Worlds of Design: Escaping Tolkien

In my previous article we discussed technological differences; this article focuses on cultural differences. Perhaps the cultural differences aren’t as clear in one’s awareness, but can be very important and just as far-reaching. Don’t underestimate culture!

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Part of world building is figuring out the consequences of changes you make from the technological and cultural background that you start with. You always start with something. For example, there’s often an assumption that there are horses large enough to be ridden in the world, even though for thousands of years of real-world history, they weren’t large enough to ride.

Trapped by Tolkien​

Some world builders get “trapped by Tolkien” as I like to put it. They think elves must be like Tolkien’s (even though those aren’t traditional), dwarves must be like Tolkien’s, etc. Imagine elves with the capabilities of Tolkien’s, but inclined to be Imperials! It’s a change of culture only, but a mighty one. Imagine if dwarves and orcs tended to work together! Similarly, monstrous humanoids aren’t necessarily antagonistic towards humans and vice versa. These are cultural changes that can differentiate your fantasy world from so many others and while subtle, but they can make a big difference. Turn your imagination loose, don’t let it be constrained by a single author or book.

Magical Attitudes​

Attitudes toward magic make a big difference on how a setting works. In one setting the magic users may be the rock stars, while in another they may be dreaded and avoided shadowy figures; they can be as rare as professional athletes or an everyday occurrence.

Modern Attitudes​

It’s probably inevitable that modern attitudes will shape how game masters create their fantasy worlds. Using slavery as one example, whether or not it “makes sense” in a world must also be balanced by how it will be represented in the game. If you are going to take on mature topics for a fantasy world that has a long history similar to our world (including the unpleasant parts), you should consider how your players will deal with the topic.

Intentions​

I haven’t said much about intentional versus unintentional change to a fantasy world, because in the end it’s the change that matters, not the intention. I suppose you’re more likely to figure out what changes will occur, when you’re intending to introduce changes. But a world is a huge collection of interactions, and any change is likely to affect more than you intended.

Your Turn: In your experience, what was the change (from the “default”) in world-setting that made the biggest difference?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes. But then it feels like the PhB shouldn't so specifically pick just one way, instead of noting there may be something else depending on the world (like PF does).

Perhaps. PHB is somewhat Forgotten Realms focused.

 

[Minigiant]

A lot of fantasy games of various mediums pull from Tolkien and generic D&D that if you aren't new to it, it wont feel fresh and it is easy to lose a sense of wonder. And many media now try to subvert so to can see newcomers having different views from the start.

Part of me wants to take all the terrains and have each major race roll for a terrain then adjust. Any race that rolls the same terrain are enemies due to closeness of borders and competition.

Roll	Terrain
1	Arctic
2	Coast
3	Desert
4	Forest
5	Grasslands
6	Mountain
7	Swamp
8	Underdark
9	Syvlan/Feywild
10	Shadow(Fell)

Now some rolls.
Dwarves get 3 and 1 for Sand Dwarves and Ice Dwarves. I guess dwarves don't like rain.
Elves got 4 and 9. Wood elves and Eladrin return. lol
Halflings got 4 twice. So I'll make the second one Jungle and now the Forest and Jungle Halflings hate Wood elves.
Orcs get Grasslands and Swamp. Horseorc Nomads and Swamp orcs.
Goblins get 3 and 9. So the Sand Goblins are at war with Sand dwarves and the goblins return to the fey to fight the Eladarin.

 

[cbwjm]

A lot of fantasy games of various mediums pull from Tolkien and generic D&D that if you aren't new to it, it wont feel fresh and it is easy to lose a sense of wonder. And many media now try to subvert so to can see newcomers having different views from the start.

Part of me wants to take all the terrains and have each major race roll for a terrain then adjust. Any race that rolls the same terrain are enemies due to closeness of borders and competition.

Roll	Terrain
1	Arctic
2	Coast
3	Desert
4	Forest
5	Grasslands
6	Mountain
7	Swamp
8	Underdark
9	Syvlan/Feywild
10	Shadow(Fell)

Now some rolls.
Dwarves get 3 and 1 for Sand Dwarves and Ice Dwarves. I guess dwarves don't like rain.
Elves got 4 and 9. Wood elves and Eladrin return. lol
Halflings got 4 twice. So I'll make the second one Jungle and now the Forest and Jungle Halflings hate Wood elves.
Orcs get Grasslands and Swamp. Horseorc Nomads and Swamp orcs.
Goblins get 3 and 9. So the Sand Goblins are at war with Sand dwarves and the goblins return to the fey to fight the Eladarin.

That's kind of a cool way of deciding things.

I find nowadays, I often think in terms of MtG gathering basic lands/colours for defining which race goes where (at least initially) and then determine where or not the races are generally hostile or friendly to each other. Not really all that different than what you have above, though it is less random as each race is typically already associated with a terrain type.

 

[Minigiant]

That's kind of a cool way of deciding things.

I find nowadays, I often think in terms of MtG gathering basic lands/colours for defining which race goes where (at least initially) and then determine where or not the races are generally hostile or friendly to each other. Not really all that different than what you have above, though it is less random as each race is typically already associated with a terrain type.

Another thing I did for one of my main homebrew setting is have a separate continent where all the races take on a animal as a guardian beast and build their culture around a popular interpretation of that animal. Elves act like lions. Dwarves like bears. Gnomes like beavers. Orcs like boars.

 

[Ravenbrook]

I think the easiest way to "escape Tolkien", if you feel so inclined, is to simply set one's world in a Greek, Egyptian or other non-Nordic, non-Celtic setting. That way, you can have satyrs and centaurs, for example, instead of halflings, elves, and dwarves. Another option would be an Arabian Nights type setting: humans, peris (Persian fey-like beings) and jinn.

 

[Scott Christian]

Your first point is debatable but misses the point either way. It is not that you can’t have a religion without a god but rather that D&D mostly has gods with half-baked afterthought religions. I hope you can understand a distinction as simple as this without further mentioning the triviality that gods and clerics exist in D&D settings.

I understand and did not miss your point. You are missing the point that when D&D talks about gods, be it magic, classes, races, etc. they are discussing a religion. You are being dismissive of all the lore, all the spell descriptions, all symbolism, all history that involves the god, and therefore - their religion.

I hope you can understand that hand waving the thousands of pages of evidence because it not talking about the priest's tippet or amice is being short sighted.

Maybe you can give me something you think D&D lacks when discussing their religions. Then maybe I will better understand your side.

 

[Scott Christian]

Animism is a religion without a god.

Buddhism is a religion without a god.

And so on.

Religion is a sacred way of life.

A god is a specific kind of personification of some thing, in a way that it wields higher "authority" than a human life.

Theism is a bi-product of Bronze Age bureaucracy and slavery.

A "god" is literally a "master", and the servants of a god are literally "slaves". Theism is slavery.

Theism is highly problematic ethically.

Animism also has personifications, but humans and other personifications are understood to be each others equals, coexisting. This egalitarianism is important.

Not to debate this because this isn't the place to discuss real world religions. But even Christopher Hitchens, noted scholar on religions was criticized for including Buddhism within the definition of a religion.
As for the whole slavery thing, if that is how you see it, that is fine.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yeah. Religion in D&D seems like an afterthought to me. It's not even important to most players with cleric characters.

It might not be important to your cleric players. Many of the ones I have played with it matters quite a bit. Our Tomb campaign in Chult has a major character arc with religion; from meeting Volo and convincing him to include the PC's religion as an important part of Chult society to convincing a knight from the Order of the Gauntlet to switch his loyalty. His religion comes into play every session.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think the easiest way to "escape Tolkien", if you feel so inclined, is to simply set one's world in a Greek, Egyptian or other non-Nordic, non-Celtic setting. That way, you can have satyrs and centaurs, for example, instead of halflings, elves, and dwarves. Another option would be an Arabian Nights type setting: humans, peris (Persian fey-like beings) and jinn.

Psss. Have you heard about Yoon Suin?

Yoon Suin on sale! 1 *pound*

A brief but important post. by Matthew Adams A new edition of Yoon Suin is coming out. As some of you know, I'm a huge fan...

slugsandsilver.blogspot.com

I ran a 2 year campaign with it

 

[Cadence]

I understand and did not miss your point. You are missing the point that when D&D talks about gods, be it magic, classes, races, etc. they are discussing a religion. You are being dismissive of all the lore, all the spell descriptions, all symbolism, all history that involves the god, and therefore - their religion.

I hope you can understand that hand waving the thousands of pages of evidence because it not talking about the priest's tippet or amice is being short sighted.

Maybe you can give me something you think D&D lacks when discussing their religions. Then maybe I will better understand your side.

Yes, they are describing a small part of the religion when they list spells (spells that are shared by either every Cleric or every Cleric of a deity who vaguely covers that sphere), symbols (well, the most common one or two holy symbols), and history (maybe some history, most commonly just being in a big list of other deities).

It feels like it leaves out quite a bit though (for at least most of them)... What colors are the symbols usually? The vestments? What do the colors and vestments symbolize? What are the major holy days? Why are they celebrated? How are they celebrated? How is marriage viewed by the religion? How are different races, sexes, and LGBTQ status viewed by the religion? What are its holy texts? Are the text viewed as literal or figurative? Is it actually true (either literally or figuratively)? Are there any sects within the religion? What training does a priest need? Are there sacraments or duties of the worshipers? How vital are they for the believers according to the rules and how strict are those rules enforced? Which sacraments require a priest to give them? Are all priests spell casters? How does it view other gods in the same pantheon? Are there regular worship services? When are they held? Are they mandatory? Does one need to have passed certain mysteries to fully participate? Is there a birth requirement to belong by default? What is the conversion process? What are viewed as sins? How do excommunication, atonement, and forgiveness work? How does it view other pantheons? Does it have saints and prophets? If so, what does saint or prophet mean in terms of that religion? Who leads it? How does the god communicate with the leadership? With the rest of the clergy? With the laity? What are its beliefs on the spirit or soul and the afterlife? Are its beliefs on that verifiable or unverifiable?

It might not be important to your cleric players. Many of the ones I have played with it matters quite a bit. Our Tomb campaign in Chult has a major character arc with religion; from meeting Volo and convincing him to include the PC's religion as an important part of Chult society to convincing a knight from the Order of the Gauntlet to switch his loyalty. His religion comes into play every session.

How many of those questions could the player of the cleric in your game answer? And if he can answer many, how many of them were in the published sources about the religion?

---

If the level and type of detail given couldn't tell a Mormon from a Seventh Day Adventist from Lutheran from a Catholic from a Baptist from a ... (or similar from denominations and sects in other real world religions), it feels awfully superficial and I don't think I'd call it a discussion. Almost more like a team than a faith.