D&D General Why Do You Prefer a Medieval Milieu For D&D? +

[Reynard]

Right yeah not enough ink has been spilled over "the orc as the other" yet, has it?

No one said anything about "orcs" did they?

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Surely you realize you are an outlier, then, and that your taking a strong stance on a specific, personal definition of "frontier" isn't particularly broadly applicable.

Last time I checked the title of the thread was "why do you prefer" not "why do the masses prefer"; yes I'm an outlier, but we're discussing subjectivity and art, the fact that I am a sample size of one is kind of assumed.

 

[Reynard]

Last time I checked the title of the thread was "why do you prefer" not "why do the masses prefer"; yes I'm an outlier, but we're discussing subjectivity and art, the fact that I am a sample size of one is kind of assumed.

Right, but you are, in your posts, imposing a definition on what other people have said. That isn't you explaining why you prefer something, that's you explaining why other people are wrong.

 

[Cadence]

Right yeah not enough ink has been spilled over "the orc as the other" yet, has it?

Does the weird western use of non-person monsters - undead and aberrations in D&D parlance - dodge this?

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Does the weird western use of non-person monsters - undead and aberrations in D&D parlance - dodge this?

It depends entirely on the setting, but there's a very common trap of assuming "European society=science" and "other society=magic and mysticism". So if your zombies are made using spooky native american magic that settlers don't have access to, the undead are effectively extensions of the "savage other." If you crack open a mine shaft and it turns out Cthulhu has been sleeping there since before the Americas were populated, that's absolutely fair game.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Right yeah not enough ink has been spilled over "the orc as the other" yet, has it?

I was thinking of manticores, lamia, ankhegs, chuul, sphinx, catoblepas, gorgons, and the titular dragons, of course.

 

[MGibster]

And the use of the word "feudal" to describe anything with kings, knights, castles and nobles. Feudalism was a very specific form of government in which everyone had their divinely appointed place, and there was not a place labelled "adventurer".

One thing that strikes me as amusing is how many modern historians will write something along the lines of "the system of governments used throughout Europe during this time period were varied and calling it feudalism doesn't really touch on the complexity of these systems." Then they turn around and say, "But for simplicity we're just going to use feudalism." As others have noted, even if we're talking fuedalism, it is a lot more complicated than what many of us understrand.

As far as adventurers go, every society has its outcasts, misfits, outlaws, or weirdos. People who for whatever reason do not fit neatly into the prevailing social norms. If I'm running a rather silly D&D game then there's going to be an adventurers guild or something along those lines. If I'm running a more serious game, adventurers are few and far between. They're definitely oddballs who don't fit in. Though honestly, we don't spend a whole lot of time worried about the system of government, feudal or otherwise, because we're too busy adventuring.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Does the weird western use of non-person monsters - undead and aberrations in D&D parlance - dodge this?

Good question. I've often wondered what WotC would do if they suddenly couldn't use cultists, undead, and/or constructs as their enemies for PCs to fight.

 

[Scribe]

Call me a pedant, but I really hate the use of the term "medieval" to describe Tolkienesque fantasy. Medieval was a real historical period that in no way resembled a typical D&D setting. And it wasn't Tolkien's period of interest. He was an Anglo-Saxon expert, i.e pre-medieval (but much more D&D-like).

And the use of the word "feudal" to describe anything with kings, knights, castles and nobles. Feudalism was a very specific form of government in which everyone had their divinely appointed place, and there was not a place labelled "adventurer".

I would prefer we used terms like "pre-modern" "ancient world" or "pseudo-historical". I don't hate the setting, just the misused terminology.

I feel there needs to be some term out there that best captures it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It depends entirely on the setting, but there's a very common trap of assuming "European society=science" and "other society=magic and mysticism". So if your zombies are made using spooky native american magic that settlers don't have access to, the undead are effectively extensions of the "savage other." If you crack open a mine shaft and it turns out Cthulhu has been sleeping there since before the Americas were populated, that's absolutely fair game.

What if we follow Hollywood's model and make all the bad guys dudes in facemasks led to by an erudite Brit. Is that ok?