Campaign Assumptions!

[pawsplay]

During the medieval period Thomas Aquinas studied the classics, the Knights Templar pioneered modern banking, and clerics devised an early form of the germ theory of disease ("demonets"). The fighting arts flourished, clothing evolved into more sophisticated and varied fashions, and we saw the birth of the constitutional monarchy.

While Medieval Europe generally did not built on the scale of the ancients, and cities often lacked such commonplaces as plumbing and paved streets, engineers and architects devised methods of construction beyond those available to the Ancients.

I would entirely disagree that the medieval period was a time of stagnation. It was a glorious time. Unfortunately, true progress was marred by economic inequalities and tribal conflicts.

 

[SHARK]

An excellent article SHARK. Have you read Guns, Germs, and Steel? The conclusions of that book would strongly indicate certain geographical and ecological aspects of an area where large civilizations emerge.

- East-west orientation of the continent
- Traversable terrain between fertile areas
- Abundance of plants and animals that are readily adaptable to domestication

I'll take your points and see how they apply themselves to the generic implied D&D setting



This is definitely in the mix. There's all these dungeons, built by some past great people, filled with wonders and treasures. Many settings have details about the ancient peoples and the heights they achieved.



The role of the barbarians are filled by humanoids. Hordes of orcs, trolls, ogres, and goblins roam the countryside. They build no cities of their own and found no kingdoms, but seek to tear apart the foundations of human civilization. They are universally portrayed as dim, violent, and uncivilized.



Here D&D tends to falter, with the default being a pantheon of deities when a powerful singular church would be more appropriate. I've played with monotheism before, with paladins and clerics all getting their powers from the same deity. Variety was provided through patron saints. Druids were essentially pagans, and considered little better than demon worshippers by the clerics and paladins.



Again, the humanoids represent this well. I cannot recall how 4e handles it, but in AD&D there were different tongues for each humanoid race, with orcs, goblins, kobolds, and others all seperated by language. They tended to hate each other as well.



Its pretty much a staple of the D&D game - some orc warlord has come to power and started raiding the villages.



Again, not so much with D&D. It is consistantly portrayed as an egalitarian and enlightened society, where peasants can see a tiefling walk into town and start casting spells without going for the torch and pitchfork. This is possibly the least medieval aspect of the implied D&D setting.



Again, not so much. The D&D setting often cares little for changing seasons.



This one has some influence in the presence of ways to prevent or become immune to diseases. But large scale plauges are rare, and it is usually assumed that magic keeps such things in check.

I think a game could potentially benefit from making the game more medieval. I like to think in terms of adventures, so how can we make an adventure out of the above items?

- The growing seasons have gotten shorter and the winters harsher and longer. The PCs find a cult that worships death and cold. In the distant mountains, this cult is led by an ancient white dragon, who was awoken from his slumber by a god of frozen death to make an eternal winter.

- A terrible disease strikes a city, and the nobles call out for help. They are just fine, as they can afford the expensive rituals to keep the disease off them. But the people are dying and may be near rioting as they watch their loved ones die in droves while the nobles sit in safety. There's a mad necromancer spreading the plague, both to inspire rebellion in the city and provide him with fodder for an undead army.

Not sure how to make intolerance and ignorance a one-time adventure. More like a bit of background flavor.

Greetings!

Good stuff, Maddman! Indeed, the nobles living in safety and comfort while the peasants waste away would be a recipe for drastic--and swift changes in government, power, and wealth distribution!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[SHARK]

That doesn't sound right at all to me. Islamic scholars did a lot to preserve and transmit the knowledge of the Classical world, not destroy it.

Greetings!

Welcome Khuxan! Indeed, see my post commenting further above concerning the efforts of Islamic scholars in preserving Classical knowledge. I think they did a much better job overall than most within Europe--though even their often-heralded and much-celebrated "intellectual tolerance" as compared to Medieval Europe's was not in my view, as total and absolute as often insisted upon by many scholars, both in the past, and to the present day.

Still, the Islamic scholars seemed to do a better job overall of preserving and transmitting Classical knowledge over time than most of Christian Europe.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[SHARK]

See, I don't think D&D (nor much in the way of fantasy in general) cares about the REAL middle ages, they care about the romanticized version that floats somewhere in Jung's collective unconscious. A true medieval world would be very different and radical from the notions we take an romanticize in games and literature.

For example, Take gender equity. D&D is pesudo-egalitarian; there is no official distinction in gender by the basis of ability (maximum strength) or profession (female clerics). Though older D&D (1e) did create an ability distinction between genders (and visages of this lingered on, such as drow favored classes and 2e bariaur racial traits) we accept female PCs are as equally competent at their game role as male PCs.

So D&D becomes a world of female paladins (knights) and clerics (priests); something completely aberrant to the medieval mindset (odd exceptions like Joan of Ark permitting). In a truly medieval world, women would mostly be chattel or breeding stock; with primary functions of home-making and child-bearing. Even nobility rarely improved a woman's role in society; women merchants and scholars were few and far-between. Women would never be allowed to become knights (dame as a title typically referred to the wife of a knight in medieval times) and the Catholic church never would consider female priests. Occasionally, a smart and ambitious woman would rise to power (typically royal blood) but truly powerful Queens are a Renaissance ideal, not a medieval one.

So we hand wave that notion for a better game idea. We accept some females are passive to indulge our "rescue the princess" stories, but we accept capable female warriors and priests. We allow our female PCs rights of land and ownership, do not arrange their marriages, and give them autonomy un-thought of in medieval times. It makes a better story and game.

Much the same is done about religious tolerance, racial equality (both of human races and non-human races), more modernistic notions of coinage, property, rights of man, medicine & healing, science, and crime & punishment. We take our modern world (or our idealized notion of it) and sprinkle medieval tropes on it rather than creating a medieval world.

And that's not EVEN touching magic!

Finally, I'd like to plug A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe as further reading. It does a good job of trying to create a more "authentic" vision of a medieval world using the D&D structure. A much smaller text of a similar notion is found in 3e' Dungeon Master's Guide II.

Greetings!

SPOT ON MY FRIEND! An excellent analysis indeed! You're quite right, Remathillis. I think while on one hand, much of the modern sensibilities is embraced for smoother play--I occasionally muse that much of the more dramatic grit and conflicts that actually animated, motivated, and drove the medieval society to think and behave and believe in the ways that it did--that many lament and decry as missing and absent in their campaigns--are more or less diluted by such rigid insistence and embracing of modern sensibilities. If one desires their medieval campaign--or even a campaign inspired by ancient Antiquity--to have deeper drama, and more enriching and provocative motivations--then the answer is to make the campaign more medieval and ancient in flavour!

Excellent, Remathillis!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[SHARK]

During the medieval period Thomas Aquinas studied the classics, the Knights Templar pioneered modern banking, and clerics devised an early form of the germ theory of disease ("demonets"). The fighting arts flourished, clothing evolved into more sophisticated and varied fashions, and we saw the birth of the constitutional monarchy.

While Medieval Europe generally did not built on the scale of the ancients, and cities often lacked such commonplaces as plumbing and paved streets, engineers and architects devised methods of construction beyond those available to the Ancients.

I would entirely disagree that the medieval period was a time of stagnation. It was a glorious time. Unfortunately, true progress was marred by economic inequalities and tribal conflicts.

Greetings!

You make some excellent points, Pawsplay!

However--while it seems to me that certainly there were aspects of Medieval society that were advanced--even some that were superior advancements over what the ancients had achieved in Antiquity--overall, much of Medieval society was decidedly more primitive and less developed than society in Antiquity.

For example:

Warfare:

The medieval society--while it gained armoured knights--had forgotten mass-formations of professional infantry, and sophisticated knowledge of combined operations warfare.

When Medieval society did rediscover these concepts--pioneered and long-established by the ancients--somewhere in the period between 1300-1500--the stages of the Late Medieval Age, when the Swiss and Germans developed mass formations of professional pikemen, the Scots developed similar mixed unit formations, and the Italians deployed regiments of heavily-armoured professional crossbowmen, fighting in combination with heavily-armoured infantry--such rediscoveries spelled the deathknell of the standards of medieval warfare that had prevailed for the previous 1,000 years--and warfare returned to a much more robust, complex, and professional operation reflecting concepts of warfare developed by the ancients of Antiquity.

Artistic Expression:

While Medieval society had a number of beautiful--even majestic--artistic accomplishments--most of the medieval styles and acheivements were far less in diversity and scope than what was enjoyed in Antiquity; from painting, sculpture, literature, to theater. Artistic expressions would not really equal or surpass the standards enjoyed by the ancients of Antiquity until generally after 1500 AD.

Medieval Society literally had nothing to equal the scale, scope, and granduer of the Imperial Circus Maximus--where over 200,000 spectators could gather in comfort and ease to watch regular chariot races and other spectacles.

The Great Arena--Medieval society could not equal the spectacle of gladiatorial combats, as well as vast enclosed naval battles performed with ships and so on, all within the Great Arena, as 80,000 people were regularly entertained. By comparison, Knightly Tournaments were rather more local and small-scale affairs of entertainment.

Theaters:

The Medieval society had small-scale theater productions--though most of their elements, conventions, and styles relied entirely upon such elements made standard in Antiquity. Medieval Theater productions never equalled the mass availability, and lavish production standards and quality that the majority of people in Antiquity enjoyed as a matter of course, everywhere from Britain and Gaul, to Rome, Carthage, Greece, all the way to Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Byzantium.

Medicine:

The medieval society endured gross, primitive and even savage medical standards and procedures that was not to equal or surpass the medical standards established by the ancient Greeks and Romans until the 17th Century, and even in some ways--not until the 19th Century AD.

Commerce:

Indeed--the Knight Templars pioneered banking. However, most of Medieval Europe embraced simple barter systems of commerce and trade--and would not develop and rediscover the advanced systems of coins, commerce and trade made standard in Antiquity until well after 1200-1300 AD--a standard that took Medieval Europe over 700 years to reach the standards acheived and maintained in Antiquity.

Engineering and Building:

Indeed, while certain elements developed by Medieval society--from Gothic Arches, and so on--were outstanding--the Romans pioneered the development of different styles of concrete not equalled until the 19th Century AD, as well as various smelting and wleding techniques that the Romans routinely used throughout the Roman Empire. Such techniques in metallurgy and welding were also not equalled by Europe until after the 17th Century AD.

Roads:

Most of Medieval Europe continued to use roads made in Antiquity by the Legions of Rome. Roads and highways--as well as aqueducts--were not to equal or surpass ancient techniques and skill until after the 17th Century.

Housing, Baths, Sanitation:

Again, as you noted, Medieval standards in sanitation were pathetic. However, even housing was substandard compared to the ancients. Most medieval people lived in flimsy houses of dirt brick, wood, and thatch. The ancients had houses of superior wood, and much use of stone, and had sophisticated tile roofs, plumbing, and heating systems. The Romans established free, mass-public bathhouses throughout the empire. Medieval standards of sanitation, water supply, and housing quality did not really approach ancient standards until considerably after 1300 AD--again, in the Late Middle Ages, and not in most respects until the Renaissance.

Good stuff though, Pawsplay!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Remathilis]

Excellent, Remathillis!

Thanks SHARK.

I truly wonder if an accurate (or even pseudo-accurate) medieval society would even be desired, let alone marketable, to a general audience (beyond a small selection of history buffs).

The D&D Rules Cyclopedia described Mystara (the BECMI world) as "15th Century Europe without Firearms". I think its a simple and elegant statement. Its a much more enlightened world of science (alchemy/magic), and a merchant/middle class arising out of feudalism. While its knights and nobles seems to scream Arthurian chivalry, its probably closer to the courts of Renaissance Italy or Gaul. In fact, the only major difference is the classical approach to pantheistic religion rather than monotheistic Christianity.

Overall, I prefer my D&D to be a mix of Renaissance, Medieval, Dark Age and Classical elements, tempered to modern tastes, and thrown into a blender so that the best parts surface. While a brutality honest medieval society might be dramatic and gritty, I personally enjoy a world that is anachronistic and devoid of a certain time period.

 

[xechnao]

I think D&D environments focus to mystery but seem to rise questions regarding realistic reasoning -one could say that D&D is...surrealistic. The monster manual and the planes of existence are more important than the descriptors of the equipment and services list -and their implications.
In D&D there are golemns that essentially are the most advanced robots modern humanity can ever dream to build. Just imagine our world with the possibility to have golemns as in D&D. Yet see the presumed living matters of D&D people.

 

[S'mon]

That doesn't sound right at all to me. Islamic scholars did a lot to preserve and transmit the knowledge of the Classical world, not destroy it.

Some elements of knowledge, yes, but unlike the Roman Christian church they had no interest in preserving the memory of the glorious Roman Empire.

 

[S'mon]

Certainly, it seems to me as I noted, that there were other factors--like the barbarian hordes burning and ravaging everything in sight!--but when combined with official Church policies and common attitudes and reactions of various clerics, priests and monks, that the Church's impact on the preservation and transmition of Classical knowledge while periodically salient and thankfully crucial--was more often destructive, hostile, and negligent.

So there! What do you think of that, my friend?

Well, the way it seems to me is that for a long time in western Europe the church was the only source of literacy - the only clerks were clerics. The barbarian invaders were illiterate, and so were their descendants for many hundreds of years. The peasants were illiterate. Secular literacy basically died out. Without the church there would have been no literary tradition remaining in the West at all.

Islam's primary effect on western Europe was to close the Mediterranean to sea traffic for centuries, isolate the West from Byzantium, and keep the West in an illiterate and primitive state. The crusades starting in the late 11th century AD led to renewed contact with Byzantium, and to a degree with Islamic-world scholars (often actually non-Muslim Jews and Christians) and recreated a transmission belt of knowledge into western Europe.

Then the fall of Byzantium in the mid 15th century led to a flood of Greek scholars west to Italy and the beginnings of the Renaissance in the West. Byzantium had preserved an unbroken literary tradition and for a long time was the only part of the West that could be meaningfully considered 'civilised'. However the loss of half of Christendom to Islamic conquest in the 7th-9th centuries and Byzantium's consequent long twilight struggle against the Arabs, Seljuks and Ottoman limited Byzantium's influence on the West. Getting sacked by crusaders didn't help either.

 

[S'mon]

Still, the Islamic scholars seemed to do a better job overall of preserving and transmitting Classical knowledge over time than most of Christian Europe.

Speaking as a secular academic (of Protestant atheist heritage), I think secular academics often tend to be more hostile to the medieval Christian church than the evidence really warrants. Emphasis on Islamic scholarship can come across as a form of inverse Orientalism. My own impression is that what the West developed, that both the Islamic and Byzantine worlds lacked, was a general culture of enquiry where scholars and scientists built consistently on the achievements of their forebears. And I think Catholic scholasticism was one root of this development.