Campaign Assumptions!

[S'mon]

particularly military and mechanical. "Technology" is a rather broad term, and to suggest that the west was superior (whatever that even means!)...

Technology is one area where superiority is easy to measure - "superior" means "achieves intended function better". So the M1A1 tank is superior to the T72 tank because when they fight, as intended, the T72 almost always gets blown up, which is undesired. There may be good societal reasons for retaining inferior technology (eg: ban crossbows or firearms to maintain the feudal order), but that does not mean it's not inferior as technology.
.

Conversely, I think when it comes to societal development we can say that a society is 'more advanced' in that it has gone through more measureable stages of development, and 'more fit' in that it will tend to prevail in clashes with competing societies, but not necessarily that it is 'better' than another society which has different aims and social ordering.

 

[Ydars]

Sorry Inez Hull, I was perhaps being a little too general in my comments, since I am only familar with the more military aspects of technology in this period.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Wow.

Well, while I am quite familiar with Cultural Anthropology and theories of materialism (the "Structure" at the base; materialism of primal needs and resource management, in doing what works the best and most efficiently is ultimately largely irresistable by the culture, regardless of opposition and resistance from elements of the Superstructure) that are the essential driving factors towards significant changes in society--as opposed to the "Superstructure"--(Elements that are generally the more complex, and esoteric factors on major social and cultural change, such as religion, politics, etc). Yeah, so I understand all that. I understand how for example--using an old example used by my Cultural Anthropology professor:

American women proceeded to enter the work-force especially in the 1960's and continuing in the early 1970's in unprecedented numbers; this is a factual development. However, within the popular mind and general consciousness, the reasons may be many and widely debatable. My professor then made the point that among the main reasons or explanations for this great change in American culture--put forth by "Superstructural" reasoning--

(1) They were all brainwashed hyper-Feminists, determined to work against the "Patriarchy"

(2) Greedy women, simply overjoyed and enthralled by the vast avalanche of consumer products, technology, goods and services, and consumed with materialism;

(3) Foolish and selfish women have become enamoured with the lies and deceptions of Satan, and have forgotten their faith in God, and have scorned their traditional obedience to their husbands and as fulfilling their roles as mothers and homemakers.

No, none of these explanations offered by politicians, academics, journalists, or priests or preachers then or now really answers the "why factor" as well as an explanation found from Cultural Materialism--from the "Structure" base of motivation; American women entered into the economy in such unprecendented numbers because the U.S. Congress had raised taxes; the cost of living was steadily rising; and a complex of other primarily economic, work-related and materialist-related goals and factors are what drove women to enter the workforce in higher numbers.

Essentially, it comes down to helping to better feed their families; paying bills and taxes that are eating up more of the husband's paycheck at a faster rate than he can earn it; broader, future goals of home-ownership, rising costs of houses, as well as funding college funds for their children. This explanation is much stronger than the others so often put forward.

The professor went on to explain that with most such conflicts of change in any society, he said that a "Structural" reason would prevail more often than a "Superstructure" reason, and/or serve as a better explanation and predictor of past changes as well.

Having said all that--I still think S'mon is right, though.

Culture, Values, Ideals--these things are important, and do have great scope for influence as to why a society does things, and how it goes about doing them.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[S'mon]

Having said all that--I still think S'mon is right, though.

Indeed - in your example you have to consider:

(a) Why more jobs were now available to women.
(b) Why the tax structure was changed to incentivise and facilitate women taking paid labour.

Other societies have not reacted to an increasing cost of living by having women participate in the labour force. Some have restricted women working even at the cost of military defeat (compare the mobilisation of women in WW2 Britain and USSR to the relluctance to mobilise women in Nazi Germany). Some would never even consider it as an option. In others, women do most of the work. Taken as the only explanation, your Professor's theory seems simplistic, to say the least.

 

[xechnao]

Indeed - in your example you have to consider:

(a) Why more jobs were now available to women.
(b) Why the tax structure was changed to incentivise and facilitate women taking paid labour.

Other societies have not reacted to an increasing cost of living by having women participate in the labour force. Some have restricted women working even at the cost of military defeat (compare the mobilisation of women in WW2 Britain and USSR to the relluctance to mobilise women in Nazi Germany). Some would never even consider it as an option. In others, women do most of the work. Taken as the only explanation, your Professor's theory seems simplistic, to say the least.

I am not an expert but some things that come to mind:
Nazi propaganda was one of ethnic superiority to justify its aggression while the societies of the allied forces considered themselves in the defensive. Moreover the Nazi regime had to deal with internal and domestic conflict and struggle. These conditions did not allow social changes such as this to settle under the highly aggressive Nazi regime.
The question here is why Germany was so aggressive. This is a very big subject but let me say that basically it was a big player feeling humiliated along with the investments of capital of various powers (including powers responsible for Germany's humiliation) to direct it as an obstacle or rather oppressor against russia allowed it to do what it did.

 

[xechnao]

Culture, Values, Ideals--these things are important, and do have great scope for influence as to why a society does things, and how it goes about doing them.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yes but who is ultimately responsible for their final state? The structure or the superstructure? I think it is a what was created first the chicken or the egg type of question. So better speak of specifics than generalize. IMO.

 

[SKyOdin]

Technology is one area where superiority is easy to measure - "superior" means "achieves intended function better". So the M1A1 tank is superior to the T72 tank because when they fight, as intended, the T72 almost always gets blown up, which is undesired.

Okay then, which kind of technology is superior: agricultural technology that produces an extremely high yield, but requires a large amount of fossil fuels to support its production, or agricultural technology that produces lower yields, but is extremely energy efficient. As another example, which computer is superior: one that has incredibly high processor speed, but is extremely expensive because it relies on complex internal cooling, or a computer that is far inferior in processing power and memory, but is cheap and reliable enough to be commonly available to everyone. By your definition, it is impossible to directly compare these technologies. After all, a machine designed for efficiency, and one designed for power, even if they are the same kind of machine, possess different "intended functions".

There is another problem as well. Let's consider a knife, and a 9mm semi-automatic handgun. If you were to ask someone which one was more technologically advanced, most people would say the handgun. At 60 feet away, the gun has a distinct advantage. But if your target is right in your face, the knife becomes the superior weapon. To continue the same analogy, lets look at the case where in the early Vietnam war, American jets were not armed with machine guns. Military designers had written them off as obsolete in the face of the rise of missile technology which could shoot down an enemy at extreme long range. But in a close quarters dogfighting, those American jets were at a significant disadvantage since their enemies had guns and they didn't. Military experts were forced to admit that machine guns still had a role. These cases prove that changes in situation can effect the "superiority" of a technology.

Now then, if the relative effectiveness of a technology is highly dependent on situation, and if even the same technology can be developed based on varying intended functions, how can we really say that it is easy to measure the "superiority" of technology?

Conversely, I think when it comes to societal development we can say that a society is 'more advanced' in that it has gone through more measureable stages of development, and 'more fit' in that it will tend to prevail in clashes with competing societies, but not necessarily that it is 'better' than another society which has different aims and social ordering.

Okay, what are "measurable stages of development"? In my studies, I have not seen any two societies travel along the same course of development. The roads that all civilizations on Earth have traveled to reach the place where they are now is unique. If you do think there are "measurable stages of development", could you name them?

Based on your comments here and earlier in the thread, it seems to me that you have been taken in by the historical theory put forward by Karl Marx, who segregated society into four types: the early Slave-based societies like that of ancient Rome, the feudal societies of the Middle Ages, the capitalist societies of Industrialized Europe that he lived in, and the unchanging, static Asiatic societies. However, if you look closely at his theory, three of his types of society are economic in nature, and put forward as a set progression that history will follow. The fourth however, Asiatic, is geographic in nature. Marx's division of civilizations into those four catagories really speaks of how little he knew about the so-called "Asiatic" civilizations. Any Historian who has actually studied Asian history knows that the civilizations of India, China, and so on underwent significant change and development across the course of history. Marx wrote them off as "static" Asiatic civilizations because he didn't know all that much about Asian history, and those societies didn't fit into the neat categories of his theory. Instead of studying those societies more and adapting his theory to fit them, he just ignored them.

The problem of simple ignorance is a big one. The reason Ydars wrote off Japan as "culturally stagnant" was because the only thing he knew about Edo-period Japanese technology was that they were still using 200 year old muskets. Unfortunately, it is hard to get around this problem. Even my History professors were susceptible to it. For example, one of my Japanese history teachers once argued that Japanese samurai armor was superior to Medieval knight's armor because of its lighter weight. He used the example of how a knight couldn't get up off the ground without assistance if he fell off his horse. I had to roll my eyes at that. Thanks to my involvement in reading D&D boards, I have picked up that a knight in properly fitted plate armor was actually very mobile. My Japanese history professor simply didn't know much about European history, and thus relied on "common knowledge" facts, which is the most dangerous thing a historian can possible do.

 

[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!

Remathillis, I love this. Yeah, I can imagine how *forcing* lots of medieval prejudices and conventions upon players--especially females--could potentially result in "less fun". However, in one of my campaigns, I actually ran with a number of medieval campaign assumptions for women. One woman player in my group experienced condescending and even outright shocked outbursts from other knights that she would dare to think she could wear armor and pretend to be a noble warrior.

Yeah. She got into it with these knights, too, in many heated debates while the group camped at night during their travels together. Man, did she ever get *hot* at those other NPC knights! One of the knights even sought to bring charges against her for seeking to--

(1) Impersonate a knight;

(2) Fraud;

(3) Charlatanry;

(4) Insolence towards a noble;

(5) Sedition against her betters!

When she got involved with the law, she and the group had a big court-showdown, lawyers arguing back and forth with arrogant, old-bastard judges, quoting different books and philosophy, arguing law, justice, and rights, wow. Well, her father is a powerful nobleman, so the group's reputation, deeds, and history of faithful service ultimately prevailed, as well as some excellent arguments that they made of both logic and philosophy to save her from anything more serious than some fines. However, it had other implications. When she refused to marry the nobleman that her father had selected for her, well...he started in about how much of a troublemaker she was, how defiant she was, and how insolent and careless she was of the family's dignity, prestige and honor. She went nuts, screaming at her father; he slapped her down, and had her imprisoned inside a tower, sternly telling her that she would remain there until she gained better sense and recovered her good morals, and stopped acting and thinking like some kind of disrespectful, childish tart, and regained her traditional values of being respectful and obedient to her elders, her father, and joined in the marriage planned with the noble.

Yeah. Man, she was arguing back and forth, crying. She was livid--at her father. I mean, not just her character--but her, the player. All very much in character, though. The group rescued her from her father's tower, and left the area immediately. Much later--after her father had talked with her mother, and so on--and her character had returned from some great and glorious adventures, with a new, noble and glorious knight on her arm as her lover and champion...well, she had another emotional time of reconciliation with her old, conservative, I-love-father-but-he's-an-arrogant-sexist-bastard--that ultimately resulted in a tearful reconciliation between the two. Yeah, more tears, passionate speeches and declarations of love and some very good arguments not based on what she couldn't do because she was a woman, or what she shouldn't do because she was a woman--but what she had actually accomplished, what values and honor and dignity and righteousness that she actually stood for, believed in, and championed.

And--how much she lived and breathed for the love and acceptance of her father.

It was very intense. Some of the best game sessions and characterization and roleplaying I've had in all the 30 years I have been playing.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Jack7]

The modern, developed world is obsessed with the idea that one of the chief aims of human society is equality, and the corollary of that proposition is that the liberty of the individual is paramount in importance. For much of human history over the breadth of most of the world equality was never an aim of life.

Instead if one was to have equality and respect then it had to be earned, even among the nobility, and if one was to live in liberty (if there was such a thing as we moderns conceive of it) then that too had to be achieved through much effort.

Obstacles in life, whereas often unfair, are the best tests of character, and the overcoming of unfair or unjust obstacles is often the best measure of maturity and so provides the basis for the most joyous personal victories imaginable.

I can see how it would be both grueling and exciting to work towards a personal goal, against many unfair or difficult obstacles, and to achieve a triumph in the end when no triumph seems possible at the beginning. Mainly because I have seen it happen, though I've never seen it happen perfectly. Still it is better to be in the fight, for that is ultimately heroic, than relieved of the fight, for that is ultimately vapid and even unendurably boring. There is much to be said for triumph through hardship and far less to be said for a world free of challenge.

Or, that's just another way of saying that most people enjoy not just the fruits of their labor, but the labor itself. If, that is, they are laboring towards something they think noble, noteworthy, and important.

 

[S'mon]

If you do think there are "measurable stages of development", could you name them?

Hunter-gatherer, agricultural, industrial, maybe post-industrial.