D&D General d&d is anti-medieval

[der_kluge]

You could have it where the Church holds that much power, but it would be more like the Roman or Greek Churches.

If like the Greek Church, each city or area would have it's predominant deity which would rule that area, and those faithful to it could be the Clergy that have a similar control to that which the Catholic Church did in Europe and Islam did in the Middle East.

On the otherhand, you could have it where it is the entire pantheon with the head deities such as the Romans did. In this, they had a powerful Clergy which you could bump up to be on par with that of the Catholic Church if you so desired.

Valid options, I suppose. I think D&D complicates the real-world parallels by actually granting spells. So, in some sense, the god's power in a given area might be direct reflection of how powerful of a cleric there is in that area, and it's liable to change fairly fluidly over time, I would imagine.

 

[Philip Benz]

Actually, the RPGs that I find the "most medieval" in flavor and feeling keep the powerful catholic church in the setting, instead of catering to dozens of fantasy gods.
Both Ars Magica and Chivalry and Sorcery placed the Catholic church inside the in-game society. This would probably be harder these days, what with the winds of inclusion and cultural relativism blowing. In C&S, a priest character carries a cross, says prayers to God and receives a few miraculous powers from Him.

I'm not sure how "medieval" a setting can feel if it doesn't include the power of the Catholic Church. Something like a Conan-inspired setting, with snake temples and various gods may feel harsh and gritty and have a dark-ages vibe (especially if the DM restricts access to certain weapons), but I'm not sure it would feel "medieval" as such.

 

[Warren Ellis]

Social structures tend to break down. It's hard to be a serf under the thumb of an oppressive noble lord if you become a sorcerer or a warlock and you decide to fireball the nobility. So, a lot of what made feudalism work would completely break down in a model where individuals can literally defeat giants and dragons.

Except the issue seems to be that the vast, vast, vast majority of peasant types don't become wizards or whatever. Instead they often stay at their farms or villages because they have no real ability or even a spark of magic in them.

And just because an adventurer kills a dragon or whatever doesn't mean they'll be freeing serfs or naughty word.

Not if they grew up in the society and regard it as normal.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

And just because an adventurer kills a dragon or whatever doesn't mean they'll be freeing serfs or naughty word.

Not if they grew up in the society and regard it as normal.

That's the point, I guess. Though I haven't experienced it with my group, I guess it's more difficult to find group willing to roleplay members of a state they find oppressive and quite contrary to their values. So you less frequently find PCs who will agree to "regard as normal" something we would find totally unacceptable, like a perfectly normal trial by ordeal to determine if a crime actually took place. Or the noble swearing his way out of the evidence the PCs gathered.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Social structures tend to break down. It's hard to be a serf under the thumb of an oppressive noble lord if you become a sorcerer or a warlock and you decide to fireball the nobility. So, a lot of what made feudalism work would completely break down in a model where individuals can literally defeat giants and dragons.

Never underestimate the tenacity of those who have power and want to keep it. For one exploration of the results of "sorcerers" deciding to fireball the "nobility", see the X-Men franchise. Spoiler alert: they're still oppressed.

 

[Warren Ellis]

Never underestimate the tenacity of those who have power and want to keep it. For one exploration of the results of "sorcerers" deciding to fireball the "nobility", see the X-Men franchise. Spoiler alert: they're still oppressed.

X-Men is not an example to ever point to. If anything, the X-Men are supremecists who act like a cult and are only oppressed because writers have to pretend the group running around in dangerous battles and blowing stuff up, while lying to parents where their kid is going are victims of some sort.

One root of the problem is that the X-Men books are firmly rooted in the superhero genre (no naughty word, I know...but bear with me), which means they are purposely tied up in a never-ending struggle, that there will always be battles with the world's survival in balance etc. and there is always a tendency for things to get worse instead of better and no happy end in sight. The blowback from this can come when the writers lose sight of the fact that this is by their own design.....and make howlers come out of the mouths of their characters.

Another problem is that Marvel's mutants not only have to contend with mutant-hating members of the general public, but also with mutant supremacists trying to take over the world etc. - indeed, in the X-Men they came first. Practically nobody had even heard of mutants, let alone seen reason to fear or hate them before Magneto and his Brotherhood of Evil Mutants (catchy name, that) started attacking military bases, taking over Latin American countries etc. It's very much a two-way street....and the Mutant supremacists, by virtue of being personally more powerful and usually much more competent, do a lot more damage than the Anti-Mutant factions.
Hell, the two major "bottleneck" events in the Mutant population (Destruction of Genosha and the Decimation) were caused by......other Mutants (Cassandra Nova and Wanda Maximoff, respectively).

Then there are the methods used by the good guys, which are firmly rooted in the traditions of comics, pulps and kids' adventure stories, but which are somewhat removed from the way discriminated groups act to overcome prejudices and discrimination in the real world. So for decades the X-Men never even tried to help bring a grass-roots movement in support of mutant rights off the ground or to network with politicians or journalists sympathetic to their cause, instead they preferred methods of subversion (concealing the fact that they were mutants from the public), disinformation (e. g. by mindwiping people, or the computer virus used to erase X-Men-related data in the Pentagon's computer system) and black-flag operations (the setup of X-Factor, Inc., and the X-Terminators, both facades used in early X-Factor).

From a public-relations and civil rights movement POV, the X-Men throughout the bulk of their existence were simply a rolling catastrophe - they arrive at a place, fight a huge battle with a lot of collateral damage (as the old joke went: You can always tell where the X-Men have been) and then disappear, leaving the bystanders to piece together what happened and whether the X-Men were good guys or bad guys.
If the Southern Christian Leadership Conference had instead named themselves "Negro Ninja Force" and spent the 50's and 60's mixing it up with the Black Panthers and the KKK in street riots and mass arson.....the Civil Rights Movement might have had a much slower and rockier road.

The X-Men also have a disturbing tendency to isolate themselves. Some fans take exception to the cult comparison, but the way the X-Men operated at least until the 1990s can be seen as quite disturbing: Mutants are recruited at a very young and impressionable age and taken from their familiar and familial environment (and it really is noticeable how few X-Men of that generation stayed in touch with their families and childhood friends). This often involved deceit (making the young mutant's parents believe their child was attending a normal, if elite school), or outright brainwashing (e. g. mind-wiping the Beast's parents) and coercion (Phoenix using mind-control on Carmen Pryde so that he would allow Kitty to go to Xavier's School - with Scott's and Ororo's acquiescence). Not to mention ulterior motives - they were (often) chosen less with an eye toward helping them handle their powers and learn skills they did not even know they wanted, but to become child soldiers in a mutant militia (ex: how Charles Xavier travelled all the way to Chicago to recruit Kitty, but did not invite Doug Ramsey to his school, even though he lived in Salem Center).
These methods are comparable to those of certain cults, but also to the way e. g. Aborigine children were taken away from their parents to be raised by white Australian foster parents or the way the US Government confiscated American Indian children to be raised in orphanages. Someone else decides that they can raise your children better than you. The X-Men don't even do it under color of law (with at least the fig leaf of accountability).
Note also that quite a few of the young recruits did not need to be saved from howling mobs (and that strangely enough non-mutant superpowered people apparently have a less urgent need of being trained in the use of their powers). Ultimate X-Men (early on, before the Ultimate Universe went nuts) played this a bit better.

Sometimes one also has to wonder if the mutant metaphor is taken so far that it wants to show the readers that just because someone belongs to a discriminated or even persecuted minority it doesn't mean you're nice...or simply doesn't matter if you're not nice (persecution justifying evil acts). Eventually, the X-Men stories began to drop the "coexistence" theme, and became more about leveraging their powers in a paramilitary fashion for "mutant survival" (which, as we'll see, was not only limited to "not being killed or locked up").

M-Day occurs, depowering all but ~200 (deviating as the plot required) Mutants. The X-Books then become a virtual non-stop quest to undo "No More Mutants"...and make damn sure that future teenagers will randomly get superpowers, or blow up, or become hideously (often uselessly) deformed, or turn into clouds of gas and die when their containment suit is punctured (etc, etc). It should be noted that many mutants were very happy that they were no longer "special" (either because they were less likely to be hunted down and killed, die in an X-Men battle, or were no longer hideous/bubble boy)...to which Cyclops replied with a raised middle finger.

This reached its apex in the AvX crossover event, when the X-Men (Cyclops faction) were so bummed out by not being able to have babies that weren't baselines (ironic commentary on accepting the differences of your children, given the X-Men comics' running theme), that they decided to roll the dice with the Pheonix Force....an entity well known for its manageable and predictable nature and never destroying entire planets.

Then they took over the world, and began to make it a better place for Mutants (Cyclops' words)....using force where 30 seconds of platitudes did not convince. With the enthusiastic assistance of 90% of the X-Men. Exactly like the Anti-Mutant zealots had always predicted.

Even the "good mutants" have no problems with the name homo sapiens superior, which really is a PR nightmare, and many of them to a greater or lesser extent believe that it is the mutants' ultimate destiny to completely replace non-mutants on Earth (in effect: "we will bury you"). In the early 2000's, this aspect was taken to ludicrous heights of internal self-congratulatory overtones, as the X-Men discovered that a "gene" in the baseline homo sapiens genome was going to render baselines extinct within 50 years (evolution doesn't work that way)....and then actively work to keep this under wraps (as they were worried that the baselines would fight to avoid extinction....ironic considering Cyclops' actions in AvX).

Then there is the thing that even the "good" (X-Men and their allies) mutants really, really seem to be insular. This, among other things, led to a situation where non-mutant superhero teams have been welcoming* to mutants since mutants became known as a group (with the second Avengers lineup consisting of two mutants and two non-mutants, and e. g. the Champions containing two former X-Men and the Defenders at one point three) while the X-teams stay closed to non-mutants (with the odd exception in the form of aliens). X-Factor for a time had a base (Ship) that could not be entered by non-mutants, and apparently Scott Summers' (at the very least) definition of Utopia is "a nation without non-mutants (except for one or two trusted flatscans)".
The X-Men got to attend social functions the Storm/Richards and the Van Dyne/Pym weddings, but did not reciprocate by inviting the Fantastic Four or the Avengers to theirs. Nor did they use the connections built up by Iceman, Beast, or Angel to try and get more mutants on the Avengers roster.

So it's pretty apparent that the X-Men are hardly blameless for the deterioration of their relationship to the other superheroes, or for the Avengers or FF not being very responsive to Mutant-only problems (a charge leveled by Cyclops against Captain America). If you go to great lengths to conceal your wife having Cancer....don't blame your distant cousins for not sending flowers.

Also rather glaring is that most attempts to start a mutant society or nation tended to be at least a little (or a lot) exclusionary. I mentioned Utopia, before that there was Genosha, and the Morlocks, neither of which came over as a place where a non-mutant would be welcome. If you are trying to avoid be excluded and marginalized (or simply separated out and eliminated)....not being exclusionary yourself is a good start. Most successful minority integration stories start with them moving out of the ghettoes, or bringing outsiders into their enclaves to mix.

*-admittedly, this probably has more to do with the X-Men being a smaller share of the Marvel books, back in the 70's and 80's, so the X-writers couldn't dictate policy for the MU at large. Therefore, the Avengers/Defenders writers never made much of an issue about their Mutants.




TLDR version: While Mutants are a minority, and one which is actively persecuted.....the Marvel writers and creative teams are seldom up to the challenge of presenting that in a thoughtful manner. The X-Men, as an advocacy/promotion group (their original and, for the majority of their existence, prime purpose), fail epically.
Mutants are inarguably subject to outright racism and discrimination (as we've discussed, the Human Torch is a celebrity, and Pixie is hunted through the streets...even though both owe their powers to modified biology).....but many of the specific problems that the X-Men themselves rail against are largely products of their own behavior and tactics.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

@Warren Ellis Okay. Wow. I get it, you don't like the X-Men. But here:

"Mutants are inarguably subject to outright racism and discrimination (as we've discussed, the Human Torch is a celebrity, and Pixie is hunted through the streets...even though both owe their powers to modified biology).....but many of the specific problems that the X-Men themselves rail against are largely products of their own behavior and tactics."

That's not contradicting me, that was my point. Violent and otherwise radical attacks on sociopolitical institutions -- "sorcerers fireballing the nobility" -- rarely have the desired result. Arming some medieval serfs with magic would not bring about the swift unlamented end of the serfdom system.

 

[JeffB]

d&d is anti-medieval

You can be forgiven for thinking that OD&D is a medieval European fantasy game. After all, Gary Gygax himself says so. He describes the original D&D books as “Rules for Fantastic Medi…

blogofholding.com

I've been on a dnd and classic history kick lately and ran into this blog entry.

The premise is that dungeons and dragons do not follow the medieval model.

I'm of the belief he's pretty much right (it draws as much on the classic western as any medieval trappings), but seeing if it is based on mostly the beginning, I'm asking if editions of dungeons and dragons are more or less similar and why?

The bit on the Tin (woodgrain box) is describing the TYPE of minis you could use the game with- i.e. medieval minis-as these were the only ones suitable at the time- there were no fantasy minis. He was marketing the game to the wargaming crowd because there was no RPG market. But there were people playing Chainmail and other Medieval rules.

As we have come to find out, Gary et al didn't even use them. But that's another topic.

 

[Tonguez]

Actually, the RPGs that I find the "most medieval" in flavor and feeling keep the powerful catholic church in the setting, instead of catering to dozens of fantasy gods.
Both Ars Magica and Chivalry and Sorcery placed the Catholic church inside the in-game society. This would probably be harder these days, what with the winds of inclusion and cultural relativism blowing. In C&S, a priest character carries a cross, says prayers to God and receives a few miraculous powers from Him.

I'm not sure how "medieval" a setting can feel if it doesn't include the power of the Catholic Church. Something like a Conan-inspired setting, with snake temples and various gods may feel harsh and gritty and have a dark-ages vibe (especially if the DM restricts access to certain weapons), but I'm not sure it would feel "medieval" as such.

Although the Church was influential in Medieval Europe and is often thought of as monoilithic it wasnt always so, and there was in fact much more diversity than the orthodoxy would concede. In the Early Medieval (before 1300) society was largely ‘Feudal’ with the political system determined by Ownership and Defence of Land. Lords owned land and everyone else owed loyalty to the local Lord. Because Clerics were often the only literate people around, Lords relied on them and granted land to establish Monastaries and Parishes who then were able to extract rents - the Catholic doctrine of Celibacy was designed to preserve Church ownership of these lands against inheritance claims - thus the Church grew wealthy. The Church however was not absolute at this time, there was tension between Lords and Bishops and a number of pagan traditions remained in place and slowly evolved into various superstitions, fortune-telling, dowsing and charms and although some of that got bound up as “Witchcraft” we still maintain some of the practices such as All Saints Eve remaining the Samhain Harvest festival.

In the later Medieval you also get the widespread Anti-Clerical sentiment that arose due to the secular activities of the wealthy Bishops which lead to the reformations, Protestantism and the creation of the Anglican Church as a direct protest against the Roman Pope.

So its inaccurate to think of a singular Catholic othodoxy in the Medieval period, there was much more dynamism and a number of lively debates on doctrine and dogma were going on. Many of these were eventually condemned as Heresies and were wiped out, but while they were active they could be construed as being ‘different sects’ worshipping different things.

Rather than viewing your fantasy society as being part of the Orthodoxy consider what it was like to be a Hussite in medieval Bohemia where they were offered protection by a number of Knights and Nobles and initially became quite influential in a number of cities includiong Prague and Tabor. King Vaclav was tolerant of Hussite reforms but his brother was opposed and when this brother became king he allowed a crusade that became the Hussite Wars.

You also have Jewish and Muslim merchants and scholars interacting amicably across Europe. This is notably illustrated by Offa’s Coin - a gold dinar that bears the inscription Offa Rex on one side and “there is no God but Allah alone” on the other. (King Offa, King of Mercia (Britain), 757 - 796 ad.

It doesnt go as far as multiple gods with different agendas, but neither should the Medieval period be misconstrued as being about a Monolithic Church orthodoxy

 

[Bohandas]

Of course it's not a medieval simulator. Who ever suggested it was? D&D models D&D, a fantastic world with dragons and wizards and elves.

It's more of a fairy tale simulator. It doesn't simulate actual medieval times so much as it simulates the world of a fairy tale* set in medieval times

As an aside, I recently had an idea for a campaign or adventure where the PCs would stumble upon a nation or group of nations which inexplicably behaved like actual medieval times. Over the course of the campaign it would become apparent that these nations had been severely compromised by a cult dedicated to either Vecna (the god of secrets) or Mammon (the archdevil of covetousness), which was acting like the SCP foundation and stealing everything magical, up to and including magical creatures and even the very idea of magic, and stockpiling it in their hidden fortresses.



*or folklore, or an epic or saga, or gothic horror, or a scene in lovecraftian horror with the journal of a medieval alchemist or something


EDIT:

Although the Church was influential in Medieval Europe and is often thought of as monoilithic it wasnt always so, and there was in fact much more diversity than the orthodoxy would concede. In the Early Medieval (before 1300) society was largely ‘Feudal’ with the political system determined by Ownership and Defence of Land. Lords owned land and everyone else owed loyalty to the local Lord. Because Clerics were often the only literate people around, Lords relied on them and granted land to establish Monastaries and Parishes who then were able to extract rents - the Churches doctrine of Celibacy was designed to preserve Church ownership of these lands against inheritance claims - thus the Church grew wealthy. The Church however was not absolute at this time, there was tension between Lords and Bishops and a number of pagan traditions remained in place and slowly evolved into various superstitions, fortune-telling, dowsing and charms and although some of that got bound up as “Witchcraft” we still maintain some of the practices such as All Saints Eve remaining the Samhain Harvest festival.

Don't forget the various times where there were multiple people all claiming to be the pope


That sayd the religious aspect of D&D definitively does not in any way simulate the religious situation of even fairy tale medieval times. It's far closer to the biblical middle east, with followers of different gods often actively warring against one another, but this is sloppily combined with the situation of pre-christian Rome and ancient Egypt with people following multiple gods (albeit with holy men choosing one to follow primarily) and those followings coexisting mostly peacefully albeit with some amount of politicking over levels of stage support for temples of one deity or another as well as the occasional mystery cult