<>
There is no random table for determination of a character's social status to be found here.

That is because the inclusion of such a factor will either tell
you little or nothing of useful nature, or it will abridge your freedom with
respect to development of your campaign milieu. That is, if such a table
tells you only a little so as not to force a social structure upon your
campaign, the table can contain nothing of use. If it states rank, it presupposes
you will, in fact, have such classes in your campaign when you
might not desire them at all. There are dozens of possible government
forms, each of which will have varying social classes, ranks, or castes.
Which sort you choose for your milieu is strictly your own prerogative.
While this game is loosely based on Feudal European technology, history
and myth, it also contains elements from the Ancient Period, parts of more
modern myth, and the mythos of many authors as well. Within its
boundaries all sorts of societies and cultures can exist, and there is nothing
to dictate that their needs be Feudal European.
In THE DRAGON magazine (#25; Vol. 3, No. 11, May 1979) there appeared an article written by me
which outlines this very precept and lists a number of government forms
which could be employed by the DM in his or her milieu.
Actually, some, all, or none of them could appear in the "world" of any given campaign.
To aid the harassed referee, I have listed these forms again.
<not all of them ... anarchism is missing>
Additionally, a list of nobility (or authorities) in various medieval cultures is given.
I have included the latter as many DMs prefer to base their campaign upon
a society of this sort, for they can then draw upon its historical data for
game purposes.

Once a set of social structures and cultures has been devised for the
campaign, you may or may not find it useful to assign rank, class, or caste to player characters.
Will your society have hereditary rank?
Will it go only to males?
females?
both equally?
Will only the first-born inherit?
Will any inheritance of property be required to be the entire estate to one individual?
Deciding government form and culture might well delineate much of the social structure of the nation, state, or city in question.
<>

Let us assume a social structure of an aristocracy which is non-hereditary.
    Members of this ruling class are those who have served in the military,
    own property of 100 or more acres extent, and pay an annual tax of not
    less than 10 gold pieces on their income. Land ownership may be waived
    in the case of merchants and tradesmen whose business is such that they
    pay not less than 20 gold pieces in taxes each year. In any event, the
    aristocrats are the only persons eligible for any government office, command
    of the military, and from their number are elected senators who pass laws and legislate in general.
    Former senators are eligible to election to various tribunals and judgeships.
    Former military officers are appointed by senatorial vote to keep the peace and police the land.

    The majority of citizens of this state are small land holders, tradesmen, and
    various workers. They provide the food and goods and labor which make
    the economy stable. These people are likewise obligated to serve in the
    military, and if they serve with distinction, they will be awarded land or
    stipends which will elevate them to the aristocracy. Of course, industry,
    marriage or other means can move any of these citizens to a higher status.
    Only a few persons are actually enslaved - criminals and captives of war.
    A large number of the workers are bound to labor for a fixed period, and
    some must likewise serve apprenticeships. These individuals have the
    hope of eventually earning sufficient funds to become landowners or rich
    merchants or tradesmen themselves.

    In such a society, adventurers would come from the younger children of
    aristocrats -- those who will inherit little and wish to remain in the favored
    class. Some would come from the middle group - adventurous persons
    who aim at becoming members of the aristocracy through successes in
    such adventures. Few, if any, would come from the lowest class, i.e. the
    bondsmen and common laborers. Assigning a social class to player
    characters in such a society would not have any particular value unless
    you also devised various rivalries within the classes.

<UA SC tables would fit or link from here>
With this brief example in mind, it is easy to see how pointless it is to blindly plug in a set of "birth tables" based on some form of hereditary,
quasi-European nobility which may have absolutely no meaning within any of the states of your campaign milieu.
Furthermore, any use of such material must be carefully considered even if your campaign does have such a society and titles of rank,
viz. do you really believe that one of your PCs should be the first born son of a maior noble or a ruler?
If so, why is he adventuring?
Where are his guards and retainers?
Does his father know his whereabouts?
If so, why is he allowing the heir to his title and estates to risk his life in such a foolish manner?
Similarly, do such tables have a logical precedence and order?
Are there offices which do not logically belong within a feudal society?
Are there classes which are contradictory, anachronistic, or meaningless?
Unless you specifically tailor your milieu to fit such tables,
it is likely that there will be far too many "yes" answers to the above questions.
The intelligent verdict must be that each DM has to accept the responsibility of deciding for himself or herself if assigning class distinctions is a vital part of his or her campaign.
If such is necessary, then the DM must further accept the work of devising his or her own logical birth tables, drawn from a society, culture, and government form developed to fit the overall milieu.
This is unquestionably a tall order.
Those referees who lack time will find that it is perhaps better for them to utilize one of the several campaign scenarios commercially available, adding personal touches, of course, but basically relying on the cultural and societal developments of the unit.

Even with such ready-made campaign settings,
you may or may not wish to include social classes immediately for player characters.
    My own GREYHAWK campaign, for example, assumes all player characters (unless I personally place one who is otherwise) are freemen or gentlemen,
    or at worst they can safely represent themselves to be so.
    (Note that the mascuine/human usage is generic; I do not like the terms freecreatures or gentlebeings!)
    Outstanding activity can (and has) brought knighthood or social status to certain characters. <link:GH>
    This was carefully planned as a reward if the characters succeeded, and it now allows them much latitude of action and assurance of reliable aid in certain realms --
    but it likewise has earned them the enmity of others.
With all of that out of the way,
consider the list of a few of the possible governmental forms and then the lists of noble/official titles.

Government Forms:

<
ANARCHY

Note: Anarchy (  ) is mentioned in the original of this article, in D25.
For some unknown reason, it was left out of the DMG. A mistake?

>

AUTOCRACY - Government which rests in self-derived, absolute power,
typified by a hereditary emperor, for example.

BUREAUCRACY - Government by department, rule being through the
heads of the various departments ond conducted by their chief administrators.

CONFEDERACY - Government by a league of (possibly diverse) social
entities so designed as to promote the common good of each.

DEMOCRACY - Government by the people, i.e. the established body of
citizens, whether through direct role or through elected representatives.

DICTATORSHIP - Government whose final authority rests in the hands of one supreme head.

FEODALITY - Government of a feudal nature where each successive layer
of authority derives power and authority from the one above and
pledges fealty likewise.

GERIATOCRACY - Government reserved to the elderly or very old

GYNARCHY - Government reserved to females only.

HIERARCHY - Government which is typically religious in nature and
generally similar to a feodality.

MAGOCRACY - Government by professional magic-users only.

MATRIARCHY - Government by the eldest females of whatever social units exist.

MILITOCRACY - Government headed by the military leaders and the armed forces in general.

MONARCHY - Government by a single sovereign, usually hereditary,
whether an absolute ruler or with power limited in some form (such as
the English monarchs, limited in rule by the Magna Carta).

OLIGARCHY - Government by a few (usually absolute) rulers who are co-equal.

PEDOCRACY - Government by the learned, savants, and scholars.

PLUTOCRACY - Government by the wealthy.

REPUBLIC - Government by representatives of an established electorate
who rule in behalf of the electors.

SYNDICRACY - Government by a body of syndics, each representing some business interest.

THEOCRACY - Government by god-rule, that is, rule by the direct
representative of the god.

This listing is by no means exhaustive, and you should feel free to use
other forms, or invent your own, as the needs of your particular campaign
direct.
 

<purple for the royals?>

Royal And Noble Titles: (Northern European):

 

Emperor/Empress	-	-	-
King/Queen	-	-	-
-	Archbishop	-	-
Duke/Duchess	-	Pfalzgraf	-
Prince/Princess	-	Herzog	-
Marquis/Marquise	-	Margrave	-
Count (Earl)/Countess	-	Graf	-
-	Bishop	-	-
Viscount/Viscountess	-	Waldgraf	-
Baron (Thane)/Baroness	-	-	-
-	Abott	-	-
Baronet	-	Freiherr	Seigneur
Knight	-	Ritter	Chevalier
-	Prior	-	-

<fini links>

Knights are non-hereditary peers.
Their precedence (or importance) falls variously depending upon the order of knighthood they hold.
Various officials of the court will rank amongst the nobility;
an excellent discussion of this will be found in a good encyclopedia under Precedence, <Order of Precedence?> <Order of Succession?>
or in the appropriate section of TSRs WORLD OF GREYHAWK.

Royal And Noble Titles: (Asian Forms):

 

Padishah	Maharaja	Kha-Khan	-	-
-	-	-	-	Tarkhan
Sultan	Shah	Rajah	Ilkhan	-
Dey	Caliph	-	-	-
Bey	-	-	Orkhon	-
Bashaw	-	-	-	-
Pasha	-	-	-	-
Emir	Amir	-	Khan	-
-	Sheikh	Nawab	-	-
-	-	Malik	-	-

<an arabic-style font (etc) would be ok for some of these>

You may find it interesting to mix titles, invent them,
and place the whole in the campaign setting you devise accordingly.
Research in various histories will be helpful, as will be a copy of a good thesaurus. <>

OUT ON A LIMB

More on social class; Gamma World
Dear Editor:
I found TD #25 to be one of the best issues in a
long time. A few of the articles were really poor, but
this was more than made up for by the cover art
and the group of articles by James Ward.

Let me say from the beginning that I am very,
very tired of Mr. Gygax’s rumbling ramblings on
why AD&D® is the one true RPG. His point on the
use of social class in FRP was well taken, but the
space he took up was not. I think that there is place
for social class in D&D®, but to just throw in a chart
with dice roll down the side is foolish unless the DM
(or game designer) does something with it.

In many cases, social standing becomes an excuse
for a lowly, bratty character to take command
of the group. In some cases it is used to great
advantage. Chivalry and Sorcery, for all its faults,
stands almost entirely on class consciousness. And
I love it. But the DM had much more work to do.

Social class in my campaigns is a starting point
for personality. If you are a barbarian, by all means
act like one. If you are a noble, look down your
nose at everyone else. These one line personality
traits do not do justice to class, but the germ is
there.

Another point in relation to social class is the
inclusion of other types of people. Where do Elves
fit in? What about the really weird types, like
Phraints? Obviously, the feudal class structure of
Europe will not work for D&D the way it is usually
played. First, ruined castles and dungeons would
probably be the property of someone, and adventuring
in them would be akin to poaching in the
king’s forest. In a magic-intensive world, it would
be hard to hide the origins of your wealth.

[...]

Lance Harrop’s article on orcs was ridiculous.
His criteria are his only. I like the Archive orcs,
snout and all, since they have a set of Drunken
Orcs. I do agree with the criticism of the pig-orc of
TSR. In the only description of orc features that I
remember from LOTR, they are described as having
broad, flat faces (this was an uruk-hai in Moria).

And what is this: “Tolkien’s trolls are D&D’s
ogres”?? Says who? What about the trolls in the
Hobbit? Don’t they count as trolls? I am sure that
Tolkien knew ogres from trolls.
<See 3 HEARTS &&& 3 LIONS>

Finieous returns!!! Hooray! It’s great. AD&D as a
spell book. Potion of malt liquor. Yah!

Who did the excellent cover art? The signature
looks like Pfoglio (?). Who is he? I love it. It’s the
best TD cover ever.

All the articles on Gamma World have aroused
my interest in the game, as I suppose they were
designed to. I especially liked the story. But Allentown
isn’t on the map and Reading is. What gives?
Did a city of 100,000+ just disappear by the time of
the holocaust? I notice Lake Geneva made it onto
the map (no doubt the Playboy Club there figured
prominently in such a decision).

I have but one criticism of Gamma World.
Wouldn’t all that radiation cause a lot of cancer and
outright death? I think that a one-shot blast with no
side effects would work nicer, as it did in Kamandi.

I would be much happier if you got rid of the
Little Wars articles. The Aztec rules seem nice, but I
doubt if I will ever play them.

All in all a good ish.

Later,
Marc Jacobs-Allentown, PA
(The Dragon #29)
 

I’m glad you enjoyed the issue.
THE SORCEROR'S SCROLL is a copyrighted <compile & link>
column by the publisher/author of AD&D. D&D is
the biggest game (involving the most participants)
in the hobby today. While you may not agree with
what a writer says he still has the right to say it
(more on this re Mr. Harrop).

THE DRAGON has tried to establish itself as a
forum for discussion of games and gaming. Surely
there have been other articles that you didn’t like
besides those you mention. As with any forum, TD
will be (hopefully) used to express many different
ideas and philosophies most of which will be at
odds with one or more of the others.

Basically, you seem to agree with what the
author thought (in the case of SCROLL) but <compile & link>
thought he took up too much room in which to say
it. While there is no disputing that Gary Gygax has
the reputation for being controversial, so too does
he have a large following of fans and admirers.
Even many of his critics still read whatever he
writes, even if it is merely to see what they don’t
believe or agree with this time. The point is that he
is read by many, many people, the majority of
whom are eager for further explanation and expansion
of basic tenets of the game and the game’s
design. Any editor that wouldn’t jump at the
chance to print a column by such a figure, regardless
of scope—be it a national political writer, a well
known locally writer or a special field writer such as
Mr. Gygax—isn’t much of an editor.

As I have never read Ben Bova’s story, I can’t
comment one way or the other, except to say that it
was very similar to a story line that I had been trying
to work on for four or five years myself. I have seen
far too many legitimate cases of parallel development
since I got into this business to cry foul without
documentation. It’s perfectly logical that a writing
gamer could fantasize such a machine seemingly
entirely on his own.<move?>

-- Tim Kask (The Dragon #29)

[...]