D&D General Wearing a lantern on your belt?

[Paul Farquhar]

A website, specifically geared toward the discussion of things related to TTRPGs, which shows museum pieces, historical documents, and other items displaying the use of lanterns of this type.

Generally speaking, first hand citations are considered preferable.

They were in use from at least the late 17th century

So, not medieval then.

Notably, machine tools were invented in the 17th century, which made that level of precision metal working possible (similar to the tools you need to make full plate). Not that I have a problem with early modern technology in my D&D, but there are still plenty of people like their D&D medieval.

As you can see from the historical advertisement for one of the lamps shown on that page, that specific lamp was designed to use whale oil or lard "exclusively"; presumably, lanterns made in the 16th to 17th century would have needed to rely on lard or other sources, as I don't think sperm whales were harvested in any meaningful quantity until the 19th century.

There is surface crude oil in some parts of the world, and I have kind of felt that was common in D&D settings. That might be showing my age though. Certainly animal fats would be more common in most parts of the real world, and they would be less hot, and shed less light, and produce a lot of smoke. The classic D&D lantern though, is anachronistically modern, most resembling a kerosene lantern, which, as several people here have experience of, burns very hot, and you would want to keep it well away from your private parts.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Generally speaking, first hand citations are considered preferable.

Sure. But one of the images shown is, quite literally, the actual lantern used by Guy Fawkes. In November 1605. With a link directly to the British Museum that holds it. I think that ought to be adequate evidence that these lanterns were around. Lanterns of this exact type were, in fact, worn on people's belts.

So, not medieval then.

Correct. Just like plate armor.

Notably, machine tools were invented in the 17th century, which made that level of precision metal working possible (similar to the tools you need to make full plate). Not that I have a problem with early modern technology in my D&D, but there are still plenty of people like their D&D medieval.

Well, other than the (as mentioned) full plate, which doesn't come into existence until ca. 1420. So, yes, we have both physical and documentary evidence from at the very least the first decade of the 1600s, and given this was Some Random Dude having a lantern of this type, it's clear the tech must have been commonplace long before that.

I'll also note that no one bats an eye at the Bullseye Lantern being present in 5e's items, despite the fact that it wasn't developed until the 18th century, well after the medieval period. Hence why I (almost) never take very seriously any claim that some technology is "too modern" or "not modern enough" to fit into D&D. It freely takes things from 18th or even 19th century technology when desired, while leaving other things mired in 9th-century technology, without much rhyme or reason beyond "we wanted it". The parenthetical almost there is for like...9mm handguns or computers or whatever. Those are pretty obviously beyond the pale. But when D&D rejects cannons and hand cannons for being too "modern" despite having been developed objectively during the late Medieval period, while accepting plate armor and bullseye lanterns, which weren't developed until the Renaissance or 18th century, it's hard to take most of these "that's too modern" claims very seriously.

There is surface crude oil in some parts of the world, and I have kind of felt that was common in D&D settings. That might be showing my age though. Certainly animal fats would be more common in most parts of the real world, and they would be less hot, and shed less light, and produce a lot of smoke. The classic D&D lantern though, is anachronistically modern, most resembling a kerosene lantern, which, as several people here have experience of, burns very hot, and you would want to keep it well away from your private parts.

Certainly; if we were in fact using modern ones that would be a distinct problem.

But oil lamps have burned all sorts of oils for millennia. In the ancient Greek and Roman Mediterranean, olive oil was the dominant lamp oil, for example, and while all such lanterns will produce some smoke, I imagine vegetable oils would be reasonably useful and wouldn't be ludicrously hot. (I'm reminded, for example, of how Apuleius' rendition of Cupid and Psyche specifically features a droplet of hot oil leaping from her oil lamp to reach Cupid because even the oil is rashly attracted to his beauty; the oil does burn him, but Psyche can carry the lamp without hurting herself.)

There might also be sources of low-temp, low-smoke oil that simply don't exist in our world, vegetable or wood sources, in addition to possible petroleum options.

 

[Umbran]

Correct. Just like plate armor.
...
But when D&D rejects cannons and hand cannons for being too "modern" despite having been developed objectively during the late Medieval period, while accepting plate armor and bullseye lanterns, which weren't developed until the Renaissance or 18th century, it's hard to take most of these "that's too modern" claims very seriously.

It is hard not to see this as a piece of grand "whataboutism" :"You don't like X? Well, whatabout Y, which is similar to X?" As we all know, there's a fallacy in that, an unproven assumption that there's some reason why we should be consistent across cases - as if there was some problem with having chosen anachronisms.

We are creating fantasy fiction worlds, not historical simulations. Fantasy fiction is not known for adherence to real-world technological history as a major theme, trope, or driver.

"Modernity", in this sense, is not about history, so much as esthetic with respect to fictional tropes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It is hard not to see this as a piece of grand "whataboutism" :"You don't like X? Well, whatabout Y, which is similar to X?" As we all know, there's a fallacy in that, an unproven assumption that there's some reason why we should be consistent across cases - as if there was some problem with having chosen anachronisms.

We are creating fantasy fiction worlds, not historical simulations. Fantasy fiction is not known for adherence to real-world technological history as a major theme, trope, or driver.

"Modernity", in this sense, is not about history, so much as esthetic with respect to fictional tropes.

Folks are rarely willing to use an argument they know doesn't get them very much, e.g. "that offends my sensibilities and so it shouldn't be done" because that invites the obvious retort "why should that sensibility be the only one that matters?" Even if that would be more accurate to the situation, they want something harder to assail. So they aim for an argument they think is stronger by being "objective", claiming to want historicity.

So they argue that X shouldn't be included, not because it doesn't fit their mental model of "this is what medieval times were like", but because it really didn't exist in medieval Europe. If all that were being argued was "that doesn't feel 'medieval' to me, so I don't want to see it", then your criticism of "whataboutism" arguments would be quite warranted. But it never is that. It's almost always "but that isn't REALLY medieval, medieval people didn't have that technology". The most obvious example of this is gunpowder weapons vs plate armor (plate armor is a significantly more recent development, about a century newer than European cannons, and about 3-5 decades newer than "hand cannons" aka handguns of varying description.)

 

[Incenjucar]

In the context of the game, there is a tradition of lighting being costly - the default is a torch in your hand, with a lantern being a costly upgrade. The specific lantern in the game is s lantern that must be carried in the hand or placed on a surface, but this doesn't prevent other lanterns from existing. As silly as it may sound, letting you affix a standard lantern to your belt is power creep for that item. Magic lanterns that carry the same assumptions also become more powerful this way.

I reccomend the creation of a new lantern type with appropriate costs and characteristics rather than clipping a chonky classic one to your hip.

 

[AlViking]

Sure. But one of the images shown is, quite literally, the actual lantern used by Guy Fawkes. In November 1605. With a link directly to the British Museum that holds it. I think that ought to be adequate evidence that these lanterns were around. Lanterns of this exact type were, in fact, worn on people's belts.


Correct. Just like plate armor.


Well, other than the (as mentioned) full plate, which doesn't come into existence until ca. 1420. So, yes, we have both physical and documentary evidence from at the very least the first decade of the 1600s, and given this was Some Random Dude having a lantern of this type, it's clear the tech must have been commonplace long before that.

I'll also note that no one bats an eye at the Bullseye Lantern being present in 5e's items, despite the fact that it wasn't developed until the 18th century, well after the medieval period. Hence why I (almost) never take very seriously any claim that some technology is "too modern" or "not modern enough" to fit into D&D. It freely takes things from 18th or even 19th century technology when desired, while leaving other things mired in 9th-century technology, without much rhyme or reason beyond "we wanted it". The parenthetical almost there is for like...9mm handguns or computers or whatever. Those are pretty obviously beyond the pale. But when D&D rejects cannons and hand cannons for being too "modern" despite having been developed objectively during the late Medieval period, while accepting plate armor and bullseye lanterns, which weren't developed until the Renaissance or 18th century, it's hard to take most of these "that's too modern" claims very seriously.


Certainly; if we were in fact using modern ones that would be a distinct problem.

But oil lamps have burned all sorts of oils for millennia. In the ancient Greek and Roman Mediterranean, olive oil was the dominant lamp oil, for example, and while all such lanterns will produce some smoke, I imagine vegetable oils would be reasonably useful and wouldn't be ludicrously hot. (I'm reminded, for example, of how Apuleius' rendition of Cupid and Psyche specifically features a droplet of hot oil leaping from her oil lamp to reach Cupid because even the oil is rashly attracted to his beauty; the oil does burn him, but Psyche can carry the lamp without hurting herself.)

There might also be sources of low-temp, low-smoke oil that simply don't exist in our world, vegetable or wood sources, in addition to possible petroleum options.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't carry an unlit lantern on your belt. I know I'm certainly not. But every image of a lit lantern shows it being held in someone's hand.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't carry an unlit lantern on your belt. I know I'm certainly not. But every image of a lit lantern shows it being held in someone's hand.

I think that this also applies to the argument that it's possible to have the lantern lit while leaving it on its belt-hanger. Sure, it's possible, but it is unlikely to have ever been advisable and was probably only ever done during very particular circumstances (IE: I need light now, and I also need both hands, so I will be very careful for a moment by putting my lantern back on my hip while picking this thing up).

Adventuring is generally a whole different animal.

A lot of dangerous things are possible for a moment or two out of desperation, but aren't widely done.

And I'm definitely someone who likes my D&D characters to be capable of great things!

 

[GMMichael]

As silly as it may sound, letting you affix a standard lantern to your belt is power creep for that item.

Even with the cost of that lantern being easier to destroy than one held in hand?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

If you have ever been remotely near the wilderness, or done any sort of camping, the idea of a burning oil lamp nestled up against your crotch is going to insta-cast a NO vote in this poll for you. The danger, the lack of utility due to its light being blocked by parts of your body or your movements in general... hard no on this being realistic.

If you're adding this idea for gamist reasons, that's a different conversation.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I reccomend the creation of a new lantern type with appropriate costs and characteristics rather than clipping a chonky classic one to your hip

If you are going to do that you might as well take the next step and have helmet lamps, so the light actually goes where you are looking. As mentioned previously, aside from the possible heat, a belt light is going to be blocked by the shadow of your torso, arms, and anything you are holding (eg shield).

Gnomish Tunnel Fighter helmet, 250gp.