Writing MC as a peasant/ villager

[vaurwyn]

Your local lord deciding to slaughter your entire village because one of your girls has particularly big boobs and he wants to violate her without anyone knowing so he'll just say he came across your village that was raided by 'orc's'. Sniff sniff, what a tragedy!

You do realize that Nobles were not all-powerful, right? The difference between a trained knight with a sword and a strong villager with a pitchfork is much less than the difference of a soldier with a gun to an office worker.
Besides, you should remember that villagers are the Nobles wealth. If he burns down a village, he gains nothing but loses a steady source of taxes. I cannot think of a real-world example where villages were burned for such petty reasons.
Besides that, you are saying that the majority of nobles would do horrible stuff, in a time where the dominant religion was Christianity, who major tenant was "you shall not kill", a time where a knight virtues included Justice, Mercy and generosity, a time where honor and dignity was often more important than ones own life.
In modern times, the bureaucratic process makes it very hard to do anything, so most of our government is mediocre. it is hard for incompetent pole to mess things up, and it is hard for great rulers to do great things. In medieval times, it was the other way around. A great ruler brought great prosperity, while a bad one was catastrophic.

Edit : Actually, apparently the virtues of chivalry changed from knight to knight, and were not clearly defined, so that part of my argument is flawed. I still stand by my overall point, but I don't want to spread misinformation.

 

[LordJoyde]

Why would they reject being ruled over by "nobility"? Do you reject being ruled by your government? The only difference is the philosophy behind how you chose your rulers. In modern republics, we think there is a right man for the job, and we try to find him using elections. In a system of nobility, we have someone train all of their life to inherit a responsibility. you can prefer whichever system you like, but do not start claiming the other point of view is stupid.
Education and intellect are very different things, and you should not imply that medieval humans were stupider than us, as that is demonstratively false.
There are also multiple developed countries that still have a monarchy, like japan, the UK, the Netherlands... are those people dumb?

Might I also remind you that there was a republic before napoleon, and that he asked the french whether or not they wanted him as an emperor, and the overwhelming majority said yes?

I actually do reject my government as much as possible considering I live in the Balkans and all my politicians are the slaves of foreign powers. Well, that or the mafia and neither is exactly a good thing. However, you mistake several of my points.
There are a plethora of differences between a democratic government and one based on bloodlines; to think that legitimate merit played a part in noble inheritance is pure tomfoolery. In our modern form of state, people are still chosen on a plethora of wrong traits but at least here we have the option of believing its for personal merit.

I have not directly stated that medieval people were stupider than the common man. Far from it, the same people who would be peasants in a medieval era are nowadays simply educated enough to be a loud majority, that is pretty much all that's happened, with some measure of civilization also protecting them from certain other forms of self debasement.

You confuse the monarchies of today for those of the past, thinking they're the same thing. I don't think I'll grace this with an argument.
"Might I also remind you that there was a republic before napoleon, and that he asked the french whether or not they wanted him as an emperor, and the overwhelming majority said yes?" Are you a fan of Oversimplified by any chance? If not, perhaps you should be. If yes, maybe you need a few lessons on how to understand sarcasm.

Then are you paying taxes?

This is connected how exactly? Taxation has very little to do with nobility, if anything at all. Taxes are tied to state and government, not a social class.

 

[Varstark]

On the OP's post, the MC being the everyman villager is more a modern invention, as we focus more on the individual over the community instead of the other way round. Back then, the everyman villager almost certainly never journeyed too far away from the place of his birth, so epic tales in history were most likely to entertain and keep community traditions alive, just as they also became sweeping legends that affirmed a royal family's right to rule as a mandate from heaven or divine lineage or whatever. Most heroes of classic tales were of special birth and special circumstances, and were more an example of some parable, aesop, virtue, sin or tragedy of some kind.

So if you hate the idea of the main character being a villager and want to take the opposite path, make him special enough for people to scream "GARY STU", but with some kind of irrationality, virtue or twistedness that serves as a weakness or flaw, and there you have your basic ingredients. It's not foreign to our modern monkey brains, either. Tolkien does it, Superman does it (Kryptonian, first natural baby born in ages), Iron Man does it (son of a rich businessman, born with a diamond spoon in his mouth, super genius), Wonder Woman does it (moulded from the earth and Zeus gave her life), Naruto does it (Fourth Hokage father, Uzumaki mother, demon bound to his soul), FMA does it (immortal alchemical human construct as a father, genius alchemist), modern wuxia does it, webtoons do it.

There's probably a million other better written essays on this, but from authors trying to make everyman protagonists for modern audiences to insert into, you've just come full circle, really.

 

[LordJoyde]

You do realize that Nobles were not all-powerful, right? The difference between a trained knight with a sword and a strong villager with a pitchfork is much less than the difference of a soldier with a gun to an office worker.
Besides, you should remember that villagers are the Nobles wealth. If he burns down a village, he gains nothing but loses a steady source of taxes. I cannot think of a real-world example where villages were burned for such petty reasons.
Besides that, you are saying that the majority of nobles would do horrible stuff, in a time where the dominant religion was Christianity, who major tenant was "you shall not kill", a time where a knight virtues included Justice, Mercy and generosity, a time where honor and dignity was often more important than ones own life.
In modern times, the bureaucratic process makes it very hard to do anything, so most of our government is mediocre. it is hard for incompetent pole to mess things up, and it is hard for great rulers to do great things. In medieval times, it was the other way around. A great ruler brought great prosperity, while a bad one was catastrophic.

There is also a difference in personality; nobility is taught to be arrogant and expected to achieve their will by any means required. I know nobles are not all powerful, but its exactly that weakness that lets me expect people of that kind of react in the typical manner of small-minded god complex persona; with rage and violence. A noble may not be all powerful, but even the most pathetic had some measure of authority, therefore its a firm possibility.

As for the quip about real world villages being burned for such petty reasons, I'll concede your point here. However, aren't we talking fantasy? Religion and nobility have always been at odds, the same way that nobles and merchants were. It was always a 3 way battlefield of power, a division of faith vs prestige vs wealth. Yes, not all nobles were horrible people, but that does not dissuade the fact that it was far easier to be a bad person than a good one.

I agree with your point on bureaucracy, though I don't see what it has to do with the conversation.

 

[vaurwyn]

I actually do reject my government as much as possible considering I live in the Balkans and all my politicians are the slaves of foreign powers. Well, that or the mafia and neither is exactly a good thing. However, you mistake several of my points.
There are a plethora of differences between a democratic government and one based on bloodlines; to think that legitimate merit played a part in noble inheritance is pure tomfoolery. In our modern form of state, people are still chosen on a plethora of wrong traits but at least here we have the option of believing its for personal merit.

Merit is how you Become a noble. Then, since you have experience and ability, you are expected to pass those down to your children. If you do not, your house will fall. Being a noble is a job with heavy responsibilities and great perks. If you do not do your job well, then you will lose both of these things.
An example of this :
In France, there was the Merovingian dynasty. They were lords that did nothing and let their servants do all of the work. What happened? a few years later, their reign was ended and they were replaced by their servants, the Carolingian. No merit based transmission of power here whatsoever.
There are also examples of fallen nobility, where they were punished for misdeeds by losing their title.

I have not directly stated that medieval people were stupider than the common man. Far from it, the same people who would be peasants in a medieval era are nowadays simply educated enough to be a loud majority, that is pretty much all that's happened, with some measure of civilization also protecting them from certain other forms of self debasement.

"even a modicum of intellect" : yes of course, you did not imply a lack of intellect (google def: a clever person).

You confuse the monarchies of today for those of the past, thinking they're the same thing. I don't think I'll grace this with an argument.

Of course I know there are some differences, but what does that have to do with our discussion? I remember you saying "allow itself to be ruled over by 'nobility'". Are modern monarchies not nobility? Yes, they are, so the point stands. You can't just dismiss arguments if they do not suit your narrative. The problem here is your imprecise argument, not my response.

"Might I also remind you that there was a republic before napoleon, and that he asked the french whether or not they wanted him as an emperor, and the overwhelming majority said yes?" Are you a fan of Oversimplified by any chance? If not, perhaps you should be. If yes, maybe you need a few lessons on how to understand sarcasm.

No, I am not a fan of oversimplified, but I happen to know my own country's history, which includes knowing of his reign. So I can tell you that he faced absolutely no opposition when he became emperor. And that he had a very prominent and liked "noblesse d'empire". Surely all of the French must have become stupid at that time?
And how was this "noblesse d'empire" chosen? well, mostly as a reward for great acts, and sometimes as a diplomatic move. Again, there can be no merit involved in those instances, right?


If you were saying that they were severe flaws in a feudal system, then I would have agreed with you, but you are implying it is a stupid system with no merits, which is simply false.
The majority of modern countries have deemed a republic to be superior system, and I personally believe it is, but don't go around saying that during thousands of years humanity was stupid and uneducated to have not done the same thing as us. Things are much more complicated than that.

The problem mostly stems from the overgeneralize of nobility. It has lasted thousands of years, and has changed a lot during those years. The French republic and the Chinese republic are completely different concepts, but they have the same name. The same applies to how nobility worked across the ages. For example, not all nobility was hereditary.
Saying "There's no way that a regular human being with even a modicum of intellect would allow itself to be ruled over by 'nobility'." is waaay too reductive and radical, to the point of being misrepresentative.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

 

[greyblob]

being a peasant/villager is beyond amazing. no politics, no responsibilities beyond yourself and your family, no existential dread or dreams of grandeur. if a problem ever arises, you just leave it for the village head. you tend to your crops, raise livestock, and plow your wife

 

[RepresentingWrath]

being a peasant/villager is beyond amazing. no politics, no responsibilities beyond yourself and your family, no existential dread or dreams of grandeur. if a problem ever arises, you just leave it for the village head. you tend to your crops, raise livestock, and plow your wife

And if you are bored you can just get drunk or beat up your family.

 

[greyblob]

And if you are bored you can just get drunk or beat up your family.

thats not limited to farmers though

 

[RepresentingWrath]

thats not limited to farmers though

True.

 

[vaurwyn]

There is also a difference in personality; nobility is taught to be arrogant and expected to achieve their will by any means required. I know nobles are not all powerful, but its exactly that weakness that lets me expect people of that kind of react in the typical manner of small-minded god complex persona; with rage and violence. A noble may not be all powerful, but even the most pathetic had some measure of authority, therefore its a firm possibility.

So you are saying there was a possibility of your lord killing you, so you had to be stupid to be okay with them ruling over you?
I believe my government is totally capable of killing me, and I believe there are some situations where they will do it. That does not mean I will start claiming that having elected rulers is a bad idea.

I agree that arrogance is one of the dangers of hereditary nobility. The again, I believe it is a danger of any position of power.
A noble can become arrogant because he was born superior, while an elected leader can become arrogant because he was chosen as the best man for the job. And once they are in power, they will be both accustomed to have people serving them.
Overall however, I would agree that arrogance is a problem with a feudal system. However, this is not enough to convince me of the inherent stupidity of such a system; While it certainly has disadvantages, it also has advantages.
One of the very important advantages of a hereditary system is the concept of posterity.
No one wants to leave a ruined fief to their son, so they have more incentive to work hard and be a good ruler. In modern republics, they have a fixed salary, and whether or not they do their job well has little impact o their lives. It is therefore much easier to succumb to corruption for personal gain.
This does not mean no medieval nobles were corrupt, but they had a concept of stability to let their dynasty last for generation that we simply don't have anymore. Who care if in ten years people realize the bill I passed had some disastrous consequences? Its not my problem anymore.

As for the quip about real world villages being burned for such petty reasons, I'll concede your point here. However, aren't we talking fantasy?

Weren't you the one saying you were just being realistic?

Religion and nobility have always been at odds, the same way that nobles and merchants were. It was always a 3 way battlefield of power, a division of faith vs prestige vs wealth. Yes, not all nobles were horrible people, but that does not dissuade the fact that it was far easier to be a bad person than a good one.

Religion and nobility are not always at odds. They have been many conflicts between the two, but there has been even more periods of peace, where they worked together. In France, we even have a king called Saint Louis, ad he was our most well-liked king.
While it is true that they have often fought for power, it is my turn to ask what relevance this has to our conversation? It does not matter who had the temporary upper hand, in the end both the aristocratic laws and religious tenants would have been ingrained deep into their society.

I agree with your point on bureaucracy, though I don't see what it has to do with the conversation.

The point is, there are good points and bad points, it is not all black and white. Nowadays, we have much greater inequalities, but also have a lot of things in place to restrain our higher ups. Back in the day, the difference in power was not so massive, but there were less consequences to heinous actions you managed to commit. A few shocking examples is not enough to make a system have no value.
I am arguing that your thesis "There's no way that a regular human being with even a modicum of intellect would allow itself to be ruled over by 'nobility'." is a ridiculous statement, not that there are no flaws with a feudal system.

Honestly, I get the feeling you are against authoritative figures in general. As long as someone is in charge, he will have power over you, which can be misused. As a common man, you have very little power to defend yourself against the powerhouses of your society, no matter the era. I get that, but it is kind of inevitable.

 

[LordJoyde]

So you are saying there was a possibility of your lord killing you, so you had to be stupid to be okay with them ruling over you?
I believe my government is totally capable of killing me, and I believe there are some situations where they will do it. That does not mean I will start claiming that having elected rulers is a bad idea.

I agree that arrogance is one of the dangers of hereditary nobility. The again, I believe it is a danger of any position of power.
A noble can become arrogant because he was born superior, while an elected leader can become arrogant because he was chosen as the best man for the job. And once they are in power, they will be both accustomed to have people serving them.
Overall however, I would agree that arrogance is a problem with a feudal system. However, this is not enough to convince me of the inherent stupidity of such a system; While it certainly has disadvantages, it also has advantages.
One of the very important advantages of a hereditary system is the concept of posterity.
No one wants to leave a ruined fief to their son, so they have more incentive to work hard and be a good ruler. In modern republics, they have a fixed salary, and whether or not they do their job well has little impact o their lives. It is therefore much easier to succumb to corruption for personal gain.
This does not mean no medieval nobles were corrupt, but they had a concept of stability to let their dynasty last for generation that we simply don't have anymore. Who care if in ten years people realize the bill I passed had some disastrous consequences? Its not my problem anymore.

Weren't you the one saying you were just being realistic?

Religion and nobility are not always at odds. They have been many conflicts between the two, but there has been even more periods of peace, where they worked together. In France, we even have a king called Saint Louis, ad he was our most well-liked king.
While it is true that they have often fought for power, it is my turn to ask what relevance this has to our conversation? It does not matter who had the temporary upper hand, in the end both the aristocratic laws and religious tenants would have been ingrained deep into their society.

The point is, there are good points and bad points, it is not all black and white. Nowadays, we have much greater inequalities, but also have a lot of things in place to restrain our higher ups. Back in the day, the difference in power was not so massive, but there were less consequences to heinous actions you managed to commit. A few shocking examples is not enough to make a system have no value.
I am arguing that your thesis "There's no way that a regular human being with even a modicum of intellect would allow itself to be ruled over by 'nobility'." is a ridiculous statement, not that there are no flaws with a feudal system.

Honestly, I get the feeling you are against authoritative figures in general. As long as someone is in charge, he will have power over you, which can be misused. As a common man, you have very little power to defend yourself against the powerhouses of your society, no matter the era. I get that, but it is kind of inevitable.

yeh
tl dr
You win the discussion
walls of text are the enemy