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

Yaarel

He Mage
Aboriginal Norse government is direct democracy. It is worth emphasizing, Norse women did vote, as did men.

The concept of monarchy was a novelty during the Viking Era, introduced from foreign influence from continental Europe, ultimately from Roman imperialism. The concept gained currency because of the role of the jarl as a military leader. The viking version of a king was somewhat like a career general. The Viking Era was a violent time.

Actually, in Viking Era Norway, Haraldr Hárfagri was elected. He is credited to be the first king of Norway, but historically he was a leader of a variegated patchwork of local parliaments. He gained the support of several parliaments, each of who elected him as their executive leader. Several parliaments already had their own elected local kings, but they allied themselves with him.

During the Viking Era, there was little difference between a jarl and a king. The main difference was the king tended to be elected for life, for the sake of a stable military, but could be voted out. Also, the next king was expected to be elected from the family of the previous king, but again some parliaments made exceptions. Only later, after the Viking Era, did the concept of king become more autocratic, and more normative under the influence of foreign continental Europe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad


Jhaelen

First Post
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.
Yup, that's what I learned in school, as well. However, is that actually the truth?

Here's what wikipedia has to say:
The Romans and Israelites describe child sacrifice as a practice of their 'evil' enemies. Some scholars think that after the Romans finally defeated Carthage and totally destroyed the city, they engaged in post-war propaganda to make their archenemies seem cruel and less civilized.[29] The topic of whether Phoenician child sacrifice was real or a myth continues to be discussed in academic circles, including the work of M'hamed Hassine Fantar.

If you google a bit you'll find a news article from 2014 about a scientific paper on the topic.
I doubt that's the final word on this, though. And even if it was, note what one of the paper's authors said:
Dr Quinn added: 'We think of it as a slander because we view it in our own terms. But people looked at it differently 2,500 years ago.
'Indeed, contemporary Greek and Roman writers tended to describe the practice as more of an eccentricity or historical oddity – they're not actually very critical.
'We should not imagine that ancient people thought like us and were horrified by the same things.'

So, what's the truth of the matter? We may never know for sure.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
For me, one of the regions that interests me is the Northeast nations. It includes relatively peaceful Algonquian-speaking tribes and relatively violent Iroquois-speaking tribes, among others.

Several of these tribes had contact with viking explorers from Norway, making the sea trade route between the two via Iceland a world building feature. According to one saga, the vikings traded their red fabric for wood and animal skins. Archeologists discovered remains of one viking settlement in Newfoundland, Canada, thought to be built by Leif Eriksson himself. The Norse sagas mention various locations in North America (Vínland, Markland, Helluland, etc.), with other vikings also setting out on expeditions, as well as those sailing southward along the continental coast. Relating to Greenland, the Norse also maintained contact with the Arctic cultural region of Native Americans (ancestors of the Inuit). Interactions between Native Americans and Norse were sometimes peaceful and sometimes violent. Heh, to be fair, interactions between Native Americans among themselves were sometimes peaceful, sometimes violent, and interactions between Norse among themselves were sometimes peaceful, sometimes violent. Consequently, sometimes the Natives were aggressors, and sometimes the Norse were aggressors. And sometimes they got along.

Northeast tribes are also known for the prominence of the concept of Great Spirit, a form of monotheism. Essentially, reality itself is also a kind of nature spirit. The Great Spirit is a transcendent, all-encompassing, creative force that forms and guides all beings that come into existence. It is an infinite, abstract, yet personally responsive force. The Native animistic worldview of animal and other nature spirits within a transcendent mystery, is neat.

Across the ten cultural regions of the North American continent, each tribe or even each clan within a tribe transmits its own spiritual worldview. Hence together, Native American spiritual traditions exhibit great diversity, mainly animism, but sometimes incorporating monotheism or polytheism.

Various Northeast tribes are known for
• animism (each animal, plant, rock, cave, mountain, river, thunderstorm, or so on has its own unique individual spiritual presence and influence)
• monotheism − Great Spirit
• power animals (guiding animal spirit)
• stories about heroes who transformed the world into its current state
• dreamcatchers (weblike ornament to catch hostile spirits in dreams)
• chanting music, drums, rattles
• corn harvest ceremonies
• 5-day mourning ceremony (where the chief danced and chanted for the mourners)
• warpaint (face paint to intimidate hostiles, whether human or other nature spirit)
• wampum (sacred sea shell decorated clothing for various customs and commerce)
• clothing (tunic, long loincloth, leggings, moccasins, etc.) of leather and fur (deer, moose, beaver, etc.) or plant fabrics (birchbark, dogbane, etc.)
• sometimes headgear to convey social role
• shelters by tribe: nomadic wigwam (dome tent) AND urbanized wood longhouses in forts
• canoes of birchbark or dugout logs.

Skin complexion of Northeast tribes varies by region, from very dark (Caddo) to very light (Cheyenne)
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Afrodyte

Explorer
Sure. But every post in this thread about that has assumed that the focal characters, the protagonists - ie the PCs - would be Vikings or Spaniards.

Whereas I think a "first contact" game that adopted the mood of the OP would have the PCs playing First Nations characters.

This would be a lot more interesting to me as well. I've encountered the trope where fantasy white people interact with mysterious, exotic, and/or "savage" fantasy brown people thing more than enough times.
 

Aboriginal Norse government is direct democracy. It is worth emphasizing, Norse women did vote, as did men.

The concept of monarchy was a novelty during the Viking Era, introduced from foreign influence from continental Europe, ultimately from Roman imperialism. The concept gained currency because of the role of the jarl as a military leader. The viking version of a king was somewhat like a career general. The Viking Era was a violent time.

Actually, in Viking Era Norway, Haraldr Hárfagri was elected. He is credited to be the first king of Norway, but historically he was a leader of a variegated patchwork of local parliaments. He gained the support of several parliaments, each of who elected him as their executive leader. Several parliaments already had their own elected local kings, but they allied themselves with him.

During the Viking Era, there was little difference between a jarl and a king. The main difference was the king tended to be elected for life, for the sake of a stable military, but could be voted out. Also, the next king was expected to be elected from the family of the previous king, but again some parliaments made exceptions. Only later, after the Viking Era, did the concept of king become more autocratic, and more normative under the influence of foreign continental Europe.
[citation needed]

In reverse order:

I know of no source that indicates a king could be voted out; Heimskringla explicitly makes a distinction between jarl and king; Heimskringla describes Harald as unifying Norway by killing or subjugating the neighboring kings in war; I know of no source describing women voting, possibly because sources on "aboriginal Norse government" are basically nonexistent; and even if everything you say is true, what you are describing is not "direct democracy".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thomas Bowman

First Post
This would be a lot more interesting to me as well. I've encountered the trope where fantasy white people interact with mysterious, exotic, and/or "savage" fantasy brown people thing more than enough times.
How would that be different from playing Europeans in the Stone Age? What would be the difference between a European Aboriginal chucking a spear and an American Native doing the same? Does the color of their skin really matter in these instances?
Stone-Age-Detail-1.jpg

How were these people different from the American Indians?
bronzeAgeLife.jpg

How about these people? they are Stone Aged Europeans, their descendants colonized the New World, but this is them when they were at a similar technological level as Native Americans were when the Europeans first encountered them. Would you like a role playing game from their point of view? There was an article in Dragon Magazine once on this very subject.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
How would that be different from playing Europeans in the Stone Age?

The parallels between Native American animism and Norse animism fascinate me. The similar developments help illuminate by example, many Old Norse concepts. The concept of clouds as giant birds who cause storms: thunderbirds ≈ jǫtnar eagles. The concept of a spirit of an animal being a protective guide, for an individual or family or group: power animal ≈ fylgjar guide. The concept of shapeshifters: skinwalker ≈ hamrammr. And so on.
 

Celebrim

Legend
The parallels between Native American animism and Norse animism fascinate me.

Plenty of similarities of both with West African animism as well. See for example Yoruba religious tradition.

Animism is a remarkably consistent view globally. There are of course large and important differences in the details, but there are a lot of commonalities that occur over and over.

Since my homebrew setting is meant to be an alternative reality, and because that setting is meant to be cosmopolitan and not separated into small isolated family groups, my general approach is never to do what any of these articles about 'respecting particular traditions' do. I don't have say a portion of the world where 'thunderbirds' are native and where there are people with red skin in long log houses. If 'thunderbirds' are somewhere and real (in the setting), then they are everywhere and so just as much a part of the culture of the white skinned humans as the red skinned humans. If I have an red haired freckled skin slave boy mahout, riding a mammoth down the streets of a city inspired by a Medieval Italian city state, past a temple with a six armed quasi-Etruscan deity with a façade that is decorated in stylized thunderbirds, and an elegant tea shop where a red skinned tattooed ship captain negotiates prices with a dark skinned merchant, in an avenue lined with bitter orange trees - that might be anarchonistic in our world, but its not anachronistic in mine.

I consider the world's cultural artifacts a smorgasbord board where you can go to find novelty and inspiration - much like I consider the world's cuisines (which is just another cultural artifact). If we were to say it couldn't be used because someone considered it a sacred matter, I'd like to exercise my veto power please. Because, you know, sacred doesn't mean Beowulf and Thermopylae.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top