The Journey To...North America, Part Two

In writing these articles I have come to understand how many people are voiceless in the collective imaginary land that is role playing games. I hope that these articles make our hobby and industry a place where more people are welcomed and encouraged to become involved. Which brings me to North America, the part the second.

In writing these articles I have come to understand how many people are voiceless in the collective imaginary land that is role playing games. I hope that these articles make our hobby and industry a place where more people are welcomed and encouraged to become involved. Which brings me to North America, the part the second.


I spoke to a friend of mine and her words still resonate with me. I asked Susan what she might want in terms of how her people are portrayed in role playing. She replied that she would not want her people's traditions taken for granted. Sacred is sacred. In struggling to find a theme for this article, her words helped me focus in on what is important. So I will begin, before talking about the people, with my "How would I use this?" section.

It is not hard for those of us descended from European, especially Western European ancestry, to relate to the sacred. Stonehenge comes to mind. Beowulf and the legend of Arthur. Joan of Arc. The stand at Thermopylae. Rome at its best and at its worst. A host of cultural touchstones that help give us some common context and cultural language. They literally are sprinkled through our role playing; ideas from history and mythology that fuel how we play.


So if I were going to run a campaign among the North American native tribes, prior to European arrival, it would be heavily focused on those ideas that they found and still find as sacred. It would be an intimate campaign, with no Vecna or dragons or Sauron. Perhaps a band of folk who have suffered loss who wander from place to place, helping others and battling legends. The magic would be subtle and beautiful and full of mystery. It would deal with the idea of what is sacred and how the sacred shapes the lives of the characters. Of course this can be taken into science fiction as well and Shadowrun does some of this with its setting.

What is sacred to the native tribes of North America? A best we can generalize because there are over 500 recognized tribes in the United States, including many in Alaska. Susan mentioned a few things: The Dance, The Ceremony, The Animals, and of course The Land itself. In our modern times issues of land ownership and management have come up again as natural resources are found on tribal lands. To the native peoples, land is more than just a means of making a living or a sign of prosperity. It represents a means of preserving cultural history and identity. Indigenous folk see themselves as protectors of the land and everything associated with it. Equally important are the spiritual and religious aspects of the land and specifically sacred spaces. These sacred places are integral to the tribes spiritual practices and when the land is disrespected, this insults the people and their beliefs. They also believes it angers the land. This should be an important concept in any campaign run using native peoples.


I would recommend talking to native folk about their own tribes and tribal traditions instead of relying on just Internet searches. In general most scholars break the native peoples of North America, excluding Mexico (covered here) into ten different cultural areas. These are the Arctic, Subarctic, Northeast, Southeast, Plains, Southwest, Great Basin, California, Northwest Coast, and Plateau. These cultures had distinct lifestyles from one another, with some being agricultural and others more nomadic. Tragically some have been lost along the way and that is something we should never forget. If we as games masters and content creators can keep them alive in our games, then that is one way of continuing their legacy into the future.

​contributed by Sean Hillman
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sean Hillman

Sean Hillman

Celebrim

Legend
The hatespeech from the N*zi and other white supremacist ideologies, actually causes the socalled ‘white race’ to hate being ‘white’. These supremacists cause profound shame and embarrassment.

If supremacists honestly want to help ‘whites’, then please, the supremacists must cease to exist.

I don't really think that has anything to do with gaming, and it's not an argument that I want resolved around the gaming table.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yaarel

He Mage
I don't really think that has anything to do with gaming, and it's not an argument that I want resolved around the gaming table.

Agreed. The problem is these articles. Some idiotic post makes an outrageously offensive comment that demonizes *all* ‘whites’. The post is a defacto racist generalization against the many diverse European ethnic groups.

From that point on, the thread degenerates into polemics.




Of course, your post didnt do this. Its just that the level of discussion in the thread benefits tremendously by avoiding inflammatory terms like ‘N*zi’.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
I don't actually feel the Vistani were insulting caricatures, but I don't want to get that debate started again so I'm not going to get into why.
I didn't (and don't) either. I think the OP in that other thread was spoiling for a fight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
Unlike the Nazis, the Romans did not kill millions of innocent civilians, to then that would have been a waste of potential labor. The Romans might have enslaved them, or if they behaved themselves they might eventually make them Roman citizens if the conquest went smoothly. Most Roman Emperors were a lot more tolerant that Hitler, all they wanted was for people to pay their taxes, and to fight in their legions, beyond that they didn't care what gods they worshipped so long as they honored the deities of Rome, the failure to do the second was their main source of conflict with Christians and Jews.

Christians and Jews did not tolerate the worship of other gods besides their one God, that offended many Romans, Romans respected other pagan religions, because when one already worships many gods, there is always room for more, but they did not appreciate monotheism, which is the fact that Christians and Jews said that the gods the Romans worshipped were false, and that only their one true God was the one that existed, by that metric, the Pagan Roman Empire was a lot more tolerant of other religions than was the Christian or Jewish faiths. When Rome adopted Christianity as their official religion all that tolerance died and pagans that did not convert to Christianity were persecuted.

If you will notice, not a lot of religious wars were fought prior to Rome's adoption of Christianity, so given what the Ancient World had back then, particularly the fact that it lacked democratic or representative governments, Rome conquering other non-democratic nations on its periphery was not altogether a bad thing. Small nations fight wars because their leaders want power just like the Roman Emperors did, but as the smaller nations were more numerous, they fought with each other more often. Rome wages war mostly on its borders while trying to expand them, in its interior they kept the peace, because it was in the Emperor's interest to do so.

When you are looking at Civilisations you can grade them on a curve and the Romans are nowhere near the Assyrian end of the spectrum.

On the other hand we also get terms like "Carthaginian Solution" from the Romans so how much they respected "innocent" civilians really changed depending on who was in charge at any one time.
 

Derren

Hero
By the way.
While the author uses Shadowrun as an example of the concept in a modern/slightly sci-fi sense it is interesting to note that the Native American Nations (NAN) in Shadowrun are hardly what the author declares how RPGs with Native American have to look like according to him. In Shadowrun while generally more ecologically minded than most you have NAN nations which run themselves as giant corporation or nations that use bioweapons against each other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thomas Bowman

First Post
When you are looking at Civilisations you can grade them on a curve and the Romans are nowhere near the Assyrian end of the spectrum.

On the other hand we also get terms like "Carthaginian Solution" from the Romans so how much they respected "innocent" civilians really changed depending on who was in charge at any one time.

The Carthaginians kept on attacking and attacking the Romans, until the Romans reached a point where they had enough! This was Republican Rome by the way. I think what made Rome great was that it was a republic, to a certain degree the Roman Republic was acting in service to its people, they had overthrown their king and declared a republic, when the Republic became the Empire, the Emperors inherited what the Republic achieved. Each Emperor was different, some of them were evil, others were not so much. Rome was a mixed bag, it was not all bad and it was not all good. Some of the people nailed to crosses and some of the people condemned to death in the Arena probably were murderers, some were people who just had a disagreement with the authorities. A lot of captured criminals were enslaved and the soldiers of defeated armies were enslaved, but to be fair, the enemies of Rome also followed that same practice, it was just that the Roman Empire was more successful in its conquests than many other competing kingdoms. The Ancient World really didn't offer much that was better than what Rome had, it was a world of Kings and tyrants, Athens experimented with Direct Democracy, but only male citizens could vote and most of them had slaves. If Rome went against an actual modern Democracy like the United States, then we would know who to root for, but no such country existed back then.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
The Carthaginians kept on attacking and attacking the Romans, until the Romans reached a point where they had enough! This was Republican Rome by the way.

If it was during the second Punic war then maybe you would have been correct. However the destruction of Cartage was only due to crass Roman greed and cruelty.

I think what made Rome great was that it was a republic, to a certain degree the Roman Republic was acting in service to its people, they had overthrown their king and declared a republic, when the Republic became the Empire, the Emperors inherited what the Republic achieved. Each Emperor was different, some of them were evil, others were not so much. Rome was a mixed bag, it was not all bad and it was not all good. Some of the people nailed to crosses and some of the people condemned to death in the Arena probably were murderers, some were people who just had a disagreement with the authorities. A lot of captured criminals were enslaved and the soldiers of defeated armies were enslaved, but to be fair, the enemies of Rome also followed that same practice, it was just that the Roman Empire was more successful in its conquests than many other competing kingdoms. The Ancient World really didn't offer much that was better than what Rome had, it was a world of Kings and tyrants, Athens experimented with Direct Democracy, but only male citizens could vote and most of them had slaves. If Rome went against an actual modern Democracy like the United States, then we would know who to root for, but no such country existed back then.

Yes we would know who to root for indeed.
 

Jhaelen

First Post
The Carthaginians kept on attacking and attacking the Romans, until the Romans reached a point where they had enough!
I'm not so sure about that.
You do know that history is written by the winners? I suspect you may have fallen for Roman propaganda ;)
The way I recall it, the Carthaginians were mostly a trade empire, built on the basis of their vastly superior ships. They founded countless harbor cities all across the Mediterranean, most of which are still of import today. Thus, they were a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire and an obstacle in their grasp for control over the known world.
If Rome went against an actual modern Democracy like the United States, then we would know who to root for, but no such country existed back then.
Now, that's just cute!

Viking society was more democratic than Rome could ever hope for. In several ways their system was more democratic than the 'modern' U.S. system.
 

I'm not so sure about that.
You do know that history is written by the winners? I suspect you may have fallen for Roman propaganda ;)
The way I recall it, the Carthaginians were mostly a trade empire, built on the basis of their vastly superior ships. They founded countless harbor cities all across the Mediterranean, most of which are still of import today. Thus, they were a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire and an obstacle in their grasp for control over the known world.
Roughly:

First Punic War: inevitable clash of rival trade powers
Second Punic War: Picked by Carthaginians spoiling for a rematch
Third Punic War: Picked by Romans spoiling for a rematch (even though they won last time)

Viking society was more democratic than Rome could ever hope for. In several ways their system was more democratic than the 'modern' U.S. system.
"Viking society" spanned three thousand miles and four centuries, and was politically unified for precisely none of that time. Any generalizations about their system of government are going to be riddled with inaccuracy. For instance, I wouldn't hesitate to rate the democracy of the Roman Republic over the nascent Kingdom of Norway -- nobody elected Harald Fairhair.

And no ancient attempt at democracy honestly compares to any modern Western republic. I could state the obvious and point out the status of women and slaves, but I could also mention the precipitous drop in political violence, or the regular and orderly transfers of power, or the commitment to this newfangled concept called "human rights". Reading the negativity-dominated news these days, it can be easy to lose perspective on just how far we've actually come.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
On the other hand we also get terms like "Carthaginian Solution" from the Romans so how much they respected "innocent" civilians really changed depending on who was in charge at any one time.
The Carthaginian gods (and the society which venerated them) drew extra-ordinary reactions from several nearby cultures, not just Rome.
Consider for instance Elijah on Mt. Carmel, who was opposing the cultural influence of Tyre & Sidon - the cities which founded Carthage as a trade colony.

The Roman army besieging Carthage did not adopt the intention of utter destruction until they watched the leading citizens of Carthage engage in a child sacrifice.
When the Romans were done with the living, they went out of their way to find all the child sacrifices' remains (demolishing the temples in the process), to give them a decent burial.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top