D&D General Divine Invasion: A Proposal for an Anti-Colonialist D&D Setting

[Hussar]

Thanks, but I'm going to keep colonialism into my rpg, just as I'm going to keep my wars, violence, diseases, treacherous political bulls**t, income inequality, racism, sexism, and anything that I feel would suit the theme of whatever questline I'm currently making.

I say the most ancient origin of the narrative act is exactly to focalize and talk about problems and issues, sometimes in an abstract manner.

However, this is me. I'm not gonna police how others want to enjoy their own game, so if you want to imagine some kind of anti-colonialist world, go for it! ......And then tell me about it, because it's going to be something very hard to create without making it absolutely unbelievable: tribal conflict and pushing away other groups to get the resources all for ourselves is a core element of the entire ecosystem of our planet, including viruses, bacteria and plants.... so it's probably hard to think of a setting which doesn't involve anything that resembles some form of colonialism.

There is, however, more nuance than that. Tribal conflicts, and, in fact many forms of conflicts are not colonial in nature. The German invasion of France, for example, wasn't colonialist act, for example. Nor were the Crusades a colonialist expansion. Colonialism requires a few more things than just conflict. You need to have one side who isn't just fighting another side but actively trying to exterminate the other side, whether through straight up genocide or assimilation and then that is justifiable because the other side is being "helped" by the colonial power - which is seen as the civilizing force.

Which is pretty much 100% what Keep on the Borderlands IS. It's a colonialist adventure through and through. There's really no other interpretation here. Not when the humanoids are set up the way that they are with family groupings and whatnot. This isn't about protecting the homeland. This is about exterminating the natives.

 

[TheSword]

...


If you disagree with the premises of the OP, listed above, then I think you will not have very much to add to this thread

I do agree with the premise that colonialism in D&D has to be treated with care. However I disagree with the idea that in Keep in the Borderlands they are being driven out because they are humanoids… Instead these folks are kidnapping local innocents, eating them and sacrificing them to evil and chaos. This is not an innocent group minding their own business. Keep on the Borderlands is also essentially defensive and the background in module text is pretty explicit that the kingdom is under attack from Chaos, not the other way around.

In this sense, Rappan Athuk is as likely a substitute for the Caves of Chaos as anything else.

There is a big difference between settler colonialism and exploitative colonialism as well. The first is pretty eternal and a part of every civilization of significance.

 

[Michael Linke]

Hiya!

I guess "glorification of colonialism" in an RPG is bad...but "glorification of murder and theft" in an RPG is all fine and dandy then?



We're talking about RPG's here...games of make believe. We don't bat an eye when the PC party see's a bandit camp, then sneak in and murders the captain, his guards, and any others that get involved. We don't worry when the PC's come into a small village, all packing WMD's because they are "just a wand of fireballs and a ring of invisibility". We think "Cool!" when the barbarian rages during a bar fight and almost kills 6 famers and a pair of guards who now have to deal with, you know, "not dying" as they recover (not to mention the sudden lack of income for their families). ...etc...etc...

My point is this: If someone is going to do some kind of "colonial" or "anti-colonial" story line in their campaign...it's not "glorifying colonialism" and more than the game is "glorifying murder" or "glorifying theft, political destabilization, or violence against animals". ... ... The OP had an outline that sounded like it might be fun...but it sounded like none of the actual "races" were anything more than just humans in funny suits; there wasn't enough thought put into just how potentially ALIEN the thought processes, desires, hatreds, loves, fears, etc of these races might be, and I thought that was too bad. Missed opportunity for something "similar but different", I guess.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I didn't suggest we shouldn't address colonialism, just that we shouldn't glorify it. My take on adventure design is to just present the situation, and the opinions of the NPCs involved at face value. There may be characters in the setting engaged in colonialism, genocide, slavery, murder, etc, but I don't artificially encourage the players' characters to go along with it or especially reward them for making value decisions (unless it's a campaign where we've agreed beforehand that certain value based decisions are rewarded).

Take B2 as an example, that ruleset rewards the players for coming home with treasure. All the drama about the beleaguered keep and the marauding humanoids is just the opinion of the NPCs they meet in the keep. There's no inherent mechanical reward for helping the Keep, or betraying the keep, or ignoring the keep and exploring the area for the hell of it, or opening a dialogue between the keep and the humanoids so they can live in harmony. Putting hands on gold is the only action that's rewarded (and perhaps glorified). Everything else you do on the way to that goal is your choice.

Edit: i meant to also say I don't think you should be glorifying murder and theft either. You get XP for acquiring treasure and defeating monsters that have HD. If you want to kill the kobolds and take their lair treasure, that's one way to do that. If you want to find a way to get those kobolds to willingly part with enough treasure for you to level up, you can do that too.

 

[Cadence]

Edit: i meant to also say I don't think you should be glorifying murder and theft either. You get XP for acquiring treasure and defeating monsters that have HD. If you want to kill the kobolds and take their lair treasure, that's one way to do that. If you want to find a way to get those kobolds to willingly part with enough treasure for you to level up, you can do that too.

I think that's one reason I like story based/milestone rewards better - doesn't give extra encouragement to un-needed murder and plunder.

 

[Michael Linke]

Thanks, but I'm going to keep colonialism into my rpg, just as I'm going to keep my wars, violence, diseases, treacherous political bulls**t, income inequality, racism, sexism, and anything that I feel would suit the theme of whatever questline I'm currently making.

I say the most ancient origin of the narrative act is exactly to focalize and talk about problems and issues, sometimes in an abstract manner.

However, this is me. I'm not gonna police how others want to enjoy their own game, so if you want to imagine some kind of anti-colonialist world, go for it! ......And then tell me about it, because it's going to be something very hard to create without making it absolutely unbelievable: tribal conflict and pushing away other groups to get the resources all for ourselves is a core element of the entire ecosystem of our planet, including viruses, bacteria and plants.... so it's probably hard to think of a setting which doesn't involve anything that resembles some form of colonialism.

I think they're saying there's a difference between including those things and glorifying those things. I think the term glorification is tricky.

All the scary things you want to keep in your campaign happen in my campaign too, but I don't orchestrate adventures that encourage the player characters to participate in those things. They CAN participate in those things if they want, but I don't tend to put them in situations where the only correct play is to exploit a marginalized sentient NPC. D&D should be a sandbox where the players can explore their own moralities, not one where they're doomed to explore the Dungeon Master's morality.

 

[Michael Linke]

I think that's one reason I like story based/milestone rewards better - doesn't give extra encouragement to un-needed murder and plunder.

I found in my years that story based rewards are worse. You reward XP for what someone thinks is a cool story, then the game is gonna start to be about whatever most entertains the person giving out the XP.

I vastly prefer the old system where XP comes primarily from treasure, with monster-slaying being far less efficient and less safe. Yeah, it leads to a lot of lair-raiding for treasure, but what about forgotten ancient ruins where the only threats are traps and enchanted automatons? There's plenty of gold in them there hills that's not the property of a living creature.

 

[Cadence]

I found in my years that story based rewards are worse. You reward XP for what someone thinks is a cool story, then the game is gonna start to be about whatever most entertains the person giving out the XP.

I vastly prefer the old system where XP comes primarily from treasure, with monster-slaying being far less efficient and less safe. Yeah, it leads to a lot of lair-raiding for treasure, but what about forgotten ancient ruins where the only threats are traps and enchanted automatons? There's plenty of gold in them there hills that's not the property of a living creature.

What's the XP reward in the classic system for saving the small village from a plague or natural disaster if there are no treasures and no monsters?

 

[Michael Linke]

Why does that need an XP reward? If you think it needs an XP reward, then create a reward structure around things like that.

D&D wasn't about saving villages from floods, or throwing a ring into Mt Doom. D&D was about getting treasure. If you wanted to use the majority of D&D's rules to play games like that, you could, but you would have to overhaul the XP reward system to drive the sort of play your game is gonna be about.

These sorts of story-based XP rewards were hinted at as optional reward structures, but didn't really become explicitly codified until 3rd edition.

 

[Cadence]

Why does that need an XP reward? If you think it needs an XP reward, then create a reward structure around things like that.

D&D wasn't about saving villages from floods, or throwing a ring into Mt Doom. D&D was about getting treasure. If you wanted to use the majority of D&D's rules to play games like that, you could, but you would have to overhaul the XP reward system to drive the sort of play your game is gonna be about.

These sorts of story-based XP rewards were hinted at as optional reward structures, but didn't really become explicitly codified until 3rd edition.

So, it's been about other things than just beating monsters and getting loot for at least 30 years or so now? (When did 3e come out?).

I'd rather ask why gold needs XP value. Isn't $$$ a reward In itself

 

[grimslade]

The OPs world sounds like it would be fun to play a campaign. I love the concept of divine invasion and the fractious nature of the primordial alliance. I wonder if the tieflings would fare better as Aasimar allies serving the evil deities. The aasimar seem a little monolithic as the heavies of the setting; some variation and divided goals might offer a richer world.