| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Arzakon
Seeker
Spain
58 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 09:21:59
|
Hi again. Lately I've been looking for information about the number of inhabitants of each realm, because if there's a war between two countries, knowing each other manpower should be essential.
There's a lot of official lore about this... but the problem is I'm a bit disappointed. As far as I know, many of the realms are somewhat similar to european real countries; Amn is related to Spain, Cormyr is somewhat related to France, and so on.
So, using the Forgotten Realms Atlas (what a great tool, BTW; hope they'll do it again) I began to compare areas between real countries and imaginary countries, and, as I study History (and I'm a freak :P), I took some information on demography in the late middle ages and the rennaissance. And that's the reason I'm here posting :D.
Amn has an area of 450.000/550.000 km2 (sorry I'm not using square miles). Iberian peninsula has a total of 592.000 km2. So, they're similar, maybe Amn is a little bit smaller, but even though, it' still a big country. Nevertheless, the official lore estimates Amn has a pob. of nearly 3 million people. During the reign of Philip II, Castille had 7 million people, Aragon had 1 million people and Portugal had another million people. It makes a total of 9 million people (maybe more, you know). And there was no demographic boom during the XVI century; even more, during the reigns of Charles I and Philip II there was a fairly important migration to the colonies and some issues relating food production, so the general poblation didn't change much during the XVI century.
Even in the times of the roman province of Hispania, the total was of 7 million people (estimate), which had to be very similar to the XV century, during the reigns of Henry IV (of Spain, of course :P) and Isabella I.
I apologize for all the useless information, but I just want to expose my disappointment. Amn have three great rivers, big plains perfect for farming, even a city focused only on farm products (Purskul). Great plains, great resources, a colonization in progress, and ~500.000 km2. And even though, just nearly 3 million people. I think it's a nonsense, and I just want to know your opinion about this. And it's not only about Amn; Cormyr, for example, is supposed to be a very important country, and it has only 1.300.000 inhabitants. Ok, it has a lot of mountains and forests, but it makes no sense for me to state Cormyr is a great country when a city-state like Hlondeth has around 500.000 inhabitants; Vilhon Reach, overall, has a total pob. of 5 million people. So why is Cormyr depicted as a powerful and ancient country even if it really has no demographic power to do anything with its neighbors?
Calimshan, on the other hand, has a big desert, and no colonies, and still has more than 5 million people. It's area is nearly the same (even a little smaller). I don't think it's wrong, anyway. A lot of commerce, a big coast... it's reasonable. But I think a country like Amn should have a lot more people. I think Amn should have around the same inhabitants as Calimshan, or even more (~6 million). Even Tethyr, with the Wealdath covering a lot of its area, has 3.700.000 people. Is has less plains, less commerce and even had a civil war recently (3rd edition); still, more people living in less land. Same with Thay: around 5 million people, and it's a region with no stability (Rashemen raids, the wars with Aglarond, its own goverment form...), and a good part of the country is on a plateau, which is far less suited for farming than the great plains of Amn.
Anyway, if any of you have useful information about the matter (maybe I'm wrong after all and there's something I didn't know), I'd be very grateful for any opinion.
|
Edited by - Arzakon on 22 Jan 2010 09:28:55
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 14:52:20
|
Well, just a few thoughts, I am brainstorming here. And its been quite a few years since the university so I might be slipping a bit here, so forgive any glaring mistakes.
Wasn't the populations of several areas lessened with the 3ed.? I think several lands and city's had their populations reduced without much explanations, but I can be wrong about this.
Also there is the question of wilderness and monsters, which would have the effects of minor wars on the population, even in the best of times. You operate with numbers that are a little to late timewise in my opinion, as Europe in general had an increase in its population during the high middle ages until the black plague, wouldn't the Realms be far more dangerous to common people than Europa at that time? The numbers for Spain during the roman age is a good indicator of how high a population one could expect around the Sea of Fallen Stars, but there is one problem to me. Spain had, after the civil wars and the last major iberian revolts a rather peaceful and prosperous period that lasted for a couple of hundred years, during the roman reign lasting until the Vandals. This would count for a high population number. The same can be seen in several of the trade based and climatically blessed regions of the Realms such as the Vilhon Reach.
Amn has been torn by war recently which would account for some of the low population numbers, also the amnians are traders, mercenaries and travelers. Quite a few of their numbers would be out of the land itself, on the caravan routs or in the citys north of the country. Now, Spain had quite a comparatively high population in the 10th-11th centuries, but northern Europe was certainly much lower, even before the Black Death. With the monsters and amount of wilderness included in many of these Realmsian countries the population would be lessened.
As for Cormyr. If these are 3ed. numbers then this is just after a major war and invasion. But still, Cormyrs strength lies in its structured centralized nature, combined with a strategic location and good trading possibilities. Think of the position of several of the Italian city's in the renaissance or the german Hansa league. or the Dutch city's, especially during the age of the Dutch republic. Cormyr can muster a standing army, the war wizards and a centralized government that would enable them to react quicker and comparatively stronger than many of the other lands of the Realms.
Again, I agree that the numbers are generally to low when comparing to European (and the earth in general during the period)middle ages, but I think they can be explained with a few orcs and dragons.
Now I have rambled so long that I have lost my own thread here,and probably made little sense during the process. |
 |
|
|
Sian
Senior Scribe
Denmark
596 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 16:24:39
|
| yeah ... i'd say the population counters is only accounting for civilized races (PHB and the odd outsider) ... it's not counting any of the many other monsters/humanoids such is Orcs, Orges, Goblins, Centaurs etc. |
what happened to the queen? she's much more hysterical than usual
She's a women, it happens once a month |
|
|
|
Arzakon
Seeker
Spain
58 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 17:23:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sian
yeah ... i'd say the population counters is only accounting for civilized races (PHB and the odd outsider) ... it's not counting any of the many other monsters/humanoids such is Orcs, Orges, Goblins, Centaurs etc.
Hmm... that seems reasonable... yet I still think there should be more humans. And even though I think there's a big problem on fantasy worlds: people often depict their fantasy worlds (and FR is no exception) as dangerous worlds where there seem to be no time for peace. Ok, it's so useful for your players, as there is need for adventurers, but I think that a permanent war is... illogical. If people really had to suffer constant wars, crazy magicians throwing fireballs at their cities and so on...
I'll try to explain what I mean. I know wars, things like Spellplague, Time of Troubles, great conspirations and all those kind of things are QUITE interesting for a game, but people use these things too much. If you take a look at 3rd edition world, there are a lot of BIG conflicts. Cormyr had the problem with Tilverton, totally destroyed; Amn had de invassion of the ogre mages from the mountains, raiding and destroying even Esmeltaran... and there are a lot more examples. Is it really necessary? I think a world can be very interesting without using the apocalyptic theme again and again. That's what I think, at least.
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Amn has been torn by war recently which would account for some of the low population numbers, also the amnians are traders, mercenaries and travelers. Quite a few of their numbers would be out of the land itself, on the caravan routs or in the citys north of the country. Now, Spain had quite a comparatively high population in the 10th-11th centuries, but northern Europe was certainly much lower, even before the Black Death. With the monsters and amount of wilderness included in many of these Realmsian countries the population would be lessened.
The war makes sense, but if you have a contry with... say, 7 million people, and a great war ravages its land... losing 3 or 4 million people does not mean a war, it means people suddenly exploded or something similar :P.
And the question about Spain demography, I assure you: northern Europe always had a lot more people than Spain. Spain has a lot of plateau, mountains and infertile lands. Throughout its history, Spain has always been just self sufficient, never had a good surplus of grain and other basic things. During the XVI century France had almost nearly two times the population of Spain, and it was the same during the XVII, XVIII, XIX and XX centuries. When the iberian peninsula had a total population of 9 million people, France and its vassals had around 13 or 14 million people. The Netherlands were, for most of the late middle age, an area with high density of population. So, even if it seems like it should be different, mediterranean countries (with the exception of rennaissance Italy) had less people than its northern neighbors. And nowadays, it's still the same :P.
And about the wilderness, monsters... well, I've already told Sian what I think. A permanent war/apocalyptic setting doesn't seem reasonable. Cormyr is said to be one of the most prosperous realm near the inner sea, yet its history shows something quite different. The first purple dragon threat, Tilverton, the hostilities with Sembia... so why should we believe it is a great nation when there are so many threats? Amn is much the same, as it has great colonies, great merchant tradition, a lot of money... and suddenly a big army of goblins, orcs an ogres destroy and conquer many cities. As I said, apocalyptic settings may be fun... just a few times. And even in this setting of war, death and chaos (even if Amn is still depicted as one of the richest realms of Faerûn), such a low population is illogical.
Anyway, it's just a fantasy world, so who cares? :P. I'll change its pop. if I don't like it :P. |
Edited by - Arzakon on 22 Jan 2010 17:23:54 |
|
|
|
bladeinAmn
Learned Scribe
199 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 22:16:55
|
I too noticed how the Realms always seemed underpopulated. I've felt this way for all four editions.
However, I soon after thought that Ed and his friends underpopulated the Realms on purpose; this to sort of subtly say that "Yes, having violent and constant life-threatening adventures is all fun and dandy, but also keep in mind that life is precious. Many reckless and powerful adventurers = lower than expected populations, thus lower potential for all to live life to the fullest."
Of course, having this theory in heart and mind + the fact that the Realms are yours to do with as you wish, I populate the Realms to how I see fit, w/countries and big cities (ie-Waterdeep, etc) each having populations deeper in the millions (and more land than the 3e map says so). |
Edited by - bladeinAmn on 22 Jan 2010 22:20:32 |
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 22:45:09
|
What a great question! Well done!
From what you say, it does sound as though Amn should have more people.
However, there could be several reasons why it has less.
1. The figures reported are inaccurate. It could be the figures in FRCS are census figures and many people have lied about their dependants to reduce taxation. It could also be that the figures just don't cover the whole country.
2. Cultural. There could a variety of cultural reasons why the population is low. I can't recall the precise century but I think it was the 1600's and the place was definitely England, there despite good harvests the population fell because people married later. Young folk had a career, made enough money and then got married.
It could be that only sons are reported in the census.
3. Poor harvests. Although conditions might be great for farming, there could be any number of reasons crop yields are low. Crop diseases, large scale flooding, a number of unusually cold years, etc.
4. Other reasons. War, plague and dragons all act against farmers. War causes soldiers to strip the land of food, and typically the soldiers kill the farmers too.
The above are reasons why the population figures could be low. But that said, I think your points are very valid. Very valid indeed. Well done! |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2010 : 23:31:35
|
Not to interrupt the excellent analysis here, but I'd like to point out that the population of a city/country depends a bit on where your PCs fall on the all-important "bloodthirstiness" scale.
Just remembering some particularly senseless moments of Baldur's Gate games. Good times. 
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Arzakon
Seeker
Spain
58 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2010 : 00:15:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
What a great question! Well done!
From what you say, it does sound as though Amn should have more people.
However, there could be several reasons why it has less.
1. The figures reported are inaccurate. It could be the figures in FRCS are census figures and many people have lied about their dependants to reduce taxation. It could also be that the figures just don't cover the whole country.
2. Cultural. There could a variety of cultural reasons why the population is low. I can't recall the precise century but I think it was the 1600's and the place was definitely England, there despite good harvests the population fell because people married later. Young folk had a career, made enough money and then got married.
It could be that only sons are reported in the census.
3. Poor harvests. Although conditions might be great for farming, there could be any number of reasons crop yields are low. Crop diseases, large scale flooding, a number of unusually cold years, etc.
4. Other reasons. War, plague and dragons all act against farmers. War causes soldiers to strip the land of food, and typically the soldiers kill the farmers too.
The above are reasons why the population figures could be low. But that said, I think your points are very valid. Very valid indeed. Well done!
Wow. First of all, thanks :D.
I didn't think about census issues. I don't think they could miss 3 or 4 million people, but anyway that's a great idea, and very useful for roleplaying purposes. During a war, many people try to evade paying taxes, so maybe there's a place for a political themed adventure. Even if I change the total population or let it stay as it is on the core rulebooks, I will make a good use of this idea. :D
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
I too noticed how the Realms always seemed underpopulated. I've felt this way for all four editions.
However, I soon after thought that Ed and his friends underpopulated the Realms on purpose; this to sort of subtly say that "Yes, having violent and constant life-threatening adventures is all fun and dandy, but also keep in mind that life is precious. Many reckless and powerful adventurers = lower than expected populations, thus lower potential for all to live life to the fullest."
Of course, having this theory in heart and mind + the fact that the Realms are yours to do with as you wish, I populate the Realms to how I see fit, w/countries and big cities (ie-Waterdeep, etc) each having populations deeper in the millions (and more land than the 3e map says so).
That seems reasonable enough... but only if lots of folks became adventurers. And as far as I know, adventurers are considered exceptional, and you are very lucky if you find one (not in the big cities, of course). If a lot of people made their lifes adventuring all over the wolrd, killing monsters and finding treasures, first of all the economy would collapse in a few months; I know that even the more "realistic" setting of adventuring (not so many people adventuring, a lot of people living normal working lifes) do not have sense in economic matters, but even though they're still more believable. If 10% of the population gathered treasures just to sell them for high amounts of gold pieces, soon there wouldn't be enought gold for all.
On the other hand, if life is risky just because there are lot of adventures roaming around the world, making noise and problems... well, I've always thought that only the highest level character can really stand against mobs. An epic caster (lvl 20+) able to summon great creatures or a brutal barbarian with a hard skin could really be dangerous for people living in the realms, but there are not so many like this. Most of the adventurers just range between 5-15 lvls. And even if you are a lvl 15 mage, 2000 peasants armed with clubs will surely break your bones after all :P.
So I think adventurers doesn't really make any difference after all. They cannot be many, and they're not really strong enough to pose a threat to a country (well... maybe the country government is in danger, but not the population). And even the more powerful adventurers now about the risks involving mass destruction and that kind of things. Szass Tamm could easily destroy many cities and kill many people all over Thay, but he's evil, not crazy. There are more benefits in peace than in war (at least within your realm). |
Edited by - Arzakon on 23 Jan 2010 00:17:51 |
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2010 : 19:17:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
Wow. First of all, thanks :D.
I didn't think about census issues. I don't think they could miss 3 or 4 million people, but anyway that's a great idea, and very useful for roleplaying purposes. During a war, many people try to evade paying taxes, so maybe there's a place for a political themed adventure. Even if I change the total population or let it stay as it is on the core rulebooks, I will make a good use of this idea. :D
If I recall correctly, the Hebrews when they were wandering in Sinai performed regular censuses, but just counted the men.
Some of the nations of Faerun may do the same. And there could be good reasons for doing so.
Assuming a medieval setting, then a typical man and a woman would produce a lot more than the 2.1 replacement children. Let's say they produce 8 children. However, many of these may not have survived childhood.
So the census takers may then say, let's not count children because many of them die before they reach adulthood. They may then dismiss women too on the grounds that it's a patriarchal society and women belong to their husbands.
Of course, why does one perform a census? Typically, to be able to calculate tax incomes. However, they could also perform the census to garner an idea of how many able-bodied men are in the kingdom.
Cormyr and Amn may very well have higher populations but the figures given are due to the reason for conducting the census in the first place.
If we wanted to discus demographic further, we might say that the presence of good clerics might reduce the child mortality rate. But maybe this is balanced by the presence of monsters, evil clerics and as others have said the general scarcity of player class characters.
One final point, do you know about:
http://www.rpglibrary.org/utils/meddemog/
It's quite a nice calculator.
With my own setting, I've worked out the demographics, by working out how much people a square mile of arable land can support. I then work out how much arable land a country has. And a good guide to that is checking Wikipedia, and the geographies of countries. Most say how much arable land each country has. |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2010 : 19:19:05
|
One more point. I think most of the figures in the FRCS are probably just made up. Just like the names and 'languages'. If you wanted to perform a more researched demographic analysis of the Realms, I'd be interested to read it. Especially given your background.
Edit: I've just checked the 3rd Edn FRCS, and I've calculated a land area of 115,200 square miles (240 x 480 miles). This is a very rough calculation. A better way would be to use hexes.
115,200 square miles is about 298,367 square kilometres. Assigning a value of 28% arable land, this gives Amn a population of 5,967,340 people. The remaining 72% land is wilderness, forest, mountain, etc.
All a matter of fun debate really. |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
Edited by - Kiaransalyn on 23 Jan 2010 21:34:42 |
|
|
|
Arzakon
Seeker
Spain
58 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2010 : 00:35:13
|
Well, you are right about the problems about census; actually many civilizations didn't count people when they made it (usually, the way to count people was "fires" or "homes", and historians use a statical value of 4,5/5,5 people per "home" appearing on those censuses). But... I don't really think they really thought about this when making the countries of Faerûn; after all, it's just a game, and both players and GMs need real statistics. I just cannot imagine a GM arguing about how objective is a particular census. That would be quite funny. So I assume population given on the core rulebooks are the real quantity. And after all, the question related to men/women... well, Forgotten Realms do not care about sex differences, and both sexes work the same, have the same rights and duties, and so on.
By the way, I'm SO grateful for that link. I love those kind of things. The distance calculator of Candlekeep was one of the best things I found on this website. But even though, I have to say a few things about pop. calculators.
Let's assume Amn has a lot of fertile lands, and a 30% of arable land. Would amnians really use all that arable land? You know, I don't know exactly how do you call it, but there are a lot of lands in property of churchs and nobles not producing food. That's why during the XIX century most countries expropiated those unproductive lands. And therefore, as Amn is, after all, a medieval country, there should be at least a reasonable percentage of land belonging to people who doesn't really care about farming. And even a lot of arable lands would just be no man's land. If all land was used, then there should be no place for population growing, except for new farming techniques to be discovered; and that's not the case. The total land really used for farming should bet far less than the total.
And about the area of Amn... I don't know what is FRCS :/. But when I used FR Atlas, I had two areas: one of 450.000 km2 and another one of 520.000 km2 (I made a small one and another one expanding a little bit over the eastern areas of Amn). But... well, I understand that FR 3rd edition went under a total reformation about demographics and geography, so FR Atlas may be outdate. If Amn is smaller than I previously thought, then I may be totally wrong about demographics. A population of nearly 3 million people in a country of half the area of Iberian peninsula would be quite fair, after all.
The only problem then is that Faerûn countries are too small! But that's another question :P. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2010 : 01:51:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
I think most of the figures in the FRCS are probably just made up.
The designers boasted at the time that the country and city populations had been recalculated and overhauled. As I saw it, the few genuine problems, like the inflated FR3 figure for Calimshan, were used to insinuate that all the published numbers were out of whack, leading to some rather pointless ups and downs of city figures.quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
But... well, I understand that FR 3rd edition went under a total reformation about demographics and geography, so FR Atlas may be outdate.
I think each passing year makes it clearer that the 3E geography, changed for the non-worldbuilding, non-Realmslore reasons we know so well, is the aberrant one. |
|
|
|
lowtech
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2010 : 02:29:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
The only problem then is that Faerûn countries are too small! But that's another question :P.
The presence of magic, divine influences and fantastical creatures dominating difficult terrain can easily (if not always consistently) explain many of the differences between the Realms and real-world historical counter-parts. For instance, relative gender equality, magical contraception and widespread literacy (all largely on account of magic and activist divine influences) would all result in lower Total Fertility Rates and therefore lower rates of population growth even in relatively stable and prosperous areas. Also, the presence of magic can enable targeted long-distance colonization and military campaigns while at the same time the basic level of transportation and communications technology will not support large nation-states (which in the real-world require different levels of technology and different types of institutions to function well than was the case with the territorially larger empires of old). In short, just because magic enables some parallels with the High Middle Ages or even the Reneissance(sic), overall economic conditions might be more comparable to the fall of the western Roman Empire (or even earlier). |
|
|
|
Arzakon
Seeker
Spain
58 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2010 : 09:12:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by lowtech
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
The only problem then is that Faerûn countries are too small! But that's another question :P.
The presence of magic, divine influences and fantastical creatures dominating difficult terrain can easily (if not always consistently) explain many of the differences between the Realms and real-world historical counter-parts. For instance, relative gender equality, magical contraception and widespread literacy (all largely on account of magic and activist divine influences) would all result in lower Total Fertility Rates and therefore lower rates of population growth even in relatively stable and prosperous areas. Also, the presence of magic can enable targeted long-distance colonization and military campaigns while at the same time the basic level of transportation and communications technology will not support large nation-states (which in the real-world require different levels of technology and different types of institutions to function well than was the case with the territorially larger empires of old). In short, just because magic enables some parallels with the High Middle Ages or even the Reneissance(sic), overall economic conditions might be more comparable to the fall of the western Roman Empire (or even earlier).
When I spoke about gender equality, I understood there was no real difference when you play an adventurer, but even if the peasant have full equality, I don't think it should be negative for population growth; after all, It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman, you'll probably be stuck for the rest of your life to a town/village or, mor probably, a farming land, under the direction of a noble or a rich landlord. If you do not really have to care about modern life issues (studies, economics, etc.) and you have a low life quality, then I assure you most of them would have descendancy at the same rate it was until XX century. You know, kids are useful when working in the field and there are no great technological advances.
Magical contraception would, in that case, be useless. Poor people would actually really want to have children, and only the richest could really afford these kind of things. If a peasan earns a silver coin per day, and a magical conraception for just ONE use costs some gold coins (a peasant doesn't even know what a gold coin is :P), I don't think it should be enough to stop population growth.
And about widespread literacy... well, I see the realms some way similar to de XIX century about that. You know, rich people, and even some poor people with a bit of luck can really have studies and so on. I haven't still seen any information related to public funds to raise schools (and I have done something like that in my games), so I assume that even if most people know reading and writing... they only know that. Do not talk about theology with a peasant, he will not understand anything. As far as I know, and the way I handle it, only a small percentage of population risk their lives adventuring, only a small percentage are rich or middle class and, of course, only a few become mages. There was an official proportion of mages per total population, and it was soooo small. I don't recall it, but it was tiny, less than 1%. So wizards and sorcerers, even if powerful, are not so relevant. They tend to isolate, so most people will not even cross a wizard in their whole life. Adventurers are much the same, but less isolationist, and still they're not common.
About the technologic conditions and the comparison with the Roman Empire, well, the late Roman Empire was not as bad as people think. After all, the road system didn't collapse, and even if most people see the late Roman Empire as crumbling and disintegrating, reality was far from different. Moreover, the censuses and the overall knowledge about the late empire is quite interesting because the massive bureaucracy. The early middle ages were ungrateful for roads and communications, and about the late middle ages and the rennaissance there are no great roads, there are not even great docks. Barcelona, with all its commerce which was somewhat similar to Genoa and Venice, didn't even have a dock. Many great vessels had to use small boats to unload their cargo to the beach. So, if you compare the Forgotten Realms with the Roman Empire... there should be even better commerce, communications and even education. I've always seen Neteheril age as the parallel with the Roman Empire. The times of Waterdeep, Amn, Cormyr, Thay and so on are the times of the late middle ages. At least for me.
And finally, specifically about communications, Amn is not a large nation-state. Not as the USA or Russia or something like that. As I said before, it's, overall, like Spain. And during the XIV century, when Castille had nearly totally conquered the muslim kingdoms, it had no great communications; but even if it had poor roads (no roads, really; just "paths" used often) and a terrible orography, they could manage to administrate the whole country. Why would Amn be less? They have a mercantilist society (not like the feudal societies all over Faerûn), they have three great rivers which can be used for inner commerce (and they really use them, a lot; Crimmor harbor is on the river, and it's a big harbor), and they even have royal roads (from the time before the Council of Six). If you take a look at the map, you'll notice communications shouldn't really be a big problem. The only problem is the mountain pass over the Small Teeth and the other one leading to Nashkell; that's why Murann is occupied by the ogres, Trademeet totally destroyed and Riatavin annexed to Tethyr under the leadership of the richest people of the city, tired of being ignored by the central authority. So, let's say, Central Amn, which is the majority of Amn, do not have any problem related to communications. Therefore, I still think its overall population should be higher. |
Edited by - Arzakon on 24 Jan 2010 09:18:29 |
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2010 : 10:57:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
So I assume population given on the core rulebooks are the real quantity.
I assume that too. But, as your question shows, some of the populations don't support the other information.
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
By the way, I'm SO grateful for that link. I love those kind of things.
It's good fun, isn't it. For my own setting, I don't rely on that calculator, simply because my setting is mid-Renaissance without firearms, and crop rotation has been introduced.
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
Let's assume Amn has a lot of fertile lands, and a 30% of arable land. Would amnians really use all that arable land? You know, I don't know exactly how do you call it, but there are a lot of lands in property of churchs and nobles not producing food. That's why during the XIX century most countries expropiated those unproductive lands. And therefore, as Amn is, after all, a medieval country, there should be at least a reasonable percentage of land belonging to people who doesn't really care about farming. And even a lot of arable lands would just be no man's land. If all land was used, then there should be no place for population growing, except for new farming techniques to be discovered; and that's not the case. The total land really used for farming should bet far less than the total.
How I define arable land, is land that is actually being farmed, whether that be cereals, livestock or fruit. I wouldn't think of using potential arable land as a figure, because that figure can change. The sensible figure to use is the proportion of land that is currently in use.
As for large landowners, they may have large tracts of wilderness to enjoy hunting in, or large areas of grazing land to raise sheep for wool, but they would also have large numbers of tenant farmers or serfs working their land too. In a medieval setting income came from land ownership. The monasteries grew powerful because successive nobles and royals donated lands to them.
I think the Domesday book lists about 30% of the land belonging to the king, another rough third to the church and then the final third to the nobility. (Very rough figures, not the exact ones.)
28% arable land leaves a lot of empty land that supports very little people. Of course, not everyone lives on the arable land, or is even supported by it. Fishing villages on the coast and rivers have a good way of feeding themselves, and forests are full of game.
But really what we're focussing on is grain. Wheat for bread and barley for beer. Which most people would rely on for drink, beer being safer to drink than water.
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
And about the area of Amn... I don't know what is FRCS :/. But when I used FR Atlas, I had two areas: one of 450.000 km2 and another one of 520.000 km2 (I made a small one and another one expanding a little bit over the eastern areas of Amn). But... well, I understand that FR 3rd edition went under a total reformation about demographics and geography, so FR Atlas may be outdate. If Amn is smaller than I previously thought, then I may be totally wrong about demographics. A population of nearly 3 million people in a country of half the area of Iberian peninsula would be quite fair, after all.
The FRCS I'm referring to is the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting for the 3rd Edition. My calculation was very rough, I multiplied the north-south extent by the east-west extent to get about 300,000 square kilometres. I think given Amn's location 28% arable land is a reasonable estimation. Most European countries have about 20 - 40% arable land.
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
The only problem then is that Faerûn countries are too small! But that's another question :P.
I tend to think of them as too big really. But that's a separate debate. |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
|
|
|
Arzakon
Seeker
Spain
58 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2010 : 13:06:40
|
Hmm, that's ok then. I didn't understand what you tried to mean when speaking about arable land. And after all, I've been making some proportional calculations... and it seems ok. You know, during the reign of Philip II, as a I said before, there was an overall population of 9-10 million people (Portugal, Aragon and Castille, the whole iberian peninsula). The area of that union was around 590.000 km2, so if you say an area of 300.000 km2 could be home to 5 million people... it's nearly half of the population for half its area. That's perfect for me :D.
I'll arrange some other areas, distances and everything I need to have an average idea of Amn's geography and demography, and speak to my players. That pop. calculator is really useful after all :). Thanks.
By the way, even if it has nothing to do with this issue, I'd like to know why do you think the realms are too big. I want to know other GMs opinions on the matter, because it'll be very helpful when GMing.ç
EDIT: I took some political maps of the realms just to see the real area of Amn, and the result is smaller than I previously thought. This time I had a result of 380.000 km2. 3 million people is still a small number, but now a population of 5-7 million people seems reasonable enough. Using the link you gave me, with a total of 28% arable land (quite enough), the result is 7,6 million people, which is rougly equivalent to the amount of people living in Hispania during the Roman Empire. Maybe it's a high number, after all, as Hispania has 580.000 km2, but the geography is not the same, and Amn has a lot more plain lands and less hills. Anyway, I'll have to search for more info. |
Edited by - Arzakon on 24 Jan 2010 13:57:15 |
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2010 : 18:11:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
Hmm, that's ok then. I didn't understand what you tried to mean when speaking about arable land. And after all, I've been making some proportional calculations... and it seems ok. You know, during the reign of Philip II, as a I said before, there was an overall population of 9-10 million people (Portugal, Aragon and Castille, the whole iberian peninsula). The area of that union was around 590.000 km2, so if you say an area of 300.000 km2 could be home to 5 million people... it's nearly half of the population for half its area. That's perfect for me :D.
Nearer to 6 than to 5, but that makes sense given the fact that a good part of the Iberian peninsula is arid, high plateau.
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
I'll arrange some other areas, distances and everything I need to have an average idea of Amn's geography and demography, and speak to my players. That pop. calculator is really useful after all :). Thanks.
That calculator gives you average distances between cities, towns and villages too.
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
By the way, even if it has nothing to do with this issue, I'd like to know why do you think the realms are too big.
Hmm, I'll have to clarify your question first. The Realms, taken as Fearun are fine in size. But the Realms taken as constituent states tend to be a bit bigger than I'd have designed.
Very few states in medieval Europe got to be as big as Amn at 115,000 miles square (a bit smaller than modern Poland). For example, the Holy Roman Empire was a patchwork of small states. England was and is about 50,000 square miles. France was a big state but areas of it were fairly autonomous, and could break away under weak kings. Looking at a map of modern Europe doesn't show many states bigger than Amn. Germany and Poland are a similar size. Spain, France and the Ukraine are much bigger, of course. The Scandinavian countries have a lot of land, but not much of it is suitable for arable farming.
Empires typically form by local rulers acknowledging the conqueror as over-lord.
It depends on your viewpoint. Some might look at the UK see a single state of 90,000+ square miles. Whereas, I see England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Cornwall and Man.
To get back to the Realms, large states need strong rulers, otherwise they fragment. Alexander's empire being a good example.
To get back to Poland, you have there Silesia, Pomerania, Greater Poland and Lesser Poland, and probably more too. Romania was formed from Moldavia, Transylvania and Wallachia. So my point is that above a certain size states tend to pull apart without a strong ruler, and even with a strong ruler, regions tend to have their own identity. It's only in the last century or two that standard forms of language have been imposed, such as in France, Hoch Deutsch in Germany, RP in the UK, etc.
Hopefully, that's explained it. I'm sure there are contrasting, and equally valid, opinions, which I have no wish to argue about. |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
Edited by - Kiaransalyn on 24 Jan 2010 18:15:28 |
|
|
|
Arzakon
Seeker
Spain
58 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2010 : 19:46:12
|
Wow, thanks for answering. You seem to know what you're talking about. Many of my colleagues at university doesn't even know many names you used :P. Anyway, I didn't notice that particular issue, and you're right about medieval countries; if you don't want to argue about this, it's ok, but I have something you may find useful. For example, Tethyr is a big country (nearly the same as Amn), but after all, even if it is considered a country, Land of Intrigue cover each dukedom separately, as regions of Tethyr. So, even if there's a "Tethyr" idea and a Tethyr king or queen, most nobles are the real authority of their lands; much the same as medieval france and the Holy Roman Empire. Even Thay have zharks with their zharkions (I don't know if it is "tharkions", as I have the spanish edition, which translated many names phonetically), and if you take a look at many other realms, you'll find the same (Chessenta, many city-states all over Vilhon Reach and the Sword coast, etc). Only a few countries, like Mulhorand, Unther or even Calimshan, have real central authorities.
Anyway, I won't insist in this issue if you don't want :). I just think these ideas may be helpful. |
Edited by - Arzakon on 24 Jan 2010 19:48:48 |
|
|
|
MrHedgehog
Senior Scribe
688 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 00:14:56
|
I've always been more astounded at the populations seeming large in such a dangerous world.
I don't know how we could calculate fantasy elements into population growth and death rates though.
How common are clerics(druids, bards, adepts) ? Does the existence of these spellcasters increase population because of healing magic and the like lead to a greater population? Or does the fact that there are evil clerics around lead to a lower population (or do they balance each other out?)
What appears to be widespread education might also lead to greater populations. Even the Romans didn't know what caused disease. But a cleric could find the answer out by communing with a deity and spreading the knowledge. "Wash your hands before you eat!" "Don't use lead pipes! So sayeth Gond! (the fact that sewage systems seem to exist would also lessen disease) Although Talonites create disease if you pay them they cure it as well, and if you propiate them they won't spread it in your community, would they?
Also in the real medieval world there weren't clerics influenced by absolutely good deities who checked what they did around. Presumably the influence of say Tyr and Lathander in Neverwinter would lead to less murder and a more harmonious society. Priests in the real world don't lose their power if they piss off their God = P And they actually have to do what their god wants to some degree in the realms. |
|
|
|
lowtech
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 02:43:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
When I spoke about...
All of those are good points, but I suspect contraception would be more widely available than you think (it could even be as simple as a divine blessing from a priestess of Chauntea, applicable until revoked later) and norms of gender equality combined with relative gender equality in the economic realm will have a notable impact on total fertility rates due to trade-offs between child-rearing and other interests (I'm not saying total fertility rates would be equivalent to modern, developed-world standards, just substantially reduced-perhaps an average of 4-5 children per women among rural populations, and less among urban populations). Now combine this with periodic orc raids, magical calamities, etc... |
|
|
|
rjfras
Learned Scribe
261 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 06:04:06
|
| Calimshan for example, doesn't count all the slaves in their population... if i remember right, they only count land owners don't they? |
|
|
|
Arzakon
Seeker
Spain
58 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 13:06:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by lowtech
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
When I spoke about...
All of those are good points, but I suspect contraception would be more widely available than you think (it could even be as simple as a divine blessing from a priestess of Chauntea, applicable until revoked later) and norms of gender equality combined with relative gender equality in the economic realm will have a notable impact on total fertility rates due to trade-offs between child-rearing and other interests (I'm not saying total fertility rates would be equivalent to modern, developed-world standards, just substantially reduced-perhaps an average of 4-5 children per women among rural populations, and less among urban populations). Now combine this with periodic orc raids, magical calamities, etc...
I do not really think contraceptions should be so common. I've always seen magical things as something uncommon, so I don't even take care of those weird stories like the one of Baldur's Gate where a high cleric´s son dies and his father resurrects him and punish him for dying... I don't like widespread magic. It has to be some way similar to LOTR, where magic is uncommon, and far more subtle. And natural conraceptions would not be of common use as it wasn't in ancient Rome. Only rich people, as I said before, would really use that.
After all, books like Dungeon Master Handbook and Dungeon Master Handbook II protrait society as a normal medieval society, just with some different things. But the common peasant would likely be the same in a fantasy world than in the real world. Magic, adventurers, even the elves should be a strange thing to see. There are a few exceptions, though. Halruaa, Thay, Nimbral and some other countries encourage magic users and they're part of the society. But that's an exception.
And about orcs raids... well, all of you are right, orc raids would have a negative impact on demography; but the middle ages were not peaceful times. I just recall the long war of Charlemagne against the saxons, wich took nearly all of his reign to complete, and it was a bloody campaign. Many were killed. So what makes the difference with the orcs? If the orcs are constantly attacking towns and villages, countries would be less inclined to make war to its neighbors. More raids, less money and less manpower. So, if they actually have enough resources to make war, maybe orcs raids are not that common. Ok, there's a real danger, after all, but I don't think it has to be more dangerous than the raids of the hungarians during the IX century.
So, I still think peasant families would be much the same as medieval ones. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
|
|
Cleric Generic
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
565 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 16:18:27
|
When population becomes an issue, I've always gone with the justification that Faerun is a spectacularly lethal environment where only the strongest survive, etc. It may not be particularly realistic, but the main function of the Realms (in my opinion) is to be a place to adventure, and the more wreckage of civilisation and savage wilderness you've got between towns and cities, the more leeway you have to introduce looney adventuring stuff.
Plague, war and famine are already pretty good at keeping human populations down, but once you add orcs, dragons, demons, undead and malevolent deities, you've got an environment where you need to be seriously hard just to make it to adulthood, even with the more benevolent counterparts ot the above behind you (hardly guaranteed). |
Cedric! The Cleric Generic and Master of Disguise!
ALL HAIL LORD KARSUS!!!
Vast Realmslore Archive: Get in here and download everything! http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/rl
2e Realms book PDFs; grab em! - http://poleandrope.blogspot.com/2010/07/working-around-purge.html |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 17:18:24
|
This is and interesting topic, however one must remember FR has some of the trappings of Medieval Earth it has also been stated that looking at the details more deeply there are many differences. Things like literacy rates for example.
A few years ago I did some research on what it would take to feed a Earth realm (bookmarks on other computer) and while sources varied a little it did tend to average out as one acre of land could feed one adult. This is pre-taxes and infers good farm land, good growing season. The amount of land required of course increases if one has family, beasts of burden and pay taxes that could be as much as one half of what they produced. It also depends on what crops were grown. This is a good starting place for looking at FR food supply, there are differences that need to be looked at in RL the average human needs to eat about 3 pounds of food a day and in D&D a human only needs one pound of food and can not starve to death at all. Then there is magic to increase crop yields, transform more land into farm land and of course make magical food. Thus comparing food production between Earth and FR is not a good basics to calculate population.
I recall a reference that some countries are too large because of distance. Om Earth the quickest travel was likely by horse, though perhaps sometimes a boat could travel faster. FR has minor things like teleportation, portals and fast means of travel (flying mounts and magical items) so control of a region is extended based on travel restrictions per day. That is an Earth Kingdom having a 5 days border to border travel the territory controlled would be far less then an FR Kingdom still using a limit of 5 days travel. FR Kingdom could be 16 times larger just with ability to fly. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Arzakon
Seeker
Spain
58 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 17:18:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Actually, it's been noted that contraceptions are very common, both alchemical and magical.
They're common in cities, not in villages. And a hight percentage of people lives in villages. People living in cities may have access to those contraceptions, but there are many more middle class people living in cities than in the fields.
And even if they're somewhat common, they're quite expensive for poor people. I remember I played with a LN Conjurer with a high alchemy skill, and I asked my GM if I could make some money making contraception potions for nobles. We had to take a look to Arms and Equipment guide, GM Handbook and so on, and it was quite expensive. Most potions are valued over 10 gold coins. Even "common" alchemical potions are very expensive. For example, in Arms and Equipment Guide, the less expensive one can be sold for 1 gp; there are only two potions under 10 gp. And even alchemical reagents are quite expensive for the common people. Why? Because peasants, and even many people living in the cities, do not earn more than 1-5 silver pieces per day. An apprentice (of an architect or alchemist, for example) earns 5 sp per day. The common peasant only earn a silver piece. So, if the contraception is valued over 5 or 10 gold pieces (and I recall it was not that cheap), would a peasant, or even an apprentice, spend all his savings for two or three months just for the contraception? If I had to spend 3000 $ or more for just a bunch of contraceptions... I would likely "forget" to use them, you know what I mean. So I don't think they should be as common as people think.
quote:
Originally posted by Cleric Generic
When population becomes an issue, I've always gone with the justification that Faerun is a spectacularly lethal environment where only the strongest survive, etc. It may not be particularly realistic, but the main function of the Realms (in my opinion) is to be a place to adventure, and the more wreckage of civilisation and savage wilderness you've got between towns and cities, the more leeway you have to introduce looney adventuring stuff.
Plague, war and famine are already pretty good at keeping human populations down, but once you add orcs, dragons, demons, undead and malevolent deities, you've got an environment where you need to be seriously hard just to make it to adulthood, even with the more benevolent counterparts ot the above behind you (hardly guaranteed).
Ok, it's a valid opinion on the matter. But I've already said that, for my games at least, I don't like apocalyptic settings. I think there's enough room for adventuring, magic, killin dragons and pursuing orcs without using a permanent-danger theme. Furthermore, for political games, intrigue games and other kind of games which do not really need a lot of violence, such settings are not useful. I've grown very tired of apocalyptic games as they're overexploited, with epic games where the adventurers not only save the country they live in, they save the very world they live in. Even if they were asked to kill the evil archmage when they had only lvl 2, because a deity was watching over their actions from the beginning of their adventures. May seem a bit exaggerated, but many games are really the same. And usually that kind of games are quite... simple. But that's another question, it has nothing to do with demography.
Anyway, I think I've made my point. I don't think that settings are coherent, and I don't think they're useful, either. And assuming that, population rates are quite small. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 18:08:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Actually, it's been noted that contraceptions are very common, both alchemical and magical.
They're common in cities, not in villages. And a hight percentage of people lives in villages. People living in cities may have access to those contraceptions, but there are many more middle class people living in cities than in the fields.
And even if they're somewhat common, they're quite expensive for poor people. I remember I played with a LN Conjurer with a high alchemy skill, and I asked my GM if I could make some money making contraception potions for nobles. We had to take a look to Arms and Equipment guide, GM Handbook and so on, and it was quite expensive. Most potions are valued over 10 gold coins. Even "common" alchemical potions are very expensive. For example, in Arms and Equipment Guide, the less expensive one can be sold for 1 gp; there are only two potions under 10 gp. And even alchemical reagents are quite expensive for the common people. Why? Because peasants, and even many people living in the cities, do not earn more than 1-5 silver pieces per day. An apprentice (of an architect or alchemist, for example) earns 5 sp per day. The common peasant only earn a silver piece. So, if the contraception is valued over 5 or 10 gold pieces (and I recall it was not that cheap), would a peasant, or even an apprentice, spend all his savings for two or three months just for the contraception? If I had to spend 3000 $ or more for just a bunch of contraceptions... I would likely "forget" to use them, you know what I mean. So I don't think they should be as common as people think.
Actually, the herbs are VERY common. Cassil herbs suppress male fertility and is a small shrub akin to a mustard plant. Grinding up the seeds into a powder renders a man infertile for 3d4 days. The female equivalent Nararoot, is a woody tuber that tastes of licorice that can be brewed into a tea (d4+2 days) or chewed raw (2d4+4 days), rendering them infertile. Since both are herbs that can be grown, I don't see them being expensive or out of reach of rural farmers.
[Forgotten Realms Campain Setting, p 96] |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Arzakon
Seeker
Spain
58 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 18:30:43
|
You're right about that herbs. And if you take a look, even if the book says they're common, they're somewhat expensive. I didn't recall nararoot being so cheap, but still, not as easy to buy as nowadays contraceptives. Nararoot is sold for 2 silver pieces (one dose), and Cassil herbs are sold for 1 gold piece (again, one dose). A dose lasts for nearly a week or so. Do you really think people would actually use it? Let's suppose you earn 40 $ in one day of work, and when you go to buy contraceptives, a ONE USE dose is sold to you for 80 $. I'd rather get my self encloistered for the rest of my life :P.
If peasants earn one silver piece per day, and they spend it for living (they do not save the whole silver piece, after all), buying a simple and cheap nararoot would be very difficult for them. Let's assume they save HALF their salary (I don't think so, but that's irrelevant). They would save 5 copper piece per day. So for buying a single dose of nararoot (the cheap one) they would need to work four days. Do you really think peasants would waste all of their savings just for having sex? What about drinking beer, saving enough for tools and other useful things?
So, as you can see, they're still expensive. Peasants, which are the majority of the population, do not really have enough resources to use contraceptives. |
Edited by - Arzakon on 25 Jan 2010 18:41:23 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 20:00:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arzakon
You're right about that herbs. And if you take a look, even if the book says they're common, they're somewhat expensive. I didn't recall nararoot being so cheap, but still, not as easy to buy as nowadays contraceptives. Nararoot is sold for 2 silver pieces (one dose), and Cassil herbs are sold for 1 gold piece (again, one dose). A dose lasts for nearly a week or so. Do you really think people would actually use it? Let's suppose you earn 40 $ in one day of work, and when you go to buy contraceptives, a ONE USE dose is sold to you for 80 $. I'd rather get my self encloistered for the rest of my life :P.
If peasants earn one silver piece per day, and they spend it for living (they do not save the whole silver piece, after all), buying a simple and cheap nararoot would be very difficult for them. Let's assume they save HALF their salary (I don't think so, but that's irrelevant). They would save 5 copper piece per day. So for buying a single dose of nararoot (the cheap one) they would need to work four days. Do you really think peasants would waste all of their savings just for having sex? What about drinking beer, saving enough for tools and other useful things?
So, as you can see, they're still expensive. Peasants, which are the majority of the population, do not really have enough resources to use contraceptives.
Well economy of D&D does not add up, however most peasants would have an occupation (farming) and under 3.X rules would earn at least 5 gold per week. They are not the unskilled labour in the cities that work for 1 silver per day. As far as that pay scale goes odds are that at least a mid day meal is provided and for someone hired for two or more days likely would receive room and board. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Arzakon
Seeker
Spain
58 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 20:27:09
|
Dungeon Master Handbook, page 105 (at least, the spanish edition).
Service salaries (per day):
Artisan: 3 sp; Alchemist: 1 gp; Architect: 5 sp; Lackey (not sure about some translations; sorry): 2 sp; Laborer: 1 sp; Groom: 15 cp; Cook: 1 sp; Smith: 4 sp; Mounted mercenary: 4 sp; Foot mercenary: 2 sp; Mercenary leader: 6 sp; Procurator/Attorney (not sure about this one too): 1 gp; Savant/Wise man: 2 gp.
There are some more jobs, but I didn't even know how to translate them. But, as you see, even liberal professions such as architects are not so well paid. An architect would also have some difficulties to buy nararoot or the male herb. A farmhand would likely earn a silver piece per day, as I said before. I don't know where did you get 5 gold pieces per week, but I think a gold piece is a very valuable currency, and only the middle classes would really use them from time to time; they would, anyway, use silver pieces for day-to-day payments. Peasants would likely use copper pieces. Only high classes would use gold pieces. Maybe a savant, or even an alchemist (indeed, a rare job) would likely use gold currency. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2010 : 20:49:12
|
We still need to see which edition you are using?
I used 3.5 for this.
quote:
Profession (Wis; Trained Only)
Like Craft, Knowledge, and Perform, Profession is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Profession skills, each with its own ranks, each purchased as a separate skill. While a Craft skill represents ability in creating or making an item, a Profession skill represents an aptitude in a vocation requiring a broader range of less specific knowledge.
Check
You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems.
This tends to make weekly income about 5 gp per week (taking 10) though Wis modifier and number of ranks clearly will change the average.
Or course you might consider farming then was an untrained skill. IAE D&D economy does not work at all based on numbers provided. There is required benefits in addition to coin or all untrain would stave and be unable to work. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Demography on the realms
