revolution.

Interestingly, in Exalted - a very, very high-fantasy setting - a feudal society makes perfect sense because the 'nobles' (i.e. the Exalted) are simply that much better than everyone else.

Hell, if a PC becomes a Solar, he no longer has a peasant's considerations. While a Solar is chosen from a combination of luck and merit, it won't take you long to stop giving a shit about the little people.

Monsters encroach on farms and food storages regularly.

The rulers have magic on their side, or alternatively the peasants don't have easy access to guns (the guns are needed to fight monsters). Or the peasants believe the rulers (and their soldiers) are best suited to protect them.

Feudalism works well in fantasy settings. More freedoms for the adventurers because each county or duchy is pretty much independent from the king. Allows players to sort of build up
>do mission for count
>count loves you
>duke hires you to rescue fair maiden from tower
>duke loves you
>king wants you to lead his armies
obviously you wouldn't want it to be that fucking cliche, but you get the point.
Now as for realism. yeah feudal socities could exist today. In a way they do. Just imagine if every governor in the US was a duke or a count instead of a governor. Feudalism had a little more state capitalism then most people realize. Feudalism didn't die because of guns, it died because people moved to cities. Also black death decreased population so much cities became more important.

You know what happens to shit that threatens civilization? It gets exterminated. Wolves, bears, lions, tigers. All those beasts live far away from developed lands in the fringe. Elsewhere they've been killed off.

Farms being raided or attacked by beasts/monsters is only something that happens during societal instability or in the frontiers.

Our natural threats were wiped out because we had the technological means to do so.

If monsters have innate supernatural traits that allow them to compete with human technological advancement, they could become a much more permanent threat than wolves and beards.

Feudalism is very far from typical D&D. In D&D, you are free. You have no obligations, you can travel all over the place, talk to anyone, buy and sell stuff, etc. In a feudal society, you have obligation. You have sworn oaths to serve those above you and protect those below you (even if you don't care about the oaths, there will be a shitstorm if you break them and you will be cast out of civilized society). You have to obey your elders and superiors. There is no individualism. You family-clan control your life. You can't waltz into the market place and buy a sword. Wealth is measured in land, not gold coins.

>When does a feudal society make sense for a fantasy world, and when doesn't it make sense?

Depends how rural the population is and the level of education present in society.

>Just imagine if every governor in the US was a duke or a count instead of a governor.

Poor example, the governors of US state don't actually own the land itself or have that much power without the consent of the legislature.

A better example would be in the House of Lords in the U.K.

>When does a feudal society make sense for a fantasy world
When no administration and/or communication system is in place to maintain realms rather than a handful of cities and the surrounding lands, the majority of the population is involved in agriculture and instability (like the collapse of a global empire) creates the need of a dedicated warrior class to protect the aforementioned majority of the population.

>and when doesn't it make sense?
If any of the aforementioned doesn't apply and a sufficient "replacing" reason isn't provided.

>Guns
Meh, not sure if they'd utterly break a feudal society. First of all, early handguns did not destroy the knightly class (that was them being replaced by professional men at arms, who kept fighting for some centuries alongside guns I think). Secondly, guns as yet another newfangled weapon do not mean there's no longer a need for a warrior class. I imagine they'd be the same as crossbows, in that you can teach a peasant to proficiently use one in a few hours, but there are still professional warriors that use them.

>Potatoes
Yeah, that weaken a feudal system. If less farmers are needed to provide for the population, we see a lot of now-unemployed farmers moving to the cities and probably becoming craftsmen or something, with the more intelligent ones perhaps becoming administrators or bureaucrats. A clever king could use this to sideline the nobility, or he may not. But whatever happens, the feudal system is broken because one way or another a bourgeois arises between the peasants and the nobles.

>magic
That's a question with multiple possible answers, but I like to myself imagine that wizards would be on the same level as knights: they'd also be warriors in a way, from a dedicated warrior class. This is because I imagine studying magic and maintaining the right reagents can get as expensive as taking care of a warhorse and a suit of armor.

Wolves and bears still regularly fuck with people's stuff in populated areas, guy. A medieval society might not have the means to exterminate all dangerous animals in the area.

This kind of argument drives me absolutely batty.

First of all, "hung around for a long time" is a dumb criterion for success; thanks, but I'd rather live in the materially prosperous democracy with a strong emphasis on human rights.

Second, "longest lasting and most successful" isn't actually meaningful in the context of exponential population growth, exponential economic growth, and rapid technological progress. In particular, there's no way to divorce technological progress from social change: for example, we have decent evidence to the effect that industrialization drives a shift from traditional values to secular-rational ones, suggesting that the correlation between the rise of industrialized societies and the emergence of democratic values wasn't a fluke. It also seems very unlikely that earlier societies would behave the way they did if they were exposed to more advanced technology-- i.e., if you gave the Egyptian Middle Kingdom ICBMs, there's an excellent chance that it would be neither long-lasting nor stable.

You could always retreat to "well, they were successful in a kind of group-selection social Darwinism way, meaning that they continued to exist for a long time, even if the actual living conditions were shitty and manifestly unjust," but that doesn't work either. Ultimately, pre-industrialized societies got clobbered by industrialized ones, which then democratized and became immensely wealthy, so these earlier forms of social organization could only be considered "stable and successful" if you carefully avoid considering the stuff that killed them off.

I honestly don't know why anyone would want to roleplay realistic feudalism. I mean, sure, if you want to roleplay bad sanitation, sumptuary laws, and bizarrely pointy shoes, I'm not going to stop you, but I have no idea what you'd get out of it.

To be fair, democracy in the modern sense is a very young experiment that could easily go the way of fascism and communism as flukes with their high points here and there. And if we look at the demographic data, that scenario is very likely within the near future. If that happens, democracy will be remembered as the greatest failure of all political systems because it failed in the one thing a state is expected to do: create a safe living space for future generations, safe from foreign incursion.

Wizards in feudalism is not so hard to figure out. Just look at people like Dr. Dee and what they did

>but I'd rather live in the materially prosperous democracy with a strong emphasis on human rights.

Germany or Sweden?

Ugh
Don't you guys know that the medeival ages were enlightened times, and that the church and kings were benevolent rulers? Technology flourished, and people had great living standards. I learned all about it in my theology degree. You need to stop being so blinkered by propaganda.