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

clearstream

(He, Him)
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.
I'll refer again to my post #34. The OP presents eight facets under bold headers. None at all reflect the perspectives of the colonized. That deserves criticism.

Setting aside that omission, the eight facets themselves are not well considered. For example, it is not unusual for militant colonies to be created to control the inhabitants. That practice continues even today. I can barely bring myself to comment on the naivety and superficiality of separating out "Pure Imperialism" as "the evil face of colonization". As if Imperialism were separable from expansion, exploitation, and control; or those things could not be evils in themselves. And the second population reduction case omits its central feature.

Folk want to avoid worrying about morality in their play. Okay, but had the article taken an objective viewpoint it could have been an article worth celebrating. Instead, it gives a partial viewpoint that represents a moral position.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I'll refer again to my post #34. The OP presents eight facets under bold headers. None at all reflect the perspectives of the colonized. That deserves criticism.
We are just going to not agree here. They are simply a list of types of colonization. So they aren't naturally going to present narratives or points of view of the colonized. Just like if I list eight types of war, I am not going focused on something like the victims of war and their point of view (I may get into that but this is obviously a very bullet-pointed list of types).

On the potato famine in particular that seems to be to be more about the focus, which is emigration if the Irish to the US and elsewhere. He is talking about people migrating to avoid disasters. So he is giving the Irish pov. He just isn’t getting into the deeper history of English colonization of Ireland. I think if he has a deep section on the famine you would have a pint but he just mentions it in passing as an example of emigration. However I also can imagine he would want to be very careful and take a lot more time getting into that topic if he were to wade into it (because if you are going to talk about that, you want to get all your facts straight and make sure you understand the issues involved). If it is simply mentioned in passing that is a different story. Incidentally this isn't something I take lightly. I am a mix of ethnicities and my family on one side came over from Ireland during the potato famine. In my opinion the last thing this thread needs is a debate about the potato famine and its causes (and I am sure if he had got into it, that would not have been an unlikely outcome).

If I were going to critique this section it would be that the Irish were not colonizing when they left Ireland. In the case of the US they immigrated and became part of American society. That isn't a colony. But I understand he was simply using it as an example of people moving due to a disaster and this could be used in a game as a motivation for having a people build a colony.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Setting aside that omission, the eight facets themselves are not well considered. For example, it is not unusual for militant colonies to be created to control the inhabitants. That practice continues even today. I can barely bring myself to comment on the naivety and superficiality of separating out "Pure Imperialism" as "the evil face of colonization". As if Imperialism were separable from expansion, exploitation, and control; or those things could not be evils in themselves. And the second population reduction case omits its central feature.

I agree with you. This isn't a list of detailed historical types. If it were for a history book analyzing colonialism, I would be critical. But it is a list of simple types for use in a game. Something like separating pure imperialism, while not realistic for discussing history, is perfectly valid in a game wher eyou might want softer forms of colonization that aren't as oppressive, or at least more nuanced, but you want a clear option for something villainous to fight against. I am not saying this is teh only way to do such a list. Had I done the list, I am sure I would have taken a different approach. But I understand why he did it in this way and it is functional the way the forms of government list was functional in the old DMGs. Also I think the author understands colonialism is a hot button issue, so he is trying to do it in a way where it is viable for gaming, and he simply put the bad stuff into that one category. I don't really have an issue with him doing that.

Folk want to avoid worrying about morality in their play. Okay, but had the article taken an objective viewpoint it could have been an article worth celebrating. Instead, it gives a partial viewpoint that represents a moral position.

I am not here to celebrate articles or find ways to make sure my mode of play aligns with my personal religious/moral beliefs. I am here to find entertaining and useful material for campaigns. I want an article that gives me playable material, not laudable material.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
I am not here to celebrate articles or find ways to make sure my mode of play aligns with my personal religious/moral beliefs.
If anything, I'm advocating objectivity. An objective list would touch on both sides. The given list evinces partiality.

That said, it feels like we've reached as much agreement as we're going to. A good juncture to agree to disagree?
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
If anything, I'm advocating objectivity. An objective list would touch on both sides. The given list evinces partiality.
I don’t see that here. Having trouble logging in on computer so will keep brief (we are probably at the natural end of this particular line of argument anyways), I see this simply as a list of types of colonization. It isn’t giving the colonialist’s side or point of view just giving an overview of types of colonies that a gm might include in campaigns and scenarios
 


clearstream

(He, Him)
I don’t see that here. Having trouble logging in on computer so will keep brief (we are probably at the natural end of this particular line of argument anyways), I see this simply as a list of types of colonization. It isn’t giving the colonialist’s side or point of view just giving an overview of types of colonies that a gm might include in campaigns and scenarios
Snap! (See my ninja edit.) And I will say that it transparently foregrounds the colonialist's point of view. In some ways egregiously.

EDIT Looks like this one crossed yours in the ether.
 

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