Worlds of Design: Colonies

If you’ve developed nations in your campaign, you will probably have a world that involves colonies.

If you’ve developed nations in your campaign, you will probably have a world that involves colonies.

waters-3060940_1280.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

World-building offers an opportunity to explore a variety of social, political, and historical concepts, including colonization. While the real-world history of colonization is fraught with imperialism and exploitation, it's important for world-builders to understand its different aspects and the potential implications of including colonies in their fictional worlds. This article is not meant to justify colonization, but rather to provide a framework for world-builders to make informed choices about the structure of their worlds.

Why Colonies Happen​

There are several reasons nations establish colonies:
  • Commercial Expansion (Greeks and Phoenicians/Carthaginians, Portuguese, etc.). Finding more “hinterland” to trade with. E.g. Greek Massalia (now Marseilles) was established in part to trade with the people of Gaul (now France). The Greeks, especially, had no interest in controlling the native populace. The Carthaginians did come to control some of southeastern Iberia. Keep in mind that these trading places involved many permanent residents, they were not merely small establishments like trade depots.
  • Population Reduction (Greeks and Phoenicians/Carthaginians). City-states can quickly become overcrowded/unable to feed their population, colonies provided an outlet.
  • Military Control (Roman “colonies”). This is unusual. Retired Roman legionnaires took land in colonies located in newly-conquered territory in Italy, to help control the inhabitants. So they were “colonizing” land already inhabited by people not so different from themselves. Related to this are towns established in a newly-conquered area (Ireland, by the Normans?) to help control the populace. The “home country” must have a pretty strong government in these cases.
  • Commercial Exploitation (European 16th 17th century). The Mercantile Theory of the time said a country should only trade with its own colonies to maximize earnings. It should not allow other countries to trade with those colonies. To have lucrative trade you had to have colonies.
  • Specialized Settlement (European 16th 17th century). This is different from population reduction, perhaps seen more as a way of getting rid of misfits. The Puritans, for example, for England, the Huguenots for France, the prisoners sent to Australia. This markedly affected the colony.
  • Population reduction to avoid disaster (18th 19th c). There were times, for example during the mid-19th century potato famine, when emigration helped people such as the Irish who would otherwise starve.
  • Pure imperialist colonialism (19th c. imperialism). This is a land and people grab, pure and simple, for prestige, to help nations claim to be “Great Powers,” to “find a place in the sun.” This is the evil face of colonization. And in most cases, it involved few people actually leaving their home country, it’s about controlling populations of distant places.
  • Missionary/Religious Proselytization motives rarely cause colonization, but can certainly follow it, especially in the 19th century.

Why do People Move to Colonies?​

There are a lot of reasons why: economic advantage, fleeing social stigma of some kind, hired to do it, free land, food shortages, religious persecution, better climate, you can think of many more motives.

If a colony is motivated by economic advantage, it's essentially a trade depot and likely to be a seaport or on a river farther inland. Transportation becomes paramount. If the colony is established to accommodate big populations, it’ll start on water but others will move inland for fertile (free) farmland, most likely along rivers.

In a fantasy world filled with monsters, escape from invading hordes of monsters is also a likely reason. Humans sometimes migrate to escape other humans, in the real world (such as the migrations of the Goths in Roman times, fleeing from the Huns). Running from the old country that’s about to be overrun, to existing colonies, may not be a motive to create such colonies, but it may be enough incentive to create one nonetheless.

If you like to make a series of campaigns with differing themes, rather than a years-long single campaign, colonies may show up sooner or later. Player characters could be colonists arriving in a new place, or might be pathfinders who explore an area to allow colonization from the mother country, or they could be locals who find that the colonists are monstrous (think goblinoids or giants) and have to defend their territory before the new neighbors move in.

YOUR TURN: What part do colonies play in your games?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
Only if you decide there is.

that is the thing about this: you are choosing to make it problem, then complaining it is a problem.
Wellllll, only because, as author of the colonial situation in a totally fictitious setting, you have 100% control of not only the narrative but the reality. And it's a reality that specifically doesn't include a lot of factors that come up in real-world colonial situations - displaced power groups, growing resentment as the native culture is lost, changes in the relationship between colonized and colonizer as their own societies evolve or new fashions of rule take hold.
You may be accusing critics of choosing to make it a problem, but you're also choosing to overlook these possibilities, all very easy to imagine as counterpoints, in your scenario. I mean, really, effectively breeding a race of elven overlords to rule over the fractious humans? That's a recipe for racial conflict if I ever read one...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

clearstream

(He, Him)
1) the idea that exploration and dungeon delving is drawn from colonialist literary tropes and itself bad
Those tropes have been noticed and commented on by many others, elsewhere. They're bad tropes, but that isn't my criticism here specifically. I'm dinging a starter piece on "If you’ve developed nations in your campaign, you will probably have a world that involves colonies" for failing to include in its fleshed out list of concepts any from the perspectives of the colonized. Surely just as much a facet to explore of "a world that involves colonies".

It's not clear to me why folk resist this criticism. Read the OP. Notice it overwhelmingly foregrounds the colonists (with just one line touching on a possible narrative of the colonized, albeit succumbing in the same breath to the tropes you mention.)

2) What role the players are assuming in the campaign and whether atrocities committed by the colonizing power are being overlooked. Again I think 1 is is a very shaky notion and the kind of thinking that ultimately leads to “I guess we just shouldn’t even be playing D&D”. The article addresses 2 as a viable option and neither the article nor anyone here Is saying it needs to be white washed.
@aramis erak introduced the atrocities, and surely they are important, but what I am especially advocating is giving voice (and play) to the narratives of the colonized. Murder-hoboing aside, I'd like to imagine most folk don't want to play the characters committing those atrocities as heroes! Rather imagine the stories of heroes of the colonized.

Also lots of us have said doing adventures from the perspective of the colonized would be very interest. I just the critics of the article are overplaying how much this stuff is done.
Considering the history (both of colonialism and of TTRPG narratives) I would say if anything underplaying. Which is a different point from the degree this matters to you. I may be sanguine about things that have never impacted me.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Wellllll, only because, as author of the colonial situation in a totally fictitious setting, you have 100% control of not only the narrative but the reality. And it's a reality that specifically doesn't include a lot of factors that come up in real-world colonial situations - displaced power groups, growing resentment as the native culture is lost, changes in the relationship between colonized and colonizer as their own societies evolve or new fashions of rule take hold.
You may be accusing critics of choosing to make it a problem, but you're also choosing to overlook these possibilities, all very easy to imagine as counterpoints, in your scenario. I mean, really, effectively breeding a race of elven overlords to rule over the fractious humans? That's a recipe for racial conflict if I ever read one...
Reynard wasn’t arguing that these things ought to be overlooked. He was responding to a question about whether you could create a setting that has a form of good colonialism in it. Look entertainment can be as gritty or cartoonish as we want. Some campaigns will explore the negatives of war, greed, colonialism, etc. some will paint things with a more utopian brush to prioritize heroics or action. One of the great things about RPGs is you can do them in any way gm you want. When we start getting proscriptive about it I think that becomes an issue
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Those tropes have been noticed and commented on by many others, elsewhere. They're bad tropes,

People can disagree about whether a given trope is bad or not. And on this topic there has been much disagreement. If you don't like a trope and don't want it in your campaign that is fair, but taking a trope like going into a dungeon killing things and taking treasure and saying people should feel bad for playing that way is a very unuanced take on why they might be doing that. We have covered this a lot so we don't need to rehash it but my point is this isn't settled debate. A lot of people like playing exploration campaigns where you kill monsters and there isn't anything wrong with that in my opinion. I have no moral concern about someone doing this in the context of a fantasy RPG
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
@aramis erak introduced the atrocities, and surely they are important, but what I am especially advocating is giving voice (and play) to the narratives of the colonized. Murder-hoboing aside, I'd like to imagine most folk don't want to play the characters committing those atrocities as heroes! Rather imagine the stories of heroes of the colonized.

The article gives equal weight to playing as the colonized. It specifically mentions that. But it only has a single paragraph on what role the players should be. Personally, I don't know what people are trying to do in their campaigns, so I am not going to say they should be one or the other. Whether it is handled well comes down to the particulars of other peoples campaigns. I think your take is somewhat narrow because it is saying 'there is just this one way to handle this issue'. But I don't spend a lot of time worrying about whether other people are running their settings in ways I approve of.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
It's not clear to me why folk resist this criticism. Read the OP. Notice it overwhelmingly foregrounds the colonists (with just one line touching on a possible narrative of the colonized, albeit succumbing in the same breath to the tropes you mention.)

The article is just an overview of the forms colonialism can take in a campaign for the purposes of world building. The writer mentions it is a fraught topic. The writer also mentions colonization as conquest and taking other peoples land and imperialism and controlling populations great distance away. Again we constantly get articles on other horrible things in history that don't spend the entire time wringing their hands about it (because it is a game at the end of the day, not a history lecture or a sermon). War is one of the most awful things humans do but we talk about it in games all the time without even getting into atrocities committed (and we all understand atrocities happen in war). It is just we aren't always focused on that when we are talking about it for game purposes. When every conversation in gaming gets reduced to moral concerns, it just starts to feel stifling and you lose the people you are trying to persuade.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Considering the history (both of colonialism and of TTRPG narratives) I would say if anything underplaying. Which is a different point from the degree this matters to you. I may be sanguine about things that have never impacted me.

I think my point was not stated clearly. What I mean is you are overplaying how much treatment this stuff doesn't get (not that the atrocities of the past are being overplayed). Just look up colonialism and it is a frequent conversation. Everyone knows about colonialism and atrocities committed under colonialism these days. The conversation in D&D and RPG circles it is often talked about. And there are definitely people making adventures and games that deal with things from the points of view of oppressed people (and from the point of view of humanizing monsters).
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
I think your take is somewhat narrow because it is saying 'there is just this one way to handle this issue'.
For clarity, that is not what I am saying. I'm arguing the opposite: that the OP ought to have included more ways to approach colonialism, not less.

The article is just an overview of the forms colonialism can take in a campaign for the purposes of world building.
And in that very sense is incomplete.
 

DrunkonDuty

he/him
Only if you decide there is.

that is the thing about this: you are choosing to make it problem, then complaining it is a problem.

What?

Are you saying that, when 2 disparate groups meet, in what can only be described as complex situations, that only 1 of those groups has a story to tell? Coz that's the only inference I can draw from this.

Well, that or you're making a personal attack.
 

DrunkonDuty

he/him
@aramis erak

Yeah the Star Wars universe is an effed up place.

I happen to playing in a very high level game of it at the moment. It's set about -15BBY.

My character is a docbot who was freed (by the other PCS) from slavery to some Hutt overlord. The rest of the group are mercs who started out being kinda morally ambivalent but who have slipped very definitely into the role of heroes.

And yep, we as a group oppose pretty much everyone. Not the Rebels though. The group has to carry out it's activities in a lowkey way. We keep ourselves anonymous, working from the shadows.

Each character is encouraged to have a background project. Something they work on between gaming sessions. My docbot is trying to organise something like the Red Cross/Doctors Without Borders. It involves finding like-minded medicos (including freeing other enslaved docbots,) gathering medical supplies, going to war zones, etc.

The enormity of changing a galaxy's worth of effed upedness is beyond what our characters can do. Doesn't mean we as players aren't having fun (yes, fun) trying anyway.
 

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top