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

[darjr]

I think I’ll need to read those again.

 

[MGibster]

You see it in gaming discussions all the time. People absolutely lose their poop over the Wall of the Faithless - the game telling players to make characters with religious leanings - but have zero problem with the whole feudal life thing that D&D is set in. Let's be honest here, millions of people died to end feudalism. Feudalism is about as evil as it gets. There are very good reasons for ending feudalism and absolute monarchies.

I didn't specialize in medieval history in school, but a lot of history books I've read on the subject start out with just what a problematic term feudalism really is. A lot of scholars don't even agree with what defines feudalism with some historians seeing it as a mainly military and legal relationship limited to the nobles, others arguing that even serfs were part of the system, and a growing number of historians arguing that feudalism is a fictitious concept that has little to do with the reality of life in the medieval world. Feudalism, however we choose to define it today, was present in numerous societies spread out over a long period of time and and how it was practiced varied wildly based on the kingdom and the year. Tsarist Russia in the late 16th century wasn't the same as England in 1086 which wasn't the same as Bavaria in 1300.

And while I certainly wouldn't care to live under a feudalistic system (however we define it), I'm hard pressed to categorize it among the ranks of as evil as it gets. Depending on the time period and the kingdom, even being a serf wasn't necessarily a miserable existence.

 

[pemerton]

And while I certainly wouldn't care to live under a feudalistic system (however we define it), I'm hard pressed to categorize it among the ranks of as evil as it gets. Depending on the time period and the kingdom, even being a serf wasn't necessarily a miserable existence.

@Hussar wasn't just pointing to the burden on welfare ("miserable existence"). He was pointing to a host of features of the social system, including a lack of equality before the law, a lack of free choice of occupation, an absence of speech rights, political decision-making linked confined by reference to inherited class/caste/status, little or no access (via markets) to significant parts of the economy, etc.

It's true that the details of those features, and their intensity, has been different in different times and places. But it's also true that a lot of human effort has gone into overturning them. Even where people are unhappy with the liberal social forms that have replaced "feudal" ones, few of them advocate for a reversion to those past forms.

 

[Parmandur]

I didn't specialize in medieval history in school, but a lot of history books I've read on the subject start out with just what a problematic term feudalism really is. A lot of scholars don't even agree with what defines feudalism with some historians seeing it as a mainly military and legal relationship limited to the nobles, others arguing that even serfs were part of the system, and a growing number of historians arguing that feudalism is a fictitious concept that has little to do with the reality of life in the medieval world. Feudalism, however we choose to define it today, was present in numerous societies spread out over a long period of time and and how it was practiced varied wildly based on the kingdom and the year. Tsarist Russia in the late 16th century wasn't the same as England in 1086 which wasn't the same as Bavaria in 1300.

And while I certainly wouldn't care to live under a feudalistic system (however we define it), I'm hard pressed to categorize it among the ranks of as evil as it gets. Depending on the time period and the kingdom, even being a serf wasn't necessarily a miserable existence.

As someone who did specialize in Medieval Studies, the characterization is inaccurate, and you are right.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, "compartmentalization" is probably the right word.

<snip>

Never underestimate people's abilities to ignore things that might make them uncomfortable.

In the context of scholarship, including historical inquiry, there is also the element of trying to discover and reveal what took place, and what led to what. You don't have to be amoral to undertake such inquiry. But making moral judgements isn't at the core of it.

Of course history is disputed, and moral views can influence interpretations. Still, the goal should be to aim at truth, even if that is hard. This can require a certain sort of dispassion.

EDIT: Examples I'm thinking of are eg Caroline Ekins, Britain's Gulag; and Aly and Heim, Architects of Annihilation. (Perhaps fittingly, in the context of this thread, Aly himself has expressed racist views (a warning: this link goes to a blog discussion of very racist remarks.) But his histories of Nazism and the Holocaust remain important despite that.)

 

[Random Task]

" Both the author and the publisher would become the target of many rude remarks, letter-bombs, hand grenades, and visits from Mossad. I mentioned this book just to show you that I am not completely dead -- yet. Still alive and working. I don't expect you to want to publish it... "

Someone on RPG.net did point out that with this sentence and the preceding paragraph of plot description, Barker is pitching the novel to the publisher in a deniable way. Also the visit from Mossad is suggestive.

 

[Hussar]

I didn't specialize in medieval history in school, but a lot of history books I've read on the subject start out with just what a problematic term feudalism really is. A lot of scholars don't even agree with what defines feudalism with some historians seeing it as a mainly military and legal relationship limited to the nobles, others arguing that even serfs were part of the system, and a growing number of historians arguing that feudalism is a fictitious concept that has little to do with the reality of life in the medieval world. Feudalism, however we choose to define it today, was present in numerous societies spread out over a long period of time and and how it was practiced varied wildly based on the kingdom and the year. Tsarist Russia in the late 16th century wasn't the same as England in 1086 which wasn't the same as Bavaria in 1300.

And while I certainly wouldn't care to live under a feudalistic system (however we define it), I'm hard pressed to categorize it among the ranks of as evil as it gets. Depending on the time period and the kingdom, even being a serf wasn't necessarily a miserable existence.

Well, let's look at this way. Show me another system where I, as a member of a higher strata of society, can, completely legally, murder someone of a lower strata, without any sort of repercussions as we would see in Feudal Japan? We spend the better part of a thousand years ending feudal systems, to the cost of millions of lives. And, even some of the most repressive regimes of the 20th century aren't even close to the horrors of feudal systems in history. Ghengiz Khan anyone? Feudal China?

There may be social organizations that are more responsible for death, misery and incredible hardship, but, they're pretty few and far between.

"Not necessarily a miserable existence" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement here.

But, my point is, at no point EVER do D&D players step back and declare, "Nope, I'm going to play a Marxist revolutionary! Death to tyrants!!!" It's always, "Hey, isn't it grand that we're playing in a setting filled with horror and misery, but, we'll just lampshade all of those uncomfortable bits".

 

[Aldarc]

But, my point is, at no point EVER do D&D players step back and declare, "Nope, I'm going to play a Marxist revolutionary! Death to tyrants!!!" It's always, "Hey, isn't it grand that we're playing in a setting filled with horror and misery, but, we'll just lampshade all of those uncomfortable bits".

Let me tell you the story of my revolutionist dwarven forge cleric dedicated to a gender-fluid god of labor / goddess of agriculture, wielding hammer and sickle while trying to establish labor unions, overthrow tyrants, and liberate slaves on a penal colony.

IME, this was all fairly consistent when playing D&D with fellow grad students.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Well, let's look at this way. Show me another system where I, as a member of a higher strata of society, can, completely legally, murder someone of a lower strata, without any sort of repercussions as we would see in Feudal Japan? We spend the better part of a thousand years ending feudal systems, to the cost of millions of lives. And, even some of the most repressive regimes of the 20th century aren't even close to the horrors of feudal systems in history. Ghengiz Khan anyone? Feudal China?

There may be social organizations that are more responsible for death, misery and incredible hardship, but, they're pretty few and far between.

"Not necessarily a miserable existence" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement here.

But, my point is, at no point EVER do D&D players step back and declare, "Nope, I'm going to play a Marxist revolutionary! Death to tyrants!!!" It's always, "Hey, isn't it grand that we're playing in a setting filled with horror and misery, but, we'll just lampshade all of those uncomfortable bits".

Genghis Khan wasn't "feudal" in any sense or form. Neither was China. And even Japan is debatable. And we didn't spend "thousands of years" ridding ourselves of feudalism, it was practically dead before the end of the Middle Ages in Europe. (As soon as Kings decided they'd prefer to collect scutage than "call in the banners", so to speak).

Nothing in history compares to the industrial age of slaughter (ie the 19th-20th century) as modern technology made murder and misery so much more efficient. And Marxist revolutionaries have created as many tyrants as they have overthrown (I can regale you with stories from my Ethiopian friend's life under the Derg), so I'm not really going to entertain the idea that they are a harbinger of a brighter future.

 

[AnotherGuy]

@Danny apologies as I was not clear - my excerpt of his "nice people" was italicized more of a rolling of the eyes.
Whenever someone describes a select few of a particular group (while announcing that particular group as a point of interest) as nice people it is always going to stink.

EDIT: You can say the same thing as a friendly dig but this wasn't a comedic situation.