Core Principle: Fantasy Social Orders Are Unstable

[Wrathzog]

Second, while anarchy does indeed give you no guarantees about safety and well-being, neither does slavery.

Sure it does. In a society with slavery, slaves will probably be given a constant supply of Food and a Place to sleep. They'll also be provided a nominal amount of protection based on the idea that it's rude to break other people's things.
It's not ideal by any means but I consider that better than nothing at all.

there is no difference between what people prefer and what is better for them.

That is incredibly naive.
You might as well tell me that people are never ignorant or stupid.

[tzor]

Not that I want to mix too much of the "real modern world" into this wonderful topic, but I was reading an observation that pointed out that back in the days of feudalism, the serf had to give 1/3 of all his labor/crops/etc to the feudal lord and was generally considered a poor slave as a result of this.

Today, we call that a fair tax rate for the middle class. (Never mind the rich who have to pay even more.) My point is that we often view the past through a very unfocused lenz. We often confuse one situation with anotehr because they sound similiar. We tend to forget that one big purpose of history is to make ourselves feel morally superior to those who are no longer alive to defend themselves.

[DSMatticus]

Sure it does. In a society with slavery, slaves will probably be given a constant supply of Food and a Place to sleep. They'll also be provided a nominal amount of protection based on the idea that it's rude to break other people's things.

This, almost. There are cases where it's better to be a 'slave' than live under anarchy, because (depending of course on how crazy the slave owner is) there are reliable expectations of being a slave. As long as you are capable of performing the labors asked of you, you are guaranteed some quantity of food, shelter, protection, and possibly some personal belongings.

Slavery is predicated on the idea of "work for me or I hurt you, and you can have whatever I need to give you to keep you alive while you work." And there's a perfectly valid idea for a social order, because being enslaved is usually better than being dead, and in an anarchy there's a whole lot of chance of ending up dead.

[Ancient History]

No, slavery is based on the "I own your ass, and probably your children too." Yes, all slave-holding cultures had rules or norms for their slaves, but the whole "we're valuable merchandise" bit doesn't really wash - slaves were sent to salt and copper mines to die, chained to the oars of ships, had their throats slit and buried alongside the master when he died - and those were just regular duties, not some special sadistic treatment like the habitual rape and sexual abuse that many sources from antiquity to modern times attest to.

[Fuchs]

No, slavery is based on the "I own your ass, and probably your children too." Yes, all slave-holding cultures had rules or norms for their slaves, but the whole "we're valuable merchandise" bit doesn't really wash - slaves were sent to salt and copper mines to die, chained to the oars of ships, had their throats slit and buried alongside the master when he died - and those were just regular duties, not some special sadistic treatment like the habitual rape and sexual abuse that many sources from antiquity to modern times attest to.

People sent "free" people (including children) to mines and factories as well, where they died in accidents or from sickness. And that was even after slavery was abolished in the 19th century.

Manchester capitalism is not really keen on keeping people alive if replacing them costs less.

[talozin]

People sent "free" people (including children) to mines and factories as well, where they died in accidents or from sickness. And that was even after slavery was abolished in the 19th century.

Manchester capitalism is not really keen on keeping people alive if replacing them costs less.

Fundamentally, if life is cheap, people will figure out a way to spend it. This is true under capitalism; it's true under communism (those canals didn't build themselves!), it's true under dictatorship, it's true under anarchy. One thing that can be said in praise of anarchy is that it makes it somewhat more difficult for someone to spend massive numbers of other people's lives on a project, though of course this is only because it's more difficult to get massive numbers of people to get together to do anything.

[Nachtigallerator]

Not that I want to mix too much of the "real modern world" into this wonderful topic, but I was reading an observation that pointed out that back in the days of feudalism, the serf had to give 1/3 of all his labor/crops/etc to the feudal lord and was generally considered a poor slave as a result of this.

Today, we call that a fair tax rate for the middle class. (Never mind the rich who have to pay even more.) My point is that we often view the past through a very unfocused lenz. We often confuse one situation with anotehr because they sound similiar. We tend to forget that one big purpose of history is to make ourselves feel morally superior to those who are no longer alive to defend themselves.

There may be some valid point to that, but whover made that observation neglected to factor in the different cost of living. Farmers in feudalism worked for their own substitence; the largest portion of their income went directly into keeping themselves alive. Taking a third of that is different from taking a third of a modern-day middle-class income, which allows far more spending on cheap amusements. While I'm not sure how taxiation in the US works, I'm quite certain that someone with an income/cost of living ratio like the medieval farmer would have to pay less than thirty percent tax, if he is paying tax at all.

No, slavery is based on the "I own your ass, and probably your children too." Yes, all slave-holding cultures had rules or norms for their slaves, but the whole "we're valuable merchandise" bit doesn't really wash - slaves were sent to salt and copper mines to die, chained to the oars of ships, had their throats slit and buried alongside the master when he died - and those were just regular duties, not some special sadistic treatment like the habitual rape and sexual abuse that many sources from antiquity to modern times attest to.

There are accounts of both in human history, and both have been labeled "slavery" or "feudalism" on largely theoretical grounds; the actual standard of living varied a lot. An educated slave in Rome was nothing like an uneducated slave in a roman copper mine, and the mine slave had more things in common with the mining worker of later times that with him.

To relate this discussion somewhat more to fantasy problems, how can stable fantasy societies come into existence if it is not possible to base a monopoly of force on pure numbers? Does that imply that in such a world, the only stable society is an autocracy or, possibly, a phlebetoniocracy, where only the sufficiently powerful factor in? If this were the case, aristocracy / magocracy would actually be the sensible thing to do.

[Wrathzog]

how can stable fantasy societies come into existence if it is not possible to base a monopoly of force on pure numbers? Does that imply that in such a world, the only stable society is an autocracy or, possibly, a phlebetoniocracy, where only the sufficiently powerful factor in? If this were the case, aristocracy / magocracy would actually be the sensible thing to do.

More or less.

The larger the power disparity between the powerful and the mundies, the more likely that you're going to have a social structure where most of the authority revolves around one awesome person or a small group of awesome people.
Why? because they're the only ones who can stay in charge whether that means resisting foreign or domestic forces.

And by power, I mean Real, Actual power. As in, I can throw mountains or shoot death lasers out of my eyes. Soft Power that you gain from having lots of money or political clout is not going to keep you in charge when adventurers come knocking down your door and decide that you need to go.

[mean_liar]

Soft Power that you gain from having lots of money or political clout is not going to keep you in charge when adventurers come knocking down your door and decide that you need to go.

This is not entirely true. Hard Power is still vital, but a ruler with a lot of Soft Power probably has friends, allies and associates with a lot of Hard Power.

If you have the ultimate badass-but-not-in-that-way philosopher king running the kingdom and everyone is happy and content and wow this is great, then its more than likely - necessary, really - that someone that supports him has Hard Power.

I still think that you need some kind of org chart filled with nominal badasses if you intend to rule. Just because you can kill anything in one-on-one combat doesn't mean you're an unstoppable ruler: there's a reason why air power alone doesn't win territory.

[fbmf]

And finally...there is no difference between what people prefer and what is better for them.

So I know this guy. He's a crack addict...

Actually, that's a lie. I used to know him. He died of a crack overdose. Because he preferred to spend his time getting high on crack.

Game On,
fbmf

[Wrathzog]

This is not entirely true. Hard Power is still vital, but a ruler with a lot of Soft Power probably has friends, allies and associates with a lot of Hard Power.

Maybe. I guess when I was thinking about this, I made the assumption that someone who has friends who are awesome is probably also awesome based on the idea that people like to hang out with peers and not scrubs.

If you have the ultimate badass-but-not-in-that-way philosopher king running the kingdom and everyone is happy and content and wow this is great, then its more than likely - necessary, really - that someone that supports him has Hard Power.

I would posit that it's completely necessary. Otherwise, I agree.

[Josh_Kablack]

There may be some valid point to that, but whover made that observation neglected to factor in the different cost of living. Farmers in feudalism worked for their own substitence; the largest portion of their income went directly into keeping themselves alive. Taking a third of that is different from taking a third of a modern-day middle-class income, which allows far more spending on cheap amusements. While I'm not sure how taxiation in the US works, I'm quite certain that someone with an income/cost of living ratio like the medieval farmer would have to pay less than thirty percent tax, if he is paying tax at all.

This is gonna run a real risk of digression, but: taxation in the modern US is a multi-layered, multi-level patchwork of half-assed social engineering mixed with math designed to confuse voters, so nobody is sure how the whole thing works.

• Some taxes are rather progressive (US federal Income Tax has a marginal percentage chart, where after you go through generating a taxpayer character sheet, every additional bundle of dollars is taxed more than the previous bundle of dollars you earned. )
• Some are totally flat percentages (Pittsburgh city and school district taxes on earned income are 1% and 2%)
• Some are flat percentages with minor progressive exceptions (Pennsylvania earned income tax is a flat 3.07% , aside from Schedule SP, which allows the very poor to claim forgiveness of this tax)
• Some are flat with minor regressive exceptions (FICA taxes are flat percentages, but they don't apply to amounts of earned income over $106,800, and there are minor kickbacks on federal earned income taxes for the self-employed.)
• Some are flat percentages with regressive implications due to spending habits (PA sales tax is 6% on most things you buy in state - This tends to impact poorer taxpayers for a larger portion of their income, since they have to spend more of it on necessities and less of it out of state.
• Some are industry based. In PA, we have secret extra sales taxes on beer, served drinks, amusements, cigarettes, and other such "sin" or "luxury" taxes.
• Some taxes are use-based fees. These tend to be flat amounts, such as busfare, parking fees, highway tolls, and various licensing fees. This is a politically easy to pass funding scheme, but it tends to result in massively regressive taxation.
• Some are property based, and this can vary drastically with the US. While Allegheny county's property assessments are thoroughly FUBARed due to various vested interests, the actual real estate tax rates municipalities within the county impose on those inaccurate within the county have a noticeable tendency to be higher in poorer communities and lower in richer communities. (the reason being that it's possible to fund a school district on like 1% of a bunch of $250,000 homes, but it takes 2.5% of the same number of homes to hit the same funding level if the homes are valued at $100,000) But this gets crazy-go-nuts when one realizes that I can walk for a hour from my house and pass through 3 different such municipalities (Pittsburgh, Millvale, Etna, Sharpsburg).
• Some are outright government industries, like the State Lottery, Casino Licensing, and the PLCB. State gambling tends to work out as a regressive "probability ignorance tax".

And adding those all up to get what any given individual or household actually pays for all-in tax rate is an exercise in arguing what actually counts in taxes. Obviously City, School District, and State taxes count. Obviously the EMS tax counts. Obviously real estate and property taxes count. But all of those change if you move to one of the other 49 States or sundry territories in the US. Federal earned income taxes count - but how is not a simple question. Since Freidman set it up so that most employees have withholding that exceeds their actual tax liability, they effectively loan the treasury money at zero interest for a year - should we factor in inflation to offset that? Then due to refundable credits, many people get refunds greater than their withholding - so does that count as a negative tax rate? Then how do we figure what any given household spends in sales tax? Bus fare? Highway tolls? Parking meters and tickets? Pet, Hunting, Firearm, Vehicle, Vendor, and Professional licensing fees?What about FICA taxes? - remember that on the books, those are paid half by the employee and half by the employer, but in reality it is all money the employer is paying out to the government for the employees services, but it is money the employee never sees. So we could argue that it should count double on either side - we could say that they make labor 14.4% more expensive or we could say that they decrease wages received by 14.4% - either is true.


But while I can't tell you how counting that all up works, I am willing to say that, in the contemporary US of A, it's at least possible for a modern "peasant" to pay overall negative taxes and it's also possible for a modern "peasant" with a similar gross income to pay draconian tax rates of 50+% of their annual income depending where in the US they live; what their family situation/filing status, whether they own their home; how they earned their income and what their spending habits are. Yes, there is that much variation within the system.

[Nachtigallerator]

That's not too different from the taxiation system I know, but I admit that assuming just income tax was a bit too easy, even if the observation mentioned probably didn't properly factor in gains either. To prevent further digression, I'll move on to something that itches me about fantasy society:

At the beginning of society, we have subsistence-farming peasants protected by awesome feudal lords, who, for lack of an educational system, gain their power from inheritance or apprenticeship - as the tomes already point out, via the Mentor feat. So far, so good. But when I think about it, the peasants really become unneccessary in some situations. They aren't needed to provide food when you can Create Food and Water. They aren't needed to build an army, because they mean nothing in the kind of battles their lords have to fight. The ruling class could definitely survive on it's own, without any support by society, unless their abilities are still somehow dependant on society - oddly enough, the most appropriate example I can think of are vampires, who really do depend on actual people to deliver their food. Because actual people are their food. I can see vampire lords trying to build up their flock to allow for more awesome vampires to wage war on other vampire lords and eventually building a great empire, complete with highly developed culture, writing and religion - but that doesn't seem to work out for non-vampiric, non-mindflayer people unless there is no spell to make food and tend other basic needs, and vampires don't survive so well in the tribal hunter-gatherer groups that come before agricultural society. So, what needs do the adventurer overlords have that societies can fulfill? Or, given that this is a general theoretical thread, what needs should they have?

[mean_liar]

You need peasants. Desperately. Magical production rates and spellcaster incidence are not high enough that you could ever hope to replace the peasants.

Create Food and Water doesn't do it. Warrior armies will still fight warrior armies, because there aren't enough badasses around to obviate them or actually control territory.

[Nachtigallerator]

So the badasses just are completely independent of society when they want to, and position themselves at the top for fun as soon as the muggles are done building said society? That would work, I guess. It has the merit of allowing us to apply real historical development cycles up until the point where the badasses enter the frame. My point was that the badasses don't need to develop society because of this independence, so while individually unstable, fantasy societies as a whole might be rather static.

[kzt]

Badasses need to develop society unless they like living in mud. Unless you are postulating that one day the badasses got delivered by alien spacebats one day and took over the society.

At which point the society will have severe changes.

[Wrathzog]

So the badasses just are completely independent of society when they want to, and position themselves at the top for fun as soon as the muggles are done building said society? That would work, I guess. It has the merit of allowing us to apply real historical development cycles up until the point where the badasses enter the frame. My point was that the badasses don't need to develop society because of this independence, so while individually unstable, fantasy societies as a whole might be rather static.

Bad Asses don't need to develop society but they will. In fact, I'm going to take that a step further and say that it takes a Bad Ass to change society in any way. Everyone else is too busy sucking to be able to bring about any meaningful impact on their surroundings.

[MGuy]

So the badasses just are completely independent of society when they want to, and position themselves at the top for fun as soon as the muggles are done building said society? That would work, I guess. It has the merit of allowing us to apply real historical development cycles up until the point where the badasses enter the frame. My point was that the badasses don't need to develop society because of this independence, so while individually unstable, fantasy societies as a whole might be rather static.

Bad Asses don't need to develop society but they will. In fact, I'm going to take that a step further and say that it takes a Bad Ass to change society in any way. Everyone else is too busy sucking to be able to bring about any meaningful impact on their surroundings.

This is actually the stance I took on the subject with my still-in-development campaign setting/rule set.

[fectin]

You need peasants. Desperately. Magical production rates and spellcaster incidence are not high enough that you could ever hope to replace the peasants.

Create Food and Water doesn't do it. Warrior armies will still fight warrior armies, because there aren't enough badasses around to obviate them or actually control territory.

Here's an easy one: you need society to build stuff. Dungeons take a lot of effort from a lot of people. If you can't round up a lot of people, you don't get that half of the setting.

[fectin]

And finally...there is no difference between what people prefer and what is better for them.

So I know this guy. He's a crack addict...

Actually, that's a lie. I used to know him. He died of a crack overdose. Because he preferred to spend his time getting high on crack.

Game On,
fbmf

In what way was getting the thing he valued most bad for him? Sure, it sucks for everyone else, but that doesn't say anything about his valuations.

[Nachtigallerator]

Thank you, those are all quite good explanations to me.
Any thoughts on even more human-focused economies, like for parasitic (which should cover vampires and mindflayers) overlords? I imagine that those might be particulary likely to start the agricultural revolution at some point, because they don't even need those extra people for industry - they already have an interest in increasing population.

[Wrathzog]

In what way was getting the thing he valued most bad for him? Sure, it sucks for everyone else, but that doesn't say anything about his valuations.

He's dead? I don't know how much simpler I can say that.

Any thoughts on even more human-focused economies, like for parasitic (which should cover vampires and mindflayers) overlords? I imagine that those might be particulary likely to start the agricultural revolution at some point, because they don't even need those extra people for industry - they already have an interest in increasing population.

I would say that they're more interested in maintaining the population rather than just increasing it. Having more people around is not necessarily a good thing. Eventually, the Belmonts get created and the parasites get hunted to extinction as the population spirals outside of their control.

[DSMatticus]

Fectin, what he wanted most was crack. Dead people cannot smoke crack. In that regard, killing himself (even with crack) was counterproductive to his interests, but he did it anyway.

That's not really an ambiguous counterpoint at all. That is the clearest possible rebuttal of "there is no difference between what people prefer and what is better for them."

And there very much is a clear difference between what people prefer and what is better for them. I know people hate to acknowledge the idea that people are stupid and don't always know what's best for them, because if we acknowledge that it implies some people really ought not to have the right to self-govern, and that's just a scary proposition, because if they can't self-govern, that means someone else has to govern for them, and who says that somebody has their best interests at heart, blah blah blah.

But all that aside, there are people too stupid to make decisions that advance their interests. This is just true. And it's very easy to convince people to adopt preferences which are counter to their interests. We call the people who do this 'politicians' and 'pundits.'

(You have no idea how hard it was to make it through this post without using the U.S.'s universal healthcare system, republicans, old people, or economy as examples. And let no more be said about that.)

[Wrathzog]

(You have no idea how hard it was to make it through this post without using the U.S.'s universal healthcare system, republicans, old people, or economy as examples. And let no more be said about that.)

Yeah, the first time I tried addressing the point, I'd typed up this overly long diatribe against socialism and how it's killing the US. Let's continue to keep our real world political views out of this discussion.

-e-
Took out a Yeah.

[PoliteNewb]

Fectin, what he wanted most was crack. Dead people cannot smoke crack. In that regard, killing himself (even with crack) was counterproductive to his interests, but he did it anyway.

That's not really an ambiguous counterpoint at all. That is the clearest possible rebuttal of "there is no difference between what people prefer and what is better for them."

No, it's a rebuttal of "there is no difference between what one particular person wants and what is better for him.

Many things are applicable to single individuals, but are problematic when applied universally (or even to large groups). This becomes especially problematic when the group you're applying it to is unified by a particular trait (race, religion, economic status, etc) and the person making decisions about "what is best for them" does not belong to that same group.

I know people hate to acknowledge the idea that people are stupid and don't always know what's best for them, because if we acknowledge that it implies some people really ought not to have the right to self-govern, and that's just a scary proposition, because if they can't self-govern, that means someone else has to govern for them, and who says that somebody has their best interests at heart, blah blah blah.

It's a scary proposition because if you are allowed to say "this group is not allowed to self-govern", you have just opened the door to someone putting you in that group. It's a matter of what criteria can be allowed to deny someone self-governance (or hell, human rights), and who decides that criteria. It is the classic "qui custode" issue.

I love how most of the people who like to claim "people are too stupid to know what's best for them" always exclude themselves from the category of "people". In their own minds, they always know what's best for themselves (and other people)! Because they're too intelligent, too educated, too white...

But all that aside, there are people too stupid to make decisions that advance their interests. This is just true. And it's very easy to convince people to adopt preferences which are counter to their interests.

Until we develop the talent of telepathy, you will never know what someone else's true preferences or motivations are. So trying to claim that you know better than someone else what is best for them or what they really want, while ignoring their statements and actions, is mostly arrogance. Trying to do it with large groups of people is worse.

You cannot build a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people...otherwise, it's just a cage.