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

[Cadence]

First of all, the gnoll thing is weird. They changed their lore just to keep them enemies, and angered gnoll fans as a result.

Secondly, I didn't say, "have a culture be evil". I said, "have a culture be enemies". Where is that in any modern WotC materials? Cultists are not a culture, they're a flavor of faceless stormtrooper.

I'm not sure "having a culture" be the enemies helps? (At least if culture is taken the way I usually think of it). Fighting against Germany (the country) in WW I was presumably the right call, and going against the Nazi's and fighting against Japan (the country) in WW II certainly were. But essentially forcing the German Americans around WW I to ditch their heritage (end of German language press and church services, renaming of streets) etc... feels bad. Locking up the Japanese Americans in internment camps certainly was.

Even if it is just fighting against a country, ditching the laws and conventions of war just because you really hate that country still feels like a bad thing. (Going back to some previous posts, killing bandits who resist is one thing - killing their families seems like another?).

---

On a tangential note, what was the most "medieval" equivalent to the 30 Years War (Central Europe, 1618-1648) where Germany, for example, might have lost half its population.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not sure "having a culture" be the enemies helps? (At least if culture is taken the way I usually think of it). Fighting against Germany (the country) in WW I was presumably the right call, and going against the Nazi's and fighting against Japan (the country) in WW II certainly were. But forcing the German Americans around WW I to essentially ditch their heritage (end of German language press and church services, renaming of streets) etc... feels bad. Locking up the Japanese Americans in internment camps certainly was.

Even if it is just fighting against a country, ditching the laws and conventions of war just because you really hate that country still feels like a bad thing. (Going back to some previous posts, killing bandits who resist is one thing - killing their families seems like another?).

---

On a tangential note, what was the most "medieval" equivalent to the 30 Years War (Central Europe, 1618-1648)?

Right. One thing people really need to understand is that even when you are at war with a nation doesn't mean you are at war with its people or culture.

 

[Laurefindel]

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.

It's medieval-fantasy, and it's as accurate to the historical middle-ages as steampunk is to Victorian-era England and colonies. It's overly romanticized, it removes 95% of the bad stuff that did happen back then, and it's anachronistic as naughty word; but it does refer to a period that immediately brings strong imagery and iconography to mind, at least a different imagery from that of the age of sails, Victorian era, far west era, American or French revolution era, ancient Greece and Rome, and that's only referring to western civilizations. We're painting in broad strokes here.

Indeed there is more to feudalism than just monarchy, but it does evoke vassalship, knighthood as service to a lord, and peasantry as serfs not owning the land they till and work. In that respect it's close enough to apply to a fantasy setting.

As for Tolkien, the middle-ages are a broad category between antiquity and the modern era (which starts with the renaissance*), so old-Saxon era fits in there even if it's pre-Carolingian (not by much though).

* which is where I agree that "medieval" is misleading when talking about D&D; it contains way too many modern elements borrowing from the renaissance to really belong in the middle-ages.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right. One thing people really need to understand is that even when you are at war with a nation doesn't mean you are at war with its people or culture.

I specifically said military resources.

 

[Cadence]

I specifically said military resources.

Frantically scrolls back - and so you did. It was just lost to me in one of your follow-ups when you switched to saying culture.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Frantically scrolls back - and so you did. It was just lost to me in one of your follow-ups when you switched to saying culture.

Fair enough. My bad for assuming that carried over without being explicit. Sorry about that.

 

[Belen]

I fear that getting into it in detail would probably call the moderators down on me, but simply;

D&D and games derived from it is ultimately tell the story about going into someone's home, using violence, and taking their stuff. That's also the story of "how the west was won." If you want to tell a culturally sensitive story about the wild west or a similar frontier, D&D is not the medium to tell that story in.

The only alternative is to have some sort of "virgin land" frontier that was never inhabited by people before the arrival of the players, which significantly limits gameplay.

Or the players are indigenous to the area and are fighting against creatures and beings trying to take their stuff. My current campaign started with an outside force fleeing from a natural disaster that devastated "civilization" and now they want to take over the uncivilized lands. Of course, it is D&D so even the uncivilized lands exist among ruins from previous great civilizations that fell long ago.

I have never really used "colonialism" in my games.

Now, if you are referring to monsters etc as indigenous, then I guess we're talking about more nuanced morals; however, I still use monsters or monstrous species as villains because they act like villains in my games. If the players ever just invaded a village to kill and take their stuff, then I would have to consider closing the campaign.

Honestly, though, I like the tropes of Tolkienesque fantasy but I also like good-aligned, heroic tropes.

 

[Belen]

The problem isn't making enemies people, it is making enemies A people.

I think this applies if your are using real world cultures as a method to enact your own twisted fantasies. If you are a species that was created by a mad mage to devastate all your enemies with no family or culture except to destroy and pillage, then they are inherently evil. I would question if they are really A people or just monstrous constructs though.

Right. One thing people really need to understand is that even when you are at war with a nation doesn't mean you are at war with its people or culture.

This depends. If the nation's culture is the reason for that war, then you are most certainly at war with that culture. If their culture says that you must believe what they believe or be destroyed, then you cannot really co-exist unless you become a part of their culture.

 

[Aldarc]

As for Tolkien, the middle-ages are a broad category between antiquity and the modern era (which starts with the renaissance*), so old-Saxon era fits in there even if it's pre-Carolingian (not by much though).

* which is where I agree that "medieval" is misleading when talking about D&D; it contains way too many modern elements borrowing from the renaissance to really belong in the middle-ages.

I would say that the modern era starts with the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire in 1453, which would lead to the Renaissance. But it's roughly the same period either way.

 

[MGibster]

Right. One thing people really need to understand is that even when you are at war with a nation doesn't mean you are at war with its people or culture.

In his book Up Front, Bill Mauldin, most known for his work as a cartoonist for Stars and Stripes during World War 2, wrote that most soldiers reading newspapers from back home hated reading that they were at war with the NAZIS and not the Germans. He wrote something like, "Other than an SS Division, I haven't see any NAZIS. Just Germans."

I don't imagine it gives anyone comfort that the enemy isn't at war against the people when they look at the pile of rubble where they used to live before they starting digging the family they used to have out from under it. "We'er not at war with the people" seems like the kind of thing we might tell ourselves so we can sleep better at night. It might be true, but so what?