Fantasy Communities - Melting pots or racially pure (ish)?

[Jürgen Hubert]

Ok this might sound kinda bad, but in D&D there needs to be some conflict. And really, what type of conflict is easier (and more complex) than ethnic conflict? I mean, look at all the racial tensions humanity has in the real world. Now imagine if, on a physical level, different nations took on differing physical traits, talents, and lifespans. There's tons of adventure hooks/twists you can get out of this.

Just because members of different races live in the same city it doesn't mean that the ethnic tensions are gone. And each race can still live within its own ghetto - within the city.

My own model is Terry Pratchett's Ankh-Morpork. There are quite a few mono-racial enclaves in the world, but in the Big City, all of them are thrust together - with sometimes explosive results. And each race has its own ways of coping with the new environment.

For this reason, I tend to find multi-racial enclaves more interesting from a story and adventure perspective. Sure, there should be mono-racial enclaves in the world, too - but mostly to set an example for "purist" factions within the multi-racial enclaves.

 

[Fenes]

Just because members of different races live in the same city it doesn't mean that the ethnic tensions are gone. And each race can still live within its own ghetto - within the city.

I am not sure that this would be a melting pot then, and not just a miniature version of the "each race has its own kingdom".

When I think of melting pot, I assume a "Sigil" town/country, where people of all races live intermingled. Some tension, sure, but generally no ghettos.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I am not sure that this would be a melting pot then, and not just a miniature version of the "each race has its own kingdom".

When I think of melting pot, I assume a "Sigil" town/country, where people of all races live intermingled. Some tension, sure, but generally no ghettos.

They live intermingled, yes - but even in Sigil, there are separate locations for creatures of different origin. If it's a melting pot, the result is a gumbo at best.

Just because all sorts of different races within the same community, it doesn't mean that they have fully assimilated yet. Some degree of assimilation will occur, especially among the younger generation (witness the attempts by younger dwarves in Ankh-Morpork to be more "feminine", and the reactions of their elders and conservatives to it), but their "home culture" still looms large.

This is pretty much true of any large city, even in our world - pretty much all of the cities have their own ethnic communities which differ strongly from the "mainstream", whatever that is. Why should it be different in a fantasy setting?

 

[Fenes]

They live intermingled, yes - but even in Sigil, there are separate locations for creatures of different origin. If it's a melting pot, the result is a gumbo at best.

Just because all sorts of different races within the same community, it doesn't mean that they have fully assimilated yet. Some degree of assimilation will occur, especially among the younger generation (witness the attempts by younger dwarves in Ankh-Morpork to be more "feminine", and the reactions of their elders and conservatives to it), but their "home culture" still looms large.

This is pretty much true of any large city, even in our world - pretty much all of the cities have their own ethnic communities which differ strongly from the "mainstream", whatever that is. Why should it be different in a fantasy setting?

Because in a Fantasy Setting, some aspects of real life can be excluded. We usually get the "sanitized feudal system" in D&D, not the "slavery in all but name" feudalism. With races its the same - we do not often get settings in D&D where the races generally mistrust each other, and treat other races as second-class citizens, it's usually limited to "bad guys" homelands.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Because in a Fantasy Setting, some aspects of real life can be excluded. We usually get the "sanitized feudal system" in D&D, not the "slavery in all but name" feudalism. With races its the same - we do not often get settings in D&D where the races generally mistrust each other, and treat other races as second-class citizens, it's usually limited to "bad guys" homelands.

True, we can do it otherwise... but what would be the point?

Mono-racial communities will likely exclude a portion of the party from the ability to interact with the natives. Totally integrated and assimilated communities, on the other hand, arbitrarily limit the potential for role-playing - if there are no noticeable differences between the races living in the community, then why bother using different races at all?

Having a mixed, but not completely integrated and assimilated community provides the most story potential, in my opinion. It contains a multitude of tensions and conflicts both within the racial sub-communities and between them, any of which can create adventures in their own right.

 

[Fenes]

True, we can do it otherwise... but what would be the point?

Mono-racial communities will likely exclude a portion of the party from the ability to interact with the natives. Totally integrated and assimilated communities, on the other hand, arbitrarily limit the potential for role-playing - if there are no noticeable differences between the races living in the community, then why bother using different races at all?

Having a mixed, but not completely integrated and assimilated community provides the most story potential, in my opinion. It contains a multitude of tensions and conflicts both within the racial sub-communities and between them, any of which can create adventures in their own right.

I don't see the point of "happy go lucky, all are equal and nice to each other" settings either. My defintion of "melting pot" simply does not cover ghettos, racial quarters, and similar divisions.

I don't really consider the "to the east lie the dwarven mountains, to the west the forest of the elves, and here, where two rivers meet, we trade and deal" setting fundamentally different from a "And that's the dwarven quarter, there's the elven quarter, and in this great bazaar most of the town does their shopping" city.

For me, the only difference between "racial kingdoms" and such "mixed communities" is just the ease of travel between the kingdoms/quarters, and the size of the "meeting spots", such as trade locations.

 

[S'mon]

Because in a Fantasy Setting, some aspects of real life can be excluded. We usually get the "sanitized feudal system" in D&D, not the "slavery in all but name" feudalism. With races its the same - we do not often get settings in D&D where the races generally mistrust each other, and treat other races as second-class citizens, it's usually limited to "bad guys" homelands.

If that makes you happy, it's a perfectly valid choice. I wouldn't call it badwrongfun. I wouldn't do it that way, though, at least not outside a Blue Rose type fantasy setting. In a typical fantasy setting, without some good reason for the races to all get along and mingle it'd hurt my Suspension of Disbelief.

 

[Fenes]

If that makes you happy, it's a perfectly valid choice. I wouldn't call it badwrongfun. I wouldn't do it that way, though, at least not outside a Blue Rose type fantasy setting. In a typical fantasy setting, without some good reason for the races to all get along and mingle it'd hurt my Suspension of Disbelief.

Oh, it wouldn't make me happy at all - I'd not play in such a setting. I loathe the "all are equal and happy" settings, actually, and the "fantasy feudalism" too. I just wanted to show why those aspects could be excluded (and are excluded in some settings).

I prefer the "more realistic" settings where people are not equal, and different races and classes (social classes, not character classes) don't get along that well.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I don't really consider the "to the east lie the dwarven mountains, to the west the forest of the elves, and here, where two rivers meet, we trade and deal" setting fundamentally different from a "And that's the dwarven quarter, there's the elven quarter, and in this great bazaar most of the town does their shopping" city.

For me, the only difference between "racial kingdoms" and such "mixed communities" is just the ease of travel between the kingdoms/quarters, and the size of the "meeting spots", such as trade locations.

What do you mean, "just"?

That lack of distance radically changes the dynamics of such a setting. Interaction between the different quarters is constant and unavoidable. Isolation is not possible. And any crisis that affects one part of the population can immediately spread to others. Anyone who wants to keep on top of it all - stay informed, and control the unfolding events - needs to react constantly to the latest developments, instead of just waiting a few days (or weeks) until he hears the latest news from the frontier.

A large, mixed community is essentially a whole setting in its own right - put into a pressure cooker and brought to boil.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't see the point of "happy go lucky, all are equal and nice to each other" settings either. My defintion of "melting pot" simply does not cover ghettos, racial quarters, and similar divisions.

So, it just seems to be that you're using a different definition for melting pot then Jürgen?

Basically, there are 3 concepts:
1) Isolated Communities with only one race and few or no outsiders.
2) Community consisting of several races, but each keep mostly to each other, possibilities for tension.
3) Fully integrated community of several races, no "ghettos" or tension

I think melting pot allows 2 and 3 in most definitions. The USA and especially big cities (say, New York) in the US are often considered "melting pots", despite the fact that there are also a lot of ghettos or even ethnic tension. Version 3 is certainly the ideal we hope to achieve.

...

Fantasy Races are humans with funny ears _and_ a specific culture. If you remove the "ethnic" differences between them, all that remains are the ears, of course. But on another level, you also tell us something about the state of the country/city/region - these races lived so long together that their cultural differences became irrelevant.

The 4E implied PoL setting seems to support this idea to some extent - Dragonborn and Tiefling seem to be common and accepted enough to live and travel to cities and villages. How could this be? My guess is that the past Empire already united all these races, and they worked together for some time, long enough for peaceful relations. But of course, that's not the only approach to PoLs (in the end, the reason why 4E uses these assumptions is because they work best for the game - the players can really see each "Point of Light" as a save haven, regardless of race or culture. If you wanted, each isolated Point of Light could also be "single-race", extremely skeptical to any traveller, especially one with horns, scales or pointy ears - unless all members of that community do have horns, scales or pointy ears, in which case, it looks the other way around.)

On a more general level, I think each appraoch has its merits, and there is also a good reason to use both.

You could have a "free and open" country where communities mix a lot of races. That might be appropriate for a recently colonized region, or just a country that came from uniting several races.
You can have an isolated country where only one race is common place.
You could have a country that was forcefully united, and now races that don't necessarily like each other have to work with each other in cities.
You could have a city that became a safe haven for all kinds of races after their homes had been threatened or destroyed, but the original inhabitants don't really know what to do with all these immigrants, and the immigrants prefer to stay among themselves, too.