fanboy2000
Adventurer
No. Eberron's trope is clearly an american view of medieval Europe.Nisarg said:
Why is Eberron being pushed so hard?
- Thread starter DarkCrisis
- Start date
Joshua Dyal said:
The reason to link these things is because the tropes being used; be it "king", "kingdom", "princess", "sword", "knight", "Duke", and even "wizard" and "dragon", are all taken from history or literature.
NOT the history or literature of the planet Neptune, the history or literature of EARTH.
So your argument that there is "absolutely no reason" is absurd.
The reason is that Eberron posits a society that imitates in many ways a real historical society ON EARTH. If it mimics that society, then you have to posit, if you wish the social element of Eberron to be "realistic", that similar circumstances led to the creation of those tropes on Eberron as they did on Earth (and by "circumstances" i dont mean specific events as much as social, intellectual, economic and technological conditions). Likewise, similar circumstances would HAVE TO lead to the end of those tropes.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Keith Baker said Eberron is "Medieval": he didn't just make up that word or pull it out of his ass, or get it from another planet. He got it from earth.
One then must assume one of two things; either Keith used the word "medieval" incorrectly, or Keith intended "medieval" to mean what it really meant here on earth as far as the social, technological, intellectual and economic conditions of Europe in the middle ages. If we assume the latter, it means that Keith intended Eberron to be socially, technologically, intellectually, and economically similar to Europe in the middle ages, and that Eberron must have got that way because of those conditions arising. If things happen that make those conditions impossible to remain (the social devastation of the Last War, the intellectual environment required for the concepts of democracy, or for the widespread "technological" use of magic, the economic prevalence of the dragonmark houses), it means it would likewise become impossible for the overall "Medieval" condition to persist.
So, either Keith was wrong in calling Eberron medieval in the first place, or he is wrong from a social design perspective in trying to make Eberron still "medieval" but add all the other changes.
Some people have asked "how is Eberron doing anythign different from FR or other RPG worlds"? Well, the key is I'm not asking for Harn here, I'm asking for a setting where the overall tropes are intact. Does FR have things that really stretch the limits of what is credibly "medieval"? Yes.. but usually in the areas of the realms where they do, the culture is specifically explained as NOT medieval or not Medieval anymore (places like Amn or Calimsham, or the more fantastic areas away from the FR "heartlands").
Also, the mere presence of magic does not disqualify a "medieval" society. Our own historical medieval society believed in magic, remember. You can certainly argue, of course, that widespread prevalence of magic would seriously disrupt the medieval social fabric.. in fact, I HAVE argued that, and I was DESPERATELY hoping Eberron would address that very issue. The fact that it (or WoTC or the people on Enworld) promised it would, and then failed miserably to do so is part of what has left me so bitter about it. Eberron doesn't address the impact of magic on society from a sociological viewpoint AT ALL... their idea of saying it "addresses" it is saying "well now there's lightning rails and magical gazettes but we're still medieval!!", which is even less realistic than what the realms does.
So I'm not saying that Eberron does things worse on this note than other fantasy settings, I'm just saying that the hype made it sound like they'd do it better, like they'd address it, and then they didn't, at all.
Nisarg
Desdichado
Hero
You left off an option: that Keith/WotC used Medieval to represent a romanticized and generalized view of the Middle Ages rather than a strictly historically "accurate one. Hell, half the historical fiction written about the Medieval period romanticises rather than redacts the actual medieval conditions, and here you are saying that a fantasy world with it's own development which do not closely mimic anything that happened on earth must do more?Nisarg said:
I understand what you're saying, I suppose, I just don't understand why you're saying it.
Kestrel
Explorer
Nisarg said:
I could be totally wrong, Im not Keith, but I would assume when someone uses that descriptor, they are using it rather loosely. The term, Medieval, brings to mind, kings, queens, knights in platemail, sword, and longbows, possibly even wizards and dragons. I know its what comes to mind when I think of the term. My guess is that its the same for the "great unwashed" which Im proud to be a part of. So, since Eberron has all of these things, then it fits that he uses the term to describe the game.
Now, if you are a professor of Medieval Lit or a history buff, then it may drive you nuts. For the rest of us, we'll still be happy with the use of the word.
(Or you could just read Josh's post which says the same thing but with better wording) Get out of my head!
Last edited:
buzz
Adventurer
When you make blanket statements that Eberron "is RIFTS", suffers from "kitchen-sinkism", couldn't possibly appeal to people with humanities degrees, and make assumptions about the designer's intentions, it obscures your supposed point that you're just trying to say Eberron isn't for you. The whole reason that you're embroiled in this long thread is because you're trying to prove that your comments are absolutes and the rest of us just aren't seeing the truth. If anything, you're making a lot of claims about Eberron as a setting that were never put forth by WotC nor were part of the expectations of its audience in order to make your point.Nisarg said:
Naturally, this draws criticism.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Nisarg said:
I'm willing to accept the former just as much as the latter. Medieval means two different things between your definition and the product presented using the term "medieval" in reference to itself.
Does FR have things that really stretch the limits of what is credibly "medieval"? Yes.. but usually in the areas of the realms where they do, the culture is specifically explained as NOT medieval or not Medieval anymore (places like Amn or Calimsham, or the more fantastic areas away from the FR "heartlands").
I'm willing to accept that, based on the book material, Eberron is just as deviant as those societies you just listed. The only difference between the two is (and this is Keith's words from a previous thread here) that Eberron was designed to get away from Real-world analogs as much as possible. He conceived of the religions, the prophecies, and (I'm speculating here) the societies to be different from real-world examples, so as to avoid the cross-references. In Amn, Mulhorand, etc. in the FR, there are cross-references to Islamic Africa circa AD 500 to 1000 , Ancient Egypt, etc. If Eberron does have a cultural equivalent, it is late 18th to 19th century in the Galifarian Nations/Regions- but because there is not (CANNOT be, I propose) an exact correlation between technological development and its social impact, and magical development and its social impact, you don't get a perfect map from one to another.
With alterable printing press, you get literacy, and I don't see anything in Eberron to suggest you DON'T have widespread literacy in the Galifarian Nations. However, no one says that the Lhazaar Principalities, or Talenta Wildlands, or Drooam has anything equating to it - still too new, for one thing.
There are several points that do address it - when looking at the advanced capitalistic theory and mass-market effect of the houses (which had no medieval equivalent - you don't get that until the 14 to 1500's) you see elements of the 1700's move from cottage industry to modern industry. When dealing with the attitudes of other parts of Eberron, it ranges from 10th to 12th century technology in places like Drooam and the Shadow Marches, all the way to the freaking Bronze Age and Stone age in the Demon Wastes and the wilds of Xendrik.
But then, Eberron was not designed with a strong eye to simulation, admittedly by the author. If you really want to see the break between a simulation-model setting and Eberron's narrativist outlook, look at Keith Baker's opinions on the level advancement of Player characters versus NPC's. He explicitly says that (on the WotC FAQs and forums) that PC's WILL and SHOULD gain levels faster than NPC's because they are the heroes. Not some overarcing reason that all should advance or that they should be held back, but they should advance like relative lighting to high levels, because they are the PC's!
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
Eberron's medievalism aside, saying that it's impossible to retain 'absolutist' philosophies following as cataclysmic an event as the First World War ignores historical evidence.
The vast majority of the human population outside Europe, and a majority outside of France and perhaps Austria, Germany and England, did maintain absolutist philosophies following WW1.
Aside from isolated (and often self-proclaimed) intellectuals who competed with their eugenicist, Christian Progressive, communist, socialist, ultra-capitalist, proto-libertarian and other radical counterparts for the hearts and minds of the relatively small elite college-attending population, the United States remained absolutist through the 1920s. Much of the country remained in the thrall of (absolutist) Wilsionian democratic evangelism during that period, and (absolutist) religious faith remained a prime mover in American life. The Great Depression did far more to dampen these sentiments than WW1.
Most of Asia, independent Asia Minor and Africa either retained or established (absolutist) monarchial governments. Imperial Japan became one of the world’s great powers in the aftermath of WW1, while the Middle East experienced relative prosperity under the equally relative stability of its early Hashemite and Saudi monarchies.
Much of Europe, including almost all of the Scandinavian and Mediterranean countries, followed a similar course between WW1 and WW2. The major war powers split about evenly between (absolutist) extreme nationalism and (relativist) extreme internationalism. Austrian culture disintegrated after losing its stable monarchy, laying the stages for its absorption into Nazi Germany, but like England, Austria retained a significant minority of nationalists loyal to its own (absolutist) history and cultural identity. Germany, of course, experienced a huge growth of nationalism that merged with eugenics, class warfare and neo-pagan culture to form the National Socialist movement. France clearly distanced itself from nationalistic trappings, and became a hotbed of many of the nihilistic movements Nisarg describes - many of whom, incidentally, were backed either knowingly or not by the Soviet Union, which hoped to weaken the nations of Europe by doing so.
And the Soviet Union itself? It and its widening circle of client states espoused a different form of absolutism, but a form all the same. Certainly their power increased in the aftermath of WW1.
That’s ignoring the cataclysmic events of prior conflicts – and their non-relativist aftermaths. The Taiping Rebellion in China killed more people than WW1… but left the (absolutist) Chinese empire intact for some time afterwards. The 30 Years War impacted Europe’s population more than WW1, and tore apart the religious unity of Christendom in the process… yet Europe remained almost monolithically monarchial and religiously absolutist for centuries afterwards.
As for technology, well, firearms and mercantilism did kill European feudalism... and ushered in the modern era of absolute monarchy. If anything, the emphasis on air power in WW1, with its accompanying force multiplication of lone, highly trained elites, would have pushed Germany and Austria back in the direction of feudalism, had France, England and the United States not dismantled those previous successful and stable monarchies. Same with Russia if the Czarist government had not been duped by England and France into serving as a punching bag for Germany, an ideological ally.
Korvaire’s reaction to the Last War isn’t entirely clear from the Eberron world book, but at a glance it appears to be a far more historically ‘normal’ one than France, England, Austria and Germany’s reactions to WW1.
That Eberron is medieval is open to debate. That its social order is at the very least as plausible as that of most fantasy worlds appears obvious. Which is doubly a credit to Keith Baker and his team when you consider that they weren't focusing on the creation of a realistic world.
The vast majority of the human population outside Europe, and a majority outside of France and perhaps Austria, Germany and England, did maintain absolutist philosophies following WW1.
Aside from isolated (and often self-proclaimed) intellectuals who competed with their eugenicist, Christian Progressive, communist, socialist, ultra-capitalist, proto-libertarian and other radical counterparts for the hearts and minds of the relatively small elite college-attending population, the United States remained absolutist through the 1920s. Much of the country remained in the thrall of (absolutist) Wilsionian democratic evangelism during that period, and (absolutist) religious faith remained a prime mover in American life. The Great Depression did far more to dampen these sentiments than WW1.
Most of Asia, independent Asia Minor and Africa either retained or established (absolutist) monarchial governments. Imperial Japan became one of the world’s great powers in the aftermath of WW1, while the Middle East experienced relative prosperity under the equally relative stability of its early Hashemite and Saudi monarchies.
Much of Europe, including almost all of the Scandinavian and Mediterranean countries, followed a similar course between WW1 and WW2. The major war powers split about evenly between (absolutist) extreme nationalism and (relativist) extreme internationalism. Austrian culture disintegrated after losing its stable monarchy, laying the stages for its absorption into Nazi Germany, but like England, Austria retained a significant minority of nationalists loyal to its own (absolutist) history and cultural identity. Germany, of course, experienced a huge growth of nationalism that merged with eugenics, class warfare and neo-pagan culture to form the National Socialist movement. France clearly distanced itself from nationalistic trappings, and became a hotbed of many of the nihilistic movements Nisarg describes - many of whom, incidentally, were backed either knowingly or not by the Soviet Union, which hoped to weaken the nations of Europe by doing so.
And the Soviet Union itself? It and its widening circle of client states espoused a different form of absolutism, but a form all the same. Certainly their power increased in the aftermath of WW1.
That’s ignoring the cataclysmic events of prior conflicts – and their non-relativist aftermaths. The Taiping Rebellion in China killed more people than WW1… but left the (absolutist) Chinese empire intact for some time afterwards. The 30 Years War impacted Europe’s population more than WW1, and tore apart the religious unity of Christendom in the process… yet Europe remained almost monolithically monarchial and religiously absolutist for centuries afterwards.
As for technology, well, firearms and mercantilism did kill European feudalism... and ushered in the modern era of absolute monarchy. If anything, the emphasis on air power in WW1, with its accompanying force multiplication of lone, highly trained elites, would have pushed Germany and Austria back in the direction of feudalism, had France, England and the United States not dismantled those previous successful and stable monarchies. Same with Russia if the Czarist government had not been duped by England and France into serving as a punching bag for Germany, an ideological ally.
Korvaire’s reaction to the Last War isn’t entirely clear from the Eberron world book, but at a glance it appears to be a far more historically ‘normal’ one than France, England, Austria and Germany’s reactions to WW1.
That Eberron is medieval is open to debate. That its social order is at the very least as plausible as that of most fantasy worlds appears obvious. Which is doubly a credit to Keith Baker and his team when you consider that they weren't focusing on the creation of a realistic world.
Last edited:
Incenjucar
Legend
MoogleEmpMog said:
In regards to absolutism, it was -extremely- present after WWI, considering that one of the big reasons for the NAZI movement was a nasty version of Christian absolutist views (the same the Passion plays are meant to push -- Read Chaucer to see how the mindset was in the near 1400s as a result), not at all unlike the excuse we Americans (and, frankly, all conquering peoples) have been using when dabbling in genocide -- divine right. The methods change, but the excuses don't change, to this very day, considering our own president claims to be doing holy work when bombing overseas. Absolutism has lost some power, sure but it's still very very strong. Relativism was almost a fad.
Similar Threads
