Worlds of Design: Colonies

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

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?

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I don’t know where this weird narrative came from, but colonialism is endlessly and repeatedly described as awful. Not one person in this thread, reading this site, or in the world, is not very aware of this. The narrative that this is somehow not forefront in society’s consciousness of the subject is kinda bizarre. Nobody here is shining a light on suppressed information. It’s very, very common knowledge and portrayed as such widely.

Alas, this is not the case.

Oh, there's plenty of people who, if asked, would say "colonialism bad." But there's also plenty who wouldn't. Or who would say "that happened hundreds of years ago, it's not relevant now."

Also, there's no doubt that there are those lack the critical reading skills to recognise when the colonial narrative is being used in a one-sided manner. Or perhaps they lack the empathy to realise that presenting only one side of a story is innately unfair.

On a more positive note there are, as others have pointed out, many fine adventure stories to be told from the point of the view of the scrappy underdog (thanks @Tun Kai Poh. )

 

[Bedrockgames]

Notwithstanding the morals or ethics surrounding colonisation, there are worlds of interesting plots and drama coming from the viewpoint of the colonised.

Scrappy underdog resistance, roiling internal local politics, collaboration and cultural change... who doesn't want that kind of juicy material for their campaign? Would games like SPIRE even exist without the viewpoints you "don't need?"

That isn't what I mean by 'don't need'. I was talking about not needing the writer to give me a lesson in the morality. I have said more than once on this thread a campaign from the point of view of the colonized would be cool (I have run several campaigns like that myself). My only point was the article mentions that. It only spends one paragraph on what the players would actually be in a colony scenario, but it includes the PCs being the colonized:

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.

I am fine with any of these scenarios (and to be clear a campaign where the the players are colonized by a non-monstrous group would also work)

 

[Hussar]

But, @Bedrockgames, note that the three options are presented as all being more or less equal. But, "colonists arriving in a new place" or "pathfinders representing the colonizing powers. These three things are not equal.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, @Bedrockgames, note that the three options are presented as all being more or less equal. But, "colonists arriving in a new place" or "pathfinders representing the colonizing powers. These three things are not equal.

I don't think he is putting them on an equal moral plane. He is simply presenting the three obvious options. Like I said, people can handle this stuff in different ways, with different tones, different levels of real world morality, irony and nuance. It is fodder for a fantasy adventure, not commentary on real world history. Many campaigns feature war for example. Some campaigns get into the complex morality of war, some treat it more black and white, some make it a backdrop for heroics, and some simply approach war as cathartic shoot-em-up. People should handle this stuff in ways they are comfortable doing so at the table but that is going to vary according to the kind of game being run. And I don't think any of it necessarily reflects real world ethics. Importantly this stuff is taking place in a fantasy world, not the real world, and that does make a very big difference. I am basically a pacifist, but I don't mind a campaign where we swing swords and kill orcs in a dungeon. That doesn't mean I am okay with killing. I also like to run mafia campaigns. Doesn't mean I like organized crime.

Personally if I ran a game with colonialism as a backdrop, my preference would be to do so in a morally gray world. I think that would be a more interesting campaign. I ran a campaign for instance where druids inhabited a land being colonized by elves. But the druids themselves had encroached ages ago on territory inhabited by ogre tribes. There was no good and evil alignment. All the characters and groups were fully fleshed out with different driving motivations and competing interests. All involved had committed atrocities and there were warranted grudges among all the different groups, but also places where they could form alliances. I found that approach interesting. I didn't think it was morally better or worse than other approaches, it was just the kind of setting and campaign I was interested in exploring at the time. But I can see running it any number of ways for any number of reasons.

 

[clearstream]

But, @Bedrockgames, note that the three options are presented as all being more or less equal. But, "colonists arriving in a new place" or "pathfinders representing the colonizing powers. These three things are not equal.

The weighting of the overall article makes that one line an inadequate afterthought, and...

I am fine with any of these scenarios (and to be clear a campaign where the the players are colonized by a non-monstrous group would also work)

...as is astutely responded to here, "the colonists are monstrous (think goblinoids or giants)" which skirts if not outright succumbs to tropes. I suspect that the more powerful narrative would be to position players as "monstrous" heroes being colonized by non-monstrous species (dwarves, elves, halflings, humans).

Importantly this stuff is taking place in a fantasy world, not the real world, and that does make a very big difference. I am basically a pacifist, but I don't mind a campaign where we swing swords and kill orcs in a dungeon. That doesn't mean I am okay with killing. I also like to run mafia campaigns. Doesn't mean I like organized crime.

As a fellow pacifist, that made me think of a possible analogy. Say a journalist published by Enworld were to write an article as a starter on resolving conflict scenes. The body of their article lists eight options, all focusing on violent resolution. I'd criticize that for giving no voice or standing to non-violent resolution. That's not solved by a few empty words in the preamble that they are not justifying violence.

Aspects of my criticism would include that play (the fun) is richer when there are non-violent as well as violent options for resolving conflict. A possible response would be that the OP were only about specific games in which pretend-violence is the whole focus. That obviously doesn't apply if the domain is TTRPG generally (or even D&D specifically). I would argue that there was fun and contrast in non-violent options, preferable over a monotony of violence. I'd celebrate the article were the author able to imagine more richly.

As a pacifist, I would value seeing options for conflict resolution that don't always lean on pretend violence. I value too empathy as a basis for morality. To my observation, roleplaying a character can drive and perhaps relies upon empathy with them. (Note that empathy is distinct from agreement or approval.) Thus roleplaying characters among the colonized can increase empathy for the colonized, which matters today in how folk respond to their various restorative struggles.

Those struggles are not hopeless: in New Zealand and Australia various rights have been slowly, often grudgingly, restored to Maori and Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities. Blanking their perspective from cultural activities such as play denies opportunities for empathy. Worse still, it can lead to disbelief down the line that there is anything worth talking about.

So here I've tried to explain above how I separate my criticisms and have focused on shortfalls in "what has this article offered from the perspective of interested TTRPGers?" I could indeed make moral arguments that I would regard as important ones, but those have not been what I have led with. I've focused on the lack of imagination, the omission of available opportunities for compelling play. That the richer play aligns with my ethics of course makes that resonate for me.

Personally if I ran a game with colonialism as a backdrop, my preference would be to do so in a morally gray world. I think that would be a more interesting campaign. I ran a campaign for instance where druids inhabited a land being colonized by elves. But the druids themselves had encroached ages ago on territory inhabited by ogre tribes. There was no good and evil alignment. All the characters and groups were fully fleshed out with different driving motivations and competing interests. All involved had committed atrocities and there were warranted grudges among all the different groups, but also places where they could form alliances. I found that approach interesting. I didn't think it was morally better or worse than other approaches, it was just the kind of setting and campaign I was interested in exploring at the time. But I can see running it any number of ways for any number of reasons.

What I like here (setting aside morality altogether) is that you have created opportunities for all kinds of interesting conflicts that are very likely to drive compelling play. I'd probably encourage my PCs in such a setting to play ogres!

 

[Bedrockgames]

As a fellow pacifist, that made me think of a possible analogy. Say a journalist published by Enworld were to write an article as a starter on resolving conflict scenes. The body of their article lists eight options, all focusing on violent resolution. I'd criticize that for giving no voice or standing to non-violent resolution. That's not solved by a few empty words in the preamble that they are not justifying violence.

If they did this, I may think it is lacking interesting layers and not living up to their premise, but it wouldn't bother me as a pacifist, and I wouldn't consider it a moral concern, because they are talking about violence in a fantasy game. And I wouldn't consider a preamble like that empty words. I would consider it them saying that they are going to talk about violence in RPGs and don't want to be misconstrued as promoting real world violence (I think such a preamble would be unnecessary but it wouldn't be empty). But this analogy isn't a very good one. A better analogy would be an article about conflicts and war, giving an overview of the various forms this can take. That is more like what this article was trying to do. Could it get into things like alternatives to violence as solutions, and the real world impacts of violence? Sure, but it doesn't have to

 

[Bedrockgames]

As a pacifist, I would value seeing options for conflict resolution that don't always lean on pretend violence. I value too empathy as a basis for morality. To my observation, roleplaying a character can drive and perhaps relies upon empathy with them. (Note that empathy is distinct from agreement or approval.) Thus roleplaying characters among the colonized can increase empathy for the colonized, which matters today in how folk respond to their various restorative struggles.

I value empathy as well. I am only going to quote this section as I think we are getting too close to real world politics and that would put us outside the forum rules, but here I just don't agree with how you see RPGs. I think what we do in RPGs has little to no impact on the real world. This was true during the satanic panic when it was thought game would make us more violent, perhaps even lead to satanic worship or occult behavior, and it is true now when people are concerned about the game's impact on broader social and political issues. I think there are much better venues for solving problems in the world than RPGs. That said, if you want to run a campaign about marginalized people or victims of colonization, that is entirely fair. I just don't see the primary function of RPGs as being a vessel for getting people to understand problems in the world (there are much better mediums for that than RPGs).

 

[Bedrockgames]

...as is astutely responded to here, "the colonists are monstrous (think goblinoids or giants)" which skirts if not outright succumbs to tropes.

If I have a critique it would be the writer ought to have included mention of non-mnonsterous colonizers. Not because monstrous ones are a bad trope but because it just leaves out another interesting choice. But I don't think having monstrous colonizers in a fantasy RPG is a problem. Monsters as a trope exist because they are exciting and stir deep primal fears in us. Those can be used in any number of ways. It isn't bad to have monsters that are well, monstrous. And when people suggest that is an icky trope, I feel it is important to push back because having that on the table is an important tool in a fantasy RPG

I suspect that the more powerful narrative would be to position players as "monstrous" heroes being colonized by non-monstrous species (dwarves, elves, halflings, humans).

This can be interesting and fun. Is it more powerful? I don't particularly think so. Whether the campaign is 'powerful' will come down to execution, and not simply whether the GM subverts a trope (and given that this trope has been pretty well subverted in recent years, it is certainly not going to be surprising). That is almost old hat at this point. The campaign I mentioned where the elves were colonizing land inhabited by druids and ogre tribes had effectively been relegated to the fringes, that was one I ran in the mid-2000s for example. I ran a similar campaign just before that where the players were kobolds living in a continent conquered by humans. I put out an RPG in about 2012 or so that had similar type so of handling of the various races (i.e. not doing what was expected with them), and even then one comment I would hear was that twisting tropes like that was kind of all the rage, and it seemed like I was just jumping on a trend (I wasn't, I just liked what I was doing with the different races, but I did understand the critique and why people would make it). And to be clear I don't think that makes the trope uninteresting or unfun----I think part of why tropes stick is their utility in storytelling and entertainment. My view is people are sometimes too bent on being one step ahead of things when I feel often what works best is stuff that has proven successful in play (and twisting tropes like that can certainly be successful in play, but so can sticking with bog standard tropes).

 

[Bedrockgames]

What I like here (setting aside morality altogether) is that you have created opportunities for all kinds of interesting conflicts that are very likely to drive compelling play. I'd probably encourage my PCs in such a setting to play ogres!

Thank you. For me that is more the goal. I am not interested in real world morality when I run most campaigns (you can probably blame that on being raised in a religious environment where I saw people who prioritized aligning their entertainment with their faith values, and as a result they deprived themselves of so much interesting art and entertainment: I have no issue with people doing that, I understand the impulse, but it isn't for me). I don't see RPGs as useful pedagogical tools or tools for moral instruction. I put some of this stuff in a campaign setting I put out (however the conflict in question wasn't one I was able to well preserve in teh setting book: it was just one of those things that was easy to set up as a part of a campaign but harder to present clearly in the gazetteer of the setting). But the ogres are still there, still essentially occupied in a portion of the setting, and a playable race.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Aspects of my criticism would include that play (the fun) is richer when there are non-violent as well as violent options for resolving conflict. A possible response would be that the OP were only about specific games in which pretend-violence is the whole focus. That obviously doesn't apply if the domain is TTRPG generally (or even D&D specifically). I would argue that there was fun and contrast in non-violent options, preferable over a monotony of violence. I'd celebrate the article were the author able to imagine more richly.

I much prefer modes of play where problem solving is the focus, rather than just diving into combat. But again that article isn't really talking about solutions to colonization. It is just presenting colonization types for world building purposes.