D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Maxperson]

I have looked at modules and settings, particularly the earlier modules from Dragon and Dungeon. And it is true. Lots of modules assumed some little village with nothing around it but wilderness. It wasn't until places like the Realms became bigger that every little space started getting filled up and there was no frontier left over.

The Realms has lots of frontier. There are wild areas within most countries and the far north is entirely frontier. Those modules don't exist in a vacuum. They get plunked down in the Realms or wherever and while there is wilderness around them, it's not endless in each direction. In one of those directions, not too far away, is civilization.

 

[billd91]

From the article, something I find interesting (Canadian btw).

Gygaxian levelocracy, where a villager can rise to become a baron or a “Conan type”, is fundamentally incompatible with the European fantasy typified by Lord of the Rings, in which no fellowship can alter the fact that Sam is by birth a servant, Frodo a gentleman, Strider a king, and Gandalf a wizard.

I’m amused that the blogger misses Sam’s upward mobility. He does, eventually, get elected to 7 consecutive terms as Mayor of the Shire. That may trade one form of servantship (personal for Frodo) for another (political for the people) and this preserve Sam’s general psychology. But I think it also represents Sam becoming a Gentleman.

 

[Hussar]

I’m amused that the blogger misses Sam’s upward mobility. He does, eventually, get elected to 7 consecutive terms as Mayor of the Shire. That may trade one form of servantship (personal for Frodo) for another (political for the people) and this preserve Sam’s general psychology. But I think it also represents Sam becoming a Gentleman.

Umm, no? What land did Sam inherit from his position? What titles would he pass down to his children? "Elected Mayor" just means that people liked him. It doesn't really imply becoming a Gentleman.

Hey, congratulations, you're head peon. You have no real power, are completely subservient to anyone who actually DOES have a title, and, when you are no longer mayor, for whatever reason, you're just a regular peon again.

I'm sorry, but, no, Tolkien most certainly does not hold with the idea of democracy or anything other than traditional English class systems.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I’m amused that the blogger misses Sam’s upward mobility. He does, eventually, get elected to 7 consecutive terms as Mayor of the Shire. That may trade one form of servantship (personal for Frodo) for another (political for the people) and this preserve Sam’s general psychology. But I think it also represents Sam becoming a Gentleman.

He misses quite a lot of things. For example:

There is no lost empire


There certainly seems to be a power vacuum in the world of OD&D, ready for the player/characters to exploit. What used to fill that vacuum?


There’s no evidence for (or against) the idea that OD&D takes place in a dark age after a fallen Roman Empire analogue or during the death throes of a feudal kingdom. Sure, someone built those “huge ruined piles” under which lie the dungeons. But based on the treasures to be found there, the dungeon builders were part of a coinage economy just like the current one.

Here, he seems to be confusing the base ruleset, which is designed to fit multiple possible game worlds, or generalized adventures (also designed to be adapted to multiple worlds) with a specific setting. Greyhawk, for example, has the Great Kingdom or Suel Imperium. Both reasonable Lost Empire analogues.

Or here:

There are no knights

The word knight doesn’t even appear in OD&D. But there is one group of people who act distinctly knight-like. The wilderness contains castles, ruled by fighters, magic-users, or clerics. The fighters will challenge players to a joust (using Chainmail rules), taking the loser’s armor and offering hospitality to the winner. This has a sort of Arthurian chivalry to it, but Pendragon it is not. Gygax carefully avoids calling these folks “knights.” They’re fighting-men, with retainers (monstrous and human) and armies, looking very like the ones players can acquire.

He seems oblivious to the fact that, once again, the game is designed to accommodate multiple possible game worlds. And "fighting man" could apply equally to a Japanese-style Samurai (which are also medieval) as much as it could to the classic European stereotype of the knight in shining armor.

 

[Mordhau]

He seems oblivious to the fact that, once again, the game is designed to accommodate multiple possible game worlds. And "fighting man" could apply equally to a Japanese-style Samurai (which are also medieval) as much as it could to the classic European stereotype of the knight in shining armor.

And really doesn't apply very well to either without a social context to put them into. The author of the article is basically right that the model of lordship that is encouraged by the whole "get a castle when you're high enough level" is pretty much inconsistent with historical conceptions of nobility.

D&D has wrestled with this for a long time, struggling to balance the basic structure of higher level people having power with the incongruity of applying that through real world structures, "why does the king need to be 20th level?" (And how did he get there?) is a question I've seen asked many times over the years.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Umm, no? What land did Sam inherit from his position? What titles would he pass down to his children? "Elected Mayor" just means that people liked him. It doesn't really imply becoming a Gentleman.

Hey, congratulations, you're head peon. You have no real power, are completely subservient to anyone who actually DOES have a title, and, when you are no longer mayor, for whatever reason, you're just a regular peon again.

I'm sorry, but, no, Tolkien most certainly does not hold with the idea of democracy or anything other than traditional English class systems.

Mayor is as close to it gets to leadership in the shire, short of being the Thain - the military leader in the shire. It is more power than either Bilbo or Frodo ever held; the latter of which the blogger nevertheless refers to as a "gentleman".

 

[Mordhau]

It's not clear what exactly makes Frodo a gentlemen other than wealth. It seems of little importance whether Sam eventually becomes a gentlemen or not. It seems more significant that there is a class divide at all. It's always "Mr Frodo" one way, and "Sam" the other. Given that's it's a story, and the hobbits are transparently English rural folk, it hardly seems important what the background social situation of the Shire is, or whether it allows for Hobbits to climb social ranks.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

And really doesn't apply very well to either without a social context to put them into. The author of the article is basically right that the model of lordship that is encouraged by the whole "get a castle when you're high enough level" is pretty much inconsistent with historical conceptions of nobility.

D&D has wrestled with this for a long time, struggling to balance the basic structure of higher level people having power with the incongruity of applying that through real world structures, "why does the king need to be 20th level?" (And how did he get there?) is a question I've seen asked many times over the years.

That's kind of the root of the issue. The basic ruleset is designed to be independent of social context. Social context is something the DM or adventure/game world authors put in. And I've personally always interpreted the rules about building a castle and attracting retainers at level X to be about balancing player power; providing concrete rewards for players as they increase in level. As opposed to a setting thing. That being why said vassalage characteristics were included in the information the players were supposed to see - the Player's Handbook class descriptions.

 

[Mordhau]

That's kind of the root of the issue. The basic ruleset is designed to be independent of social context. Social context is something the DM or adventure/game world authors put in. And I've personally always interpreted the rules about building a castle and attracting retainers at level X to be about balancing player power; providing concrete rewards for players as they increase in level. As opposed to a setting thing.

It wasn't designed to be independent of social context though. It was designed to be a game, and social context just wasn't considered all that much. It wasn't designed with any intention to be a blank slate to colour with cultural and setting details however you wish, so it's not surprising that it doesn't do a very good job at being that. (As the writer of the article points out, the game actually includes some quite culturally specific things like Dervishes and Berserkers thrown in along side each other despite being geographically, culturally, and temporally distinct in their points of origin).

The thing here is that if you wanted your game to be medieval (or Japanese Sengoku period) then you would have needed to consider that from the beginning. If you don't then it's not surprising that when people do start thinking beyond the dungeon and adding in setting detail that it ends up being something not remotely medieval at all.

If you don't determine social status in character creation then it's deemed not particularly important, and if that's the case, then your game is never going to resemble much a highly stratified society. (And the game does consider other things to be important such as whether you're strong or weak, or whether you cast spells or swing a sword around).

 

[billd91]

Umm, no? What land did Sam inherit from his position? What titles would he pass down to his children? "Elected Mayor" just means that people liked him. It doesn't really imply becoming a Gentleman.

Hey, congratulations, you're head peon. You have no real power, are completely subservient to anyone who actually DOES have a title, and, when you are no longer mayor, for whatever reason, you're just a regular peon again.

I'm sorry, but, no, Tolkien most certainly does not hold with the idea of democracy or anything other than traditional English class systems.

What land? Bag End. Besides, it’s not like being a gentleman has a lot of significance. Yet, it’s pretty clear Sam is as much a one as Frodo ever was afterward.