M.A.R. Barker, author of Tekumel, also author of Neo-Nazi book?

[Hussar]

Remember, this whole sidebar came about as a point about wargames and how we tend to elide the ickier parts of those as well. My point was that fantasy as a genre has a very large blind spot when it comes to the setting.

Again, @Crimson Longinus - we live at a time when we spent centuries fighting for the rights that we have. The right to self determination, various human rights, a pretty long shopping list of rights and freedoms that have never really existed (certainly not for the overwhelming majority of the population) in history.

Have you ever forced a PC to marry? After all, that wasn't terribly unheard of in lots of societies. Stripped a PC of all possessions simply by decree? Executed a PC for hunting deer in the wrong place? On and on and on. History is a very, very bad place. Fantasy as a genre romanticizes unbelievable inhumanity.

But, my point is, I've never heard of a campaign where the PC's are elected by popular vote to become leaders of the community. Instead, it's nothing but despotic tyrants and warlords. "Oh, but, he's a good king or a just knight!" As @Permerton put it very perfectly:

But in typical FRPG worlds we posit peasant societies with romanticised versions of their social hierarchies (noble knights, benevolent kings and prelates, etc) without slavery, where the legitimation frameworks and economics systems value individuals, and seem to permit free choice of occupation, etc. And to the extent that anything more "feudal" is mentioned, we just pretend that it won't make people suffer ie we just ignore the implications of unfree labour, extractive hierarchies, dependence upon natural conditions for sufficient food supply, etc. In this respect we follow soundly in the footsteps of JRRT, the Arthurian storytellers, certain romanticised conceptions of American frontier yeoman democracy, etc. But there is a tendency to ignore that these imaginary worlds are at least as unrealistic and impossible as spells and dragons!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm going to put up a longer thread about this later, but it is fascinating how myopic these conversations can be.

Yes, the modern world has moved far beyond MONARCHIES. Um .... yeah .... not so much.

And my goodness, who in the modern world has ever heard of an arranged marriage? That would be unthinkable ... truly, but it still persist in many cultures.

You know what would be awful? If property rights weren't protected, and some autocrat of dictator just took your property. Can't imagine that ever happening anywhere today ... oh, um, never mind.

I say this not to be snarky (despite appearances) but simply to point out that the issue isn't really with ridiculous fantasy settings.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

You can definitely try to marry off a PC against their will, or steal all their property, or try to force them into slavery, the issue is that they're highly armed individuals who'll definitely murder anyone who tries unless they're completely outmatched. Reading some discussions about it, a lot of DMs really dislike players messing with the law of the world they built, so fighting the local lord means an army of guards converging on you, the whole kingdom branding you as an outlaw, and being kicked out from society at large.

If the DM does show the local government being awful, and not being so powerful that they're unbeatable, I think fighting them would be a pretty normal response, from what I've seen. If they're stronger than the dark lord, then why bother?

 

[Alzrius]

You can definitely try to marry off a PC against their will, or steal all their property, or try to force them into slavery, the issue is that they're highly armed individuals who'll definitely murder anyone who tries unless they're completely outmatched.

The issue with this, as with so many things (which I say with reference to the idea that the campaign will eventually move from looting dungeons to domain management) is that you have to present these things as being a springboard to new opportunities for adventure. A different kind of adventure, perhaps; and you definitely want to make sure that your players are interested in the style of adventures that you're presenting, but at the end of the day those sorts of events should be grist for the adventuring mill, and that should be made clear to the players so that they don't think that it's just you pulling a power-trip on them.

 

[Faolyn]

But in typical FRPG worlds we posit peasant societies with romanticised versions of their social hierarchies (noble knights, benevolent kings and prelates, etc) without slavery, where the legitimation frameworks and economics systems value individuals, and seem to permit free choice of occupation, etc. And to the extent that anything more "feudal" is mentioned, we just pretend that it won't make people suffer ie we just ignore the implications of unfree labour, extractive hierarchies, dependence upon natural conditions for sufficient food supply, etc. In this respect we follow soundly in the footsteps of JRRT, the Arthurian storytellers, certain romanticised conceptions of American frontier yeoman democracy, etc. But there is a tendency to ignore that these imaginary worlds are at least as unrealistic and impossible as spells and dragons!

So, I'm not a political scholar or historian, but, I think that the impossibility is built in to the game. You really can't have a realistic feudal society in a setting with spells and dragons.

Take monsters. You have all your menfolk go off to fight the monsters, no more menfolk. Do this enough time and you start getting women's rights as they have to step up and take over industries that the men can no longer do. Take spells and magic items. If your peasants starting getting access to them, you'll eventually start getting revolutions and peasant's rights, since the peasants will have access to more than just pitchforks and torches. You have non-human races that are more egalitarian in nature, then at least some humans will eventually start copying a few ideas off of them. And that's not even considering how magic will make life easier via agricultural and healing magic.

If you try to make a D&D setting that is strictly medieval in tone, then the only way you can do so is by the DM saying "no, you can't do these things because it would wreck the flavor." And that's just unfun all around.

 

[Faolyn]

And my goodness, who in the modern world has ever heard of an arranged marriage? That would be unthinkable ... truly, but it still persist in many cultures.

Heck, there was a person in my college gaming group who eventually had to have one.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Heck, there was a person in my college gaming group who eventually had to have one.

It is tragically more common than many people realize.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think it might be the best to take the non-Tekumel/Barker related discussion to Snarf's fantasy world building thread inspired by the tangents here.

 

[pemerton]

So, I'm not a political scholar or historian, but, I think that the impossibility is built in to the game. You really can't have a realistic feudal society in a setting with spells and dragons.

Take monsters. You have all your menfolk go off to fight the monsters, no more menfolk. Do this enough time and you start getting women's rights as they have to step up and take over industries that the men can no longer do. Take spells and magic items. If your peasants starting getting access to them, you'll eventually start getting revolutions and peasant's rights, since the peasants will have access to more than just pitchforks and torches. You have non-human races that are more egalitarian in nature, then at least some humans will eventually start copying a few ideas off of them. And that's not even considering how magic will make life easier via agricultural and healing magic.

If you try to make a D&D setting that is strictly medieval in tone, then the only way you can do so is by the DM saying "no, you can't do these things because it would wreck the flavor." And that's just unfun all around.

I'm not advocating for "realistic" fantasy worlds. I'm pointing out that FRPGers tend to take for granted that their fantasy worlds will be impossible in a way that reactionaries would love. But not all FRPGers therefore take themselves to be advocates of reaction or being seduced into reactionary world views.

And I don't see why Tekumel would be any different in this respect, even if its author was radically right wing.

 

[pemerton]

It is tragically more common than many people realize.

Why do you say that arranged marriages are tragic?