Worlds of Design: What State is Your State?

Countries were originally characterized as progressing through several states to “civilized.” This is not in favor today.

viking-4178398_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

"Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable. Every step toward the goals requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals."- Martin Luther King

Though not common today, in the 19th century and earlier, scholars and philosophers sometimes proposed stages that every country “naturally” went through in the “progress” from a indigenous grouping to a “civilized” state. Arnold J. Toynbee (1889–1975) in his 12 volume A Study of History was the most recent well-known proponent of this idea. Another was Oswald Spengler's (1880-1936) The Decline of the West.

When you are serious about building a world for your RPG (or fiction), you may want to adopt some form of national/country progression, if only to help you organize your history. I tried to come up with a set of polity stages that might help organize your world. I’m not presenting these as “progress” that should be desired, though this is certainly how those 19th-century folks thought of it.

The Progression​

Here is the “progression”:
  • Tribe: Frequently governed by a sort of vote. Population of dozens, covers a few square miles. Shamanistic religion, mob military. Subsistence (hunter-gatherer or agricultural) economy
  • Tribal State: Frequently a form of monarchy. Population in thousands, area hundreds of square miles or less. Single religion. Not much military organization. Agriculture required. States require surplus production (usually from agriculture) to have an actual government and religious hierarchy (sometimes combined). This leads to...
  • City-State (Autocracy, Oligarchy, Monarchy, Democracy): E.g. common in Mesopotamia, later in ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy. Population tens of thousands to a few hundred thousand, hundreds to a few thousand square miles, population heavily concentrated in one city. Have a state religion, political leader is usually religious leader as well. Organized military, may even have generals though political leaders are also the military leaders.
  • Independent State/Country: All kinds of governments, but monarchy is most common, though the Roman Republic was not a monarchy. Populations can range in the hundreds of thousands or even more, area can be similar to city state or much larger. Religion may support but not be part of the government, or is part of the government (Roman state religion). Military has its own institutions often separate from politics.
  • Nation-State: At first I listed this as “nation”, but “nation” actually refers to a people of similar ethnicity and language – who may be in separate countries (Italians in both Italy and Switzerland), or may not have an independent country at all. We can think of a “nation-state” stage arising from countries. A strong example is revolutionary/Napoleonic France. This stage won’t necessarily occur, but often has occurred historically. Another is the coalescence of many German principalities into one state.
  • Industrialized Country: You might add one more stage to this, what might be called a modern country or industrialized country. These are usually democracies or autocracies. They may be secular (nonreligious) or closely aligned with some religion, or perhaps with some political ideology. Armies are highly professional, with the entire state providing manpower in wartime (the draft).

Out of Favor​

Toynbee was a tireless cheerleader for his ideas, but after he died they fell out of favor. A major reason for failure was the many exceptions to his progression that he had to try to explain (yes, I read some of his work long ago). There are no doubt exceptions to my explanation above, as well.

Your Turn: How do you classify your world's countries?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

log in or register to remove this ad

While I think that looking to various historical examples for inspiration can be helpful in building a fantasy world, I don’t believe that systematising them within a Victorian colonialist paradigm serves any useful purpose.
 

Telling how this is just glossed over in the comments.
There are a lot of people who get discussed here who had some toxic elements to their personalities by modern standards.
HP Lovecraft: racist, Nazi member.
MAR "Phil" Barker: editor for a neonazi magazine.
Edgar Rice Boroughs: racist. Many consider him somewhat misogynist, but I think that's unfair, especially given the capabilities of Deja Thoris and Thuvia.
Robert E. Howard: very racist. Called out HPL about being too racist... Oh, and Howard's Conan isn't a shredded out barechester... he even wears armor from time to time. deCamp's Conan often feels like a different guy from Howard's.
Ernest Gary Gyax is noted as having said not to put things from women into Dragon... by the then editor, Kim Mohan. Kim, fortunately, ignored him.

Toynbee had a bunch of toxic beliefs; his progression is a reasonable projection from the common knowledge of the era... and it's a useful construct for world building, but not a reliable one for understanding history. It can, however, help understand the 30's pulp authors' world building better.
 

Mod note:
Folks, the thread is about models to use for developing game world content.

Some authors are not great people. We know this. Please don't allow this fact to stop the topic of the thread from moving forward. Thanks.
 

I tend to model mine on real world places in terms of states. But some handy short hands I keep in mind when designing would be things like city-states, pastoral nomadic societies versus settled agricultural ones, leagues, empires, feudal structures, kingdoms, etc. It really depends on what I am aiming for I suppose. But ultimately I think looking towards real world examples is the most helpful for me
 

Right now, I'm playing Forgotten Realms (FR) and the North region from Waterdeep and up. Most of these areas are some form of city-states with the larger cities controlling huge tracts of land surrounding them. Often within these 'controlled' lands are other tribes of monsters and barbarians that tend to wander throughout. Most of my games tend to focus on the smaller regions around small towns such as Phandalin or Leilon.
 

I used to be very enamored of this model, which I first encountered in the aforementioned Guns, Germs, and Steel, but I've since learned of its flaws and abandoned it. My approach to nations is now more based on the values of the culture(s) underlying it and development based on the spread of ideas as well as negative influences like imperialism and conquest.

Here's the spread of my current campaign world. Anarchic ideas spread from the elven lands of the north. Communist ideals spread from the central halfling nation. Ancestral worship is mostly in the southern lands, creating autocratic systems focused on elders or war gods derived from heroic ancestors.
  • Adra (aka The Empire of the Sun) - theocratic autocracy
  • Amyse - colonial protectorate
  • Bolingra - democratic communism
  • Dragon Empire - despotism
  • Gunulbirukt, Kingdom of - feudal autocracy
  • Gurke, Principality of - meritocratic autocracy
  • Icusselath - capitalist oligarchy
  • Imlarra - representative democracy
  • Ishvalas (aka The Free Territory) - anarchy
  • Kegegrin Horde - elected autocracy
  • Kethrion Free Cities - numerous
  • Khuzunbam Confederacy - gerontocratic oligarchy
  • Kirgubud Horde - hereditary autocracy
  • Margunar Triumvirate - oligarchy
  • Matanbuan Federation - democratic oligarchy
  • Merchant League - colonialist autocracy
  • Morbrugh Sultanate - hereditary autocracy
  • Mosefia Theocracy - hereditary autocracy
  • Shimer - stateless autocracy
  • Shurakzig Khanate - hereditary autocracy
  • Sidormel Dominion - totalitarian autocracy
  • Sinenor Union - theocratic oligarchy
  • Thornfall Republic - democratic republic
  • Vr'naar - despotism
  • Yhanonile Marches - hereditary monarchy
  • Zrigud Emirate - feudal autocracy
 

Edgar Rice Boroughs: racist. Many consider him somewhat misogynist, but I think that's unfair, especially given the capabilities of Deja Thoris and Thuvia.

I'm not even sure that is fair to Burroughs. ERB was from a notable abolitionist family, and if you look at work like the "John Carter" series, one of the most important themes of it is that John always judges Martians according to the content of their character and not their skin color. He's not subject himself to the Martial racial prejudices nor is he himself biased in that way, and so he goes everywhere and makes friends among the green Martians, yellow Martians, black Martians, and red Martians finding among them men of honor and women of compassion whom he forges alliances with on the basis of mutual trust and understanding. Indeed, even more so than his ability to jump or his incomparable skill with a blade, this is his superpower in the larger context of the story. He heals racial divisions (even ethnic conflicts within racial groups) and forges alliances that lets him overcome fascist ideologies everywhere he goes. Indeed, the one group that John finds no one of any worth in, is the white supremacists on Mars who are to a man (and woman) pathetic, cowardly, dishonorable types and who remain the bad guys throughout the whole narrative.
 

One of the conceits of my game is that things, including history, are cyclical, with periodic upheavals/disasters that send civilization back to ruins, from which civilization gradually climbs again. At the moment, my setting is in one of those just-after-an-upheaval moments, so there are a bunch of tribal groups and a few small towns/city-states.
 

I'm not even sure that is fair to Burroughs.
ERB was a supporter of eugenics who openly called for the extermination of “moral imbeciles” in a column he wrote for the Los Angeles Times - before Hitler made a similar demand.

The Tarzan stories consistently depict Black Africans as superstitious, and Arabs as scheming and grasping. He drops the N-bomb dozens of times throughout the books. Tarzan is the aristocratic Anglo male superhero, of good blue-blooded stock, who saves the day.

Yeah, he was a racist.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top