Experiences Whats making you angry today? Rp pet peeves

[VolcanicAccelerator]

Hello, a whitey white from one of the whitest countries in Europe here. Guess what? We still have POC here. They're a minority, but they do exist. Diplomats etc. have also always been present at courts and such. When people say they cannot imagine a non-white person in a medieval fantasy piece, their imagination is just really fucking poor. And besides, why exclude players over something like that? Is sticking to "historical accuracy" (that is neither historical nor accurate) worth it?

While I agree that thinking non-white people don't have a place in fantasy is stupid, it all depends on what the Author envisions or the areas they build their fantastical universe on.

Yes and white people exist in Africa, there are Asian populations in South America, etc etc etc. Nowadays due to a very open traveling line, just about everyone is just about everywhere, however, if you are a white man, growing up in a British white town, in the early 19th century, your going to have interactions with POC, I'd imagine once every few decades if that. It's completely within reason for someone like that to write from experience and write a universe consisting of white people, that isn't lack of imagination that's falling into human nature and writing from experience, this is why I believe things like LOTR or Narnia have a pass, thats the way their universe is envisioned and its completely within reason to want to keep it the way the Authors envisioned the universe.

 

[Syntra]

While I agree that thinking non-white people don't have a place in fantasy is stupid, it all depends on what the Author envisions or the areas they build their fantastical universe on.

Yes and white people exist in Africa, there are Asian populations in South America, etc etc etc. Nowadays due to a very open traveling line, just about everyone is just about everywhere, however, if you are a white man, growing up in a British white town, in the early 19th century, your going to have interactions with POC, I'd imagine once every few decades if that. It's completely within reason for someone like that to write from experience and write a universe consisting of white people, that isn't lack of imagination that's falling into human nature and writing from experience, this is why I believe things like LOTR or Narnia have a pass, thats the way their universe is envisioned and its completely within reason to want to keep it the way the Authors envisioned the universe.

Obviously, you are free to think whatever you want. That being said, I personally don't respect the authorial intent that much. Like, I would want my partners to have a good time and if they want some representation or whatever, then, in my opinion, they should go for it. Besides, how do we even know that those authors would be against non-white characters appearing in their works? More than likely, a lot of them just didn't think of including them because... well, it's easy to not think about these things when you're surrounded by whiteness only. I know I don't write about POC often, and it's not because they don't exist in my worlds, but because that is what my brain defaults to. I also gravitate towards that which I know. That said, I think preserving something that may well be a bug rather than a feature is not worth alienating the actual, living people on the other end of the screen. Just my two cents.

 

[Aarix]

The slowness of IC time VS OOC time I have a current rp which I love to death and have been playing for two years OOC, several posts a day on most days. IC time passed? Two months. The worst part is there's nothing I'd cut out even in retrospect!!! Got me howling at the moon fr

 

[jump.]

less of an issue with anyone else, and more of a frustration with myself- but i function on momentum? like. if threads are faster paced, or receive regular replies, i find it easier to respond to them. because i'm putting energy into writing, and then getting energy back once someone responds. if that makes sense? so when things slow down or replies become irregular, i lose that momentum. things have slowed down in one of my threads (no replies for over a day) and i have already lost my energy. i spent all day in bed. i haven't been wanting to reply to smaller threads/discord rps. and im nervous that when we do get replies, i just. wont post again because i lost all that momentum? hopefully i won't because i have major brainrot for the character i'm using but just hhhhhh

i just don't understand why my brain can't rp unless it's in a fast-paced environment? like why is THAT of all factors what gives me muse/motivation to write for my threads?

 

[Walliver]

less of an issue with anyone else, and more of a frustration with myself- but i function on momentum? like. if threads are faster paced, or receive regular replies, i find it easier to respond to them. because i'm putting energy into writing, and then getting energy back once someone responds. if that makes sense? so when things slow down or replies become irregular, i lose that momentum. things have slowed down in one of my threads (no replies for over a day) and i have already lost my energy. i spent all day in bed. i haven't been wanting to reply to smaller threads/discord rps. and im nervous that when we do get replies, i just. wont post again because i lost all that momentum? hopefully i won't because i have major brainrot for the character i'm using but just hhhhhh

i just don't understand why my brain can't rp unless it's in a fast-paced environment? like why is THAT of all factors what gives me muse/motivation to write for my threads?

I feel you there
I’m losing the craving to post for a lot of rps just for that reason. If the thing hasn’t gotten a reply in over a week, chances are that I’ll be too disinterested to continue

 

[Green Glow]

Here are my thoughts on things like LOTR I do understand that black people existed in Europe back then but LOTR is based on Celtic and European folklore, there is a grand difference between Celtic and European history and folklore somyes while there may have been POC in those regions during those times it's not really about the history. Tolkien was a descriptive person if there were any POC in his works you'd know it.

That being said I don't think authorial intent matters when it comes to non-canon works i.e. role played, fan-fiction, and other fan works, as long as they follow the rules of the universe I don't think the skin color matters and even on that front of the, you can tweak the rules of the universe to some degree as long as it doesn't become unrecognizable.

I think that if you are adopting an official work then you need to respect the source material and if you're going to change something simply because you want to change it then just say you want to make your own version of it, don't make excuses for why you want to change it, don't try to rationalize it to make it seem okay just say you want to change it. I think that's what annoys me most about things like this, people trying to justify themselves by twisting the author's words instead of just being honest and saying it's what they want to do.

 

[mother of sorrows]

this is kind of in general, but poc have existed in europe for much longer than people might think! romani people have been in europe for a super long time, so to say only white people existed back then wouldn't be historically accurate, either. plus, europe has been in contact with africa and the middle east from roman times (i'm not an actual historian but y'know ) and some european cities saw a lot of foreigners all through history. i'm not trying to convince anybody to play poc, but there are def some things to note.

but on that note, i'm super happy to see more diversity, especially in fantasy!

 

[Green Glow]

this is kind of in general, but poc have existed in europe for much longer than people might think! romani people have been in europe for a super long time, so to say only white people existed back then wouldn't be historically accurate, either. plus, europe has been in contact with africa and the middle east from roman times (i'm not an actual historian but y'know ) and some european cities saw a lot of foreigners all through history. i'm not trying to convince anybody to play poc, but there are def some things to note.

but on that note, i'm super happy to see more diversity, especially in fantasy!

Personally and I'm not saying this about you personally, but here is my point. I'm not saying POC didn't exist in Europe way back when, I'm not speaking against diversity in RP I am also a POC and all of my characters are bi because I prefer them to be with the person they have the best chemistry with. My point was that there is a grand difference between folklore and history and the argument for something like LOTR at least in an official capacity is that it is based on European and Celtic Folklore, yes there were POC in Europe way back when but in context of Folklore were they included because in my experience with folklore from most cultures is there is typically only really one race depicted in them regardless of history. Take for example African Folklore, all the stories I heard growing up and still on to this day were strictly black people regardless of the fact of who also may have existed at the time as well.

That being said I do not believe these restrictions are good for an RP.

 

[nerdy tangents]

Green Glow so folklore is essentially ye olden times fanfiction. So to say “one race is depicted in them” is a bit like saying “all fanfiction has Mary Sues”.

Your basically interpreting fanfiction from hundreds if not thousands of years ago where the context for which it was produced has long since been forgotten.

Folklore, mythology, and the like were just narratives used to explain the unexplainable. It has nothing to do with skin color 99% of the time. I listen to a podcast specifically about folklore and I don’t remember skin colors really being important part of the narrative.

It’s usually more about - this person turned into this animal or crafted this magic item or went on this quest for a mcguffin.

The times when skin color is brought up is usually metaphorical anyway. Like the skin color stands in for either beauty standards or as a narrative device to scare the listeners.

A good modern version of this is Batman (or comic books in general). They are modern version of folklore. And for most comic characters skin color isn’t really super relevant to their storyline. I mean Bruce Wayne could be any ethnicity (white man is probably the most logical given his socio-economic status but it’s not unreasonable to imagine him as non-white).

Because Batman is not white he’s a rich orphan with poor coping mechanisms for his childhood trauma. As long as you get “rich, has poor coping mechanism” the rest you can play around with as needed to tell your story.

So “inspired by folklore” does not really mean “has to feature white European based people.” As most European folklore doesn’t really specify skin color anyway. It’s more usual to specify hair color tbh and ya know POC can be gingers or blondes (especially in fantastical settings). And even if the original story featured white people, that’s not the important plot points.

The important plot points are usually the magic or metaphorical bits.

So like Snow White does not have to be white, it’s more important that she is the most beautiful person in the land and her stepmom gets hella jelly. She could be bright Orange with green hair and it wouldn’t change the important parts of the narrative.

 

[Green Glow]

Green Glow so folklore is essentially ye olden times fanfiction. So to say “one race is depicted in them” is a bit like saying “all fanfiction has Mary Sues”.

Your basically interpreting fanfiction from hundreds if not thousands of years ago where the context for which it was produced has long since been forgotten.

Folklore, mythology, and the like were just narratives used to explain the unexplainable. It has nothing to do with skin color 99% of the time. I listen to a podcast specifically about folklore and I don’t remember skin colors really being important part of the narrative.

It’s usually more about - this person turned into this animal or crafted this magic item or went on this quest for a mcguffin.

The times when skin color is brought up is usually metaphorical anyway. Like the skin color stands in for either beauty standards or as a narrative device to scare the listeners.

A good modern version of this is Batman (or comic books in general). They are modern version of folklore. And for most comic characters skin color isn’t really super relevant to their storyline. I mean Bruce Wayne could be any ethnicity (white man is probably the most logical given his socio-economic status but it’s not unreasonable to imagine him as non-white).

Because Batman is not white he’s a rich orphan with poor coping mechanisms for his childhood trauma. As long as you get “rich, has poor coping mechanism” the rest you can play around with as needed to tell your story.

So “inspired by folklore” does not really mean “has to feature white European based people.” As most European folklore doesn’t really specify skin color anyway. It’s more usual to specify hair color tbh and ya know POC can be gingers or blondes (especially in fantastical settings). And even if the original story featured white people, that’s not the important plot points.

The important plot points are usually the magic or metaphorical bits.

So like Snow White does not have to be white, it’s more important that she is the most beautiful person in the land and her stepmom gets hella jelly. She could be bright Orange with green hair and it wouldn’t change the important parts of the narrative.

Yeah but see here is the issue, there is a difference between "inspired by" and "based on". When something is inspired by something the only certain aspects are used, usually the other all spirit of the tale will be adapted but it's not one for one. If something is based on something then it tends to follow things more closely, this also doesn't mean it's one for one but it's typically closer. Of course folklore is olden times fan fiction that's why I ssi there is a grand difference between folklore and history. However, folklore is more cultural, my point I that people seem to take issue with the fact that something like LOTR has nothing but white people in it, when culturally speaking the folklore it's based on typically has...nothing but white people in it, just like many asian films based on asain folklore have...nothing but asian people in it, but it seems to me like people only really have an issue with it when it's an all white depiction.


Also this particular line of reasoning about the context being lost doesn't really apply here because we literally have the context and the intent given to us by the author. Tolkien was very good an very specific andu describing his world and his characters so there is no way to misconstrue that.

However, on a related note I never said that all the characters had to be white, but the fact of the matter is that in most cases if not all...they were, it doesn't mean that they have to continue to be white in tales to come or in works inspired by them or in retellings. My point is, if you want to change it the jut say you ant to change it, I have no issue with people wanting to write a different take on things, what do not like however, is when people try to change the authors intent and misconstrue things that we were directly told to try and justify doing so when literally all they have to do is say "Hey I want to try this" instead of saying things like "We don't have context" or "We'll never know what the author's intent was" when we literally have documentation upon documentation from the author, their family, friends and colleagues giving you the context and intent plain as day.

Now I'm not saying this about you personally, I'm just saying that I see a lot of people who do this kind of stuff.

 

[nerdy tangents]

My point is folklore is not historical though. It’s like saying “This is based on Batman” or this is “inspired by Batman” either way you are still using a made up story.

So neither option has to have specific ethnicities involved. Cuz the “source” material is 1. Totally fictional B. Not based on specific skin colors.

And Authors intentions are meaningless when it comes to media in general and most especially with things like fantasy.

Cuz yeah there are only so many ways to interpret non-fiction or personal memoirs or other things based on real life events. As they actually happened and you the audience just have to decide how you feel about them.

But fantasy novels are imaginary by the nature of the genre. So authorial intention is meaningless. These stories become classics and enduring works of fiction precisely because individuals can interpret them however they want.

As media remains with us because we put our own interpretation to the stories they tell, not cuz we agree with whatever the author wrote.


Now if you have the same interpretation as the author that’s fine, but that doesn’t make your interpretation more valid then someone who doesn’t.

 

[VolcanicAccelerator]

My point is folklore is not historical though. It’s like saying “This is based on Batman” or this is “inspired by Batman” either way you are still using a made up story.

So neither option has to have specific ethnicities involved. Cuz the “source” material is 1. Totally fictional B. Not based on specific skin colors.

And Authors intentions are meaningless when it comes to media in general and most especially with things like fantasy.

Cuz yeah there are only so many ways to interpret non-fiction or personal memoirs or other things based on real life events. As they actually happened and you the audience just have to decide how you feel about them.

But fantasy novels are imaginary by the nature of the genre. So authorial intention is meaningless. These stories become classics and enduring works of fiction precisely because individuals can interpret them however they want.

As media remains with us because we put our own interpretation to the stories they tell, not cuz we agree with whatever the author wrote.


Now if you have the same interpretation as the author that’s fine, but that doesn’t make your interpretation more valid then someone who doesn’t.

I don't know if I agree with "Author's intentions are meaningless" that feels a bit extreme of a take

 

[Syntra]

I don't know if I agree with "Author's intentions are meaningless" that feels a bit extreme of a take

I actually agree with that. Of course, this is only a matter of opinion, but I think that if you're essentially writing a fanfic, you're distorting their vision anyway. Why not go all out? Seems arbitrary to me to draw the line at certain places and not at others. Who decides what's really important? The author? It's not like you're asking them. Ultimately, it's always you.

 

[nerdy tangents]

I don't know if I agree with "Author's intentions are meaningless" that feels a bit extreme of a take

To clarify I simply meant that their intentions are not more important then the audiences interpretation.

So if you interpret the work as the author intended it to be interpreted that’s every bit as valid if I happened to interpret it in a way the author didn’t intend.

It’s actually a mark of a good author/creator for them to be like “oh hey I didn’t make that connection with this story but it’s really cool.”

At least that’s my opinion.

 

[Green Glow]

My point is folklore is not historical though. It’s like saying “This is based on Batman” or this is “inspired by Batman” either way you are still using a made up story.

So neither option has to have specific ethnicities involved. Cuz the “source” material is 1. Totally fictional B. Not based on specific skin colors.

And Authors intentions are meaningless when it comes to media in general and most especially with things like fantasy.

Cuz yeah there are only so many ways to interpret non-fiction or personal memoirs or other things based on real life events. As they actually happened and you the audience just have to decide how you feel about them.

But fantasy novels are imaginary by the nature of the genre. So authorial intention is meaningless. These stories become classics and enduring works of fiction precisely because individuals can interpret them however they want.

As media remains with us because we put our own interpretation to the stories they tell, not cuz we agree with whatever the author wrote.


Now if you have the same interpretation as the author that’s fine, but that doesn’t make your interpretation more valid then someone who doesn’t.

I'm gonna say this again because for some reason people don't seem to be getting this. I never said folklore was historical, even though it kind of technically is but that's a different conversation. I have said twice now at least that there is a difference between history and folklore, if I have said there is a difference why does it need to be said that it's not historical when I never said it was?

I also never said you couldn't have your own interpretation or your own version, I clearly said all of that is fine. However, what I did say is that you cannot misinterpret the author's words and intentions to justify yourself in doing so. The author's intentions are not meaningless simply because you have your own interpretation because their interpretation is no less valid than yours simply because you do not agree, it is just a different interpretation.

My point is that you cannot turn around and tell people this was the author's intentions when you know it was not. It is perfectly fine to have your own interpretations, it is perfectly fine to make fan fiction, roleplay, etc where you have changed details, I have said this multiple times. What is not okay for you to do is say something like "The author clearly meant to go right" when there is clear documentation of the author saying they fully intended to go left or saying "we don't know what direction the author was going" when again there is clear documentation telling you they fully intended to go left. You are free to have your own interpretation of the story, the world and in it's characters and your interpretation would be valid. However, you are not allowed to reinterpret someone's words when they are blatantly telling you the opposite because for whatever reason you don't feel confident in the fact you are allowed to have your own interpretations. That is what I am saying, there are people who instead of just having their own interpretation and standing by it, feel the ned to justify it by having the author "one their side" do you understand what I am saying now? I know I'm not always the best at explaining what I mean so that is a genuine question I'm not trying to be argumentative.

 

[Walliver]

when people don’t take the time to actually worldbuild, they want to skip straight to the action and give you zero background on the fantasy world or the zombie virus or the alien species that’s invaded Earth.
it blows my mind that some people don’t want to take the time to at least fill in the outline of the characters’ world.

 

[nerdy tangents]

Green Glow to be fair I think part of the issue is the vast majority of the media I consume the creators blatantly say “my interpretation is no more valid then my readers interpretation.” (Or well words to that effect.)

The one exception, JK Rowling, is a bigot whose interpretations are often bigoted. So I feel absolutely no shame in ignoring every interpretation she has of the series.

So to me the idea that you have to acknowledge the authors intentions at all is kind of weird.

For instance a good example from JKR -

She has said she intended her werewolves to be metaphor for AIDS. (Outside canon in interviews or essays). But I have never had someone be like “Actually she intended them to be a metaphor for chronic illness.”

No it’s always “Oh yeah her interpretation is yikes on bikes and I refuse to go along with it,” OR “so I like to interpret werewolves as representing chronic disabilities because (insert reasoning here).”

So I have never really been in a situation where people felt the need to defend the authors interpretation or try to pass their own interpretation off as the authors.

It’s always just “this is how I interpret it.”

So I think it’s just different experiences with fandom.

 

[Green Glow]

Green Glow to be fair I think part of the issue is the vast majority of the media I consume the creators blatantly say “my interpretation is no more valid then my readers interpretation.” (Or well words to that effect.)

The one exception, JK Rowling, is a bigot whose interpretations are often bigoted. So I feel absolutely no shame in ignoring every interpretation she has of the series.

So to me the idea that you have to acknowledge the authors intentions at all is kind of weird.

For instance a good example from JKR -

She has said she intended her werewolves to be metaphor for AIDS. (Outside canon in interviews or essays). But I have never had someone be like “Actually she intended them to be a metaphor for chronic illness.”

No it’s always “Oh yeah her interpretation is yikes on bikes and I refuse to go along with it,” OR “so I like to interpret werewolves as representing chronic disabilities because (insert reasoning here).”

So I have never really been in a situation where people felt the need to defend the authors interpretation or try to pass their own interpretation off as the authors.

It’s always just “this is how I interpret it.”

So I think it’s just different experiences with fandom.

I don't know much about JK and her issues other than the fact that she insists upon insulting people's intelligence to try and seem politically correct, like saying that Hermione was black whilst describing her in great detail in her books as white or that Ron was supposed to be in a wheelchair whilst describing him running with his fully functioning legs.

 

[Kobold]

I don't know much about JK and her issues other than the fact that she insists upon insulting people's intelligence to try and seem politically correct, like saying that Hermione was black whilst describing her in great detail in her books as white

To be fair, as much valid criticism there is of JK Rowling's habit of claiming to include representation after the fact, the tweet you're referring to is taken out of the context.

It was poorly worded, yes, but she never actually made the claim that Hermione was black along. The point she tried to make was that since Hermione's ethnicity never played a big part in the books, there was no issue with the actor protraying her in the "The lost child" being black.

that Ron was supposed to be in a wheelchair whilst describing him running with his fully functioning legs

This one is literally a joke made by a youtuber to poke fun at her previously mentioned habit of claiming to include representation after the fact.

 

[Green Glow]

To be fair, as much valid criticism there is of JK Rowling's habit of claiming to include representation after the fact, the tweet you're referring to is taken out of the context.

It was poorly worded, yes, but she never actually made the claim that Hermione was black along. The point she tried to make was that since Hermione's ethnicity never played a big part in the books, there was no issue with the actor protraying her in the "The lost child" being black.




This one is literally a joke made by a youtuber to poke fun at her previously mentioned habit of claiming to include representation after the fact.

Well I don't spend time In twitter so I wouldn't know, but I'd heard about these things and that's all I really knew I'd heard other things but the just of most of them seemed to be her claiming things that clearly were disproven by her own words.

 

[nerdy tangents]

I don't know much about JK and her issues other than the fact that she insists upon insulting people's intelligence to try and seem politically correct, like saying that Hermione was black whilst describing her in great detail in her books as white or that Ron was supposed to be in a wheelchair whilst describing him running with his fully functioning legs.

Edited.

So JKR has always been a little bigoted but within the last few years she has gone full transphobe. To the extent that anti-trans legislation is being proposed/justified using her own words.

So if anything she is as far removed from “politically correct” and “insulting intelligence” and in full “the blacks are out to rape the white women” area of bigotry.” (Just replace black with trans women and white with cis women.)

But my actual point is that even before she decided to be out and proud with her bigotry the fandom was clocking her problematic opinions on things (admittedly some moreso then others).

But because JKR is such a control freak she has to take credit for all her own interpretations. So anytime anyone asked her for her interpretation or thoughts on the series she would share them.

And a good 90% of the time they were trash. Either morally or just from a world building perspective.

Like she actually made the claim that no disabilities or “physical ailments” exist in the magical world. While her whole ass protagonist wears glasses. So not only could Ron not have a wheelchair the Potter men actually didn’t have glasses either despite them being specifically described in the books.

Also Mad Eye is actually entirely without physical ailments despite his wooden leg also being described in the series.

And to her credit as mentioned she actually did attempt to say that Hermione (and possibly other characters, I don’t remember the exact quote) could be any color.

But my main point is that JKR is notorious for sharing her intentions and the Harry Potter fandom have collectively decided to ignore every one of them. Especially after her bigotry became an active threat to people’s lives. She is just an angry woman screaming at a cloud now and no one pays a lick of attention.

So there is never going to be the case of someone saying “JKR said there are blind wizards.” Because her bigotry has gotten so blatant. Instead people just imagine blind wizards into their own stories and say “Fuck JKR her opinions are trash.”

Now the flip side is Rick Riordan who actively engages with his fandom and has created an imprint (Rick Riordan Presents) where he lets other authors essentially play in his sandbox. Maybe not the exact world but the same basic concept just with different cultures.

Not only that he is famous for saying “hey if you interpret a story beat a certain way that’s totally cool and valid.” And also actually taking constructive feedback into account when writing.

So in his case again there is no arguing about “his intent” as he actively encourages people to interpret his works however they like. So if you want to make every one of his characters POC or LGBTQ then he is absolutely fine with that.

So that’s kinda what I meant, I am used to author who are either so bigoted no one respects their opinions OR so open minded they respect all opinions equally.

So there has never been a case of “well the author says this but the fanfic writer claims that.”

 

[nerdy tangents]

Which this whole thing does remind me of a BIG pet peeve. When people tell you how to interpret your own character.

So this happens most often in canon x oc roleplays. Someone asks me to play a canon (ex. Harry Potter) but they proceed to tell me how to write Harry Potter so he fits the love story they have pre-written in their head.

And it’s like, listen if you want to write fanfiction then just write fanfiction.

Roleplay is about collaboration where each person controls their own character. I won’t tell you how to write your character (outside of making sure they fit the setting) and you don’t tell me how to write my character (outside of making sure they fit the setting).

Like it’s fine if you make minor adjustments like “oh in this story wizards can’t have glasses and Petunia was actually kind to Harry.” Like those are things I’m willing to change if needed.

But when it’s like “Harry has this personality, that backstory, and he feels this specific way about my character.” Then I start to get annoyed

 

[VolcanicAccelerator]

This isn't particularly infuriating just something I find pretty distasteful and annoying when people heavily politicize and obviously inject their own politics into a character for the sake of self-insertion.

Really? Your fantasy medieval knight from the 13th century believes that gender is a metaphysical construct made by the Tyrant patriarchy to keep women down? They also have the power to hurt people based on how much they believe in capitalism and how bigoted they are. Yep, totally realistic and setting-appropriate character, idk about you guys but I come here to roleplay not have political messages shoved down my throat in a setting where it doesn't make much sense

 

[nerdy tangents]

So here is the thing about “history” a lot of what we know is essentially “social ideals”.

So for lack of a better term it’s the nostalgic version of life.

And it does not reflect the actual views of every person alive at that time.

Because otherwise there would never have been any kind of progression in social ideals. If everyone always agrees with how things are there is no reason to change.

So the idea that someone in the thirteenth century would be “progressive” is perfectly fine, they probably would be accused of witchcraft or demon worship or just good old fashioned madness. But they could exist.

I do agree however the capitalism is a much more modern concept as we understand it, that said fuedalism is not entirely dissimilar depending on what the issue with capitalism is.

So just saying “politics” is a lot more complicated then “History is not woke.”

 

[Lorsh]

Now I would be more interested in 13th century ideas about capitalism

well, in the english sumptuary laws (that prevented people from wearing clothing that was considered above their social rank) owning land was more prestigious than having money - a landowner with less money might be allowed to wear things that a richer merchant couldn't

money could be used to commute a lot of traditional social duties - by the 13th century most knights paid scutage ('shield money') instead of serving in person. some serfs could also be exempt from their owed labors if they paid 'quit-rent'. townsmen that were normally obligated to serve in their city militia could often just pay for a mercenary substitute.

so "capital" was a lot more important but with all the restrictions and taxes and guild regulations you can't really call it a free market either