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)
It's important to separate the concept of a colony with that of exploitation of indignenous people. While historically the two did go hand in hand, it is possible to colonize empty land. A colony on moon or Mars, or one in Antarctica, for example, present no ethical issues (at least not in terms of indigenous populations... there are other things incuding environmental concerns of course). Not every colony has to displace people.
That doesn't address my concern. The OP lays out under bolded titles multiple colonialist narratives. None such for the colonised, whose narratives are valid, vivid, and desperate.

Leaving aside the loathsome place of "terra nullius" in colonialist apologia that your proposal plays into, my criticism isn’t answered by our coming up with sanitised colonialist narratives.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
That doesn't address my concern. The OP lays out under bolded titles multiple colonialist narratives. None such for the colonised, whose narratives are valid, vivid, and desperate.

Leaving aside the loathsome place of "terra nullius" in colonialist apologia that your proposal plays into, my criticism isn’t answered by our coming up with sanitised colonialist narratives.

Also, sometimes you just want to play a conquering and colonizing orc
 


ruemere

Adventurer
Ethical treatment of colonisation in narrative, begins with and elevates the stories of the colonised. In that light, the OP falls short.

A take that genuinely avoided justifying or glorifying colonialism would at minimum forefront those experiences.

Umm. You are being kind of heavyhanded here by selecting a specific narrative and asking the host of this conversation to promote it. You are also attempting to shame them into compliance.

That's neither nice nor constructive.

Why not become a bit more positive and provide a perspective you desire by yourself? The forum is a collaborative medium, and you may freely contribute.

NOTE: For example, I have provided two examples based on history of my area of the world. There were more aspects to that (there are plenty under Wikipedia links) but for now I have provided the origins of such initiatives.
 
Last edited:

Waller

Legend
That doesn't address my concern. The OP lays out under bolded titles multiple colonialist narratives. None such for the colonised, whose narratives are valid, vivid, and desperate.

Leaving aside the loathsome place of "terra nullius" in colonialist apologia that your proposal plays into, my criticism isn’t answered by our coming up with sanitised colonialist narratives.
I wasn't attaempting to 'address your concern' or 'answer your criticism'; I agree with you that displacing indinenous popuations is bad. As somebody, like many Americans, who literally lives in a 'colonized' area whose population was displaced, it's very much a current and present situation, not just a historical one.

I was merely commenting on how this topic also overlaps with space exploration.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
These kinds of discussions get both uncomfortable and tiresome when people involved start to make moral judgments against others based on the style of elf game they prefer.

I agree. I think any one-true-way approach here, especially in terms of ethics and advice is a problem. Each table is going to be different, we are all going to be managing these kinds of things differently at the table (and I don't think anyone wants to be told they are being unethical if they have x, y or z, or don't have x, y or z in their campaign). You can't get into peoples heads or understand the nuances of what they do at the table and how their groups are reacting to things. And lots of things that are objectionable in life, but a common occurrence in history are fodder for RPGs and fiction (and saying it all must be handled this way or that feels like it just narrows down possibilities and stifles)
 

Hussar

Legend
It's important to separate the concept of a colony with that of exploitation of indignenous people. While historically the two did go hand in hand, it is possible to colonize empty land. A colony on moon or Mars, or one in Antarctica, for example, present no ethical issues (at least not in terms of indigenous populations... there are other things incuding environmental concerns of course). Not every colony has to displace people.
Again, yes, this is the right way to approach it. It should be a conversation at the table. And it should be something the DM and the players think about before diving into the campaign. It certainly can be done, but, it shouldn't be done ... accidentally? Is that the right word? It shouldn't be an after thought that, "Oh, hey, yeah, we're the baddies".

Also, sometimes you just want to play a conquering and colonizing orc
Unfortunately, that's very, very much not how it was presented. Yu don't play the conquering and colonizing "orc". You play the forces of light and goodness that are conquering and colonizing. Which is exactly the sort of problem that DM's should be aware of. The party goes into "orc country" carves out a kingdom by slaughtering or driving off the "monsters" is a really, really icky story.
 


Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Unfortunately, that's very, very much not how it was presented. Yu don't play the conquering and colonizing "orc". You play the forces of light and goodness that are conquering and colonizing. Which is exactly the sort of problem that DM's should be aware of. The party goes into "orc country" carves out a kingdom by slaughtering or driving off the "monsters" is a really, really icky story.

But this is really something that should be handled table to table. In my view these campaigns to purge tropes are generally very productive as people deal with them in different ways. I don't think there is anything icky about conquering fictional orcs as humans or conquering fictional humans as orcs. It is a matter of play style and campaign. In some campaigns, the monsters are actually monstrous. Some campaigns are morally gray. Some campaigns aren't morally gray but hypocrisy is rampant. Some campaigns the players are the bad guys.

If you are bothered by that particular trope. That is totally fair. But I think we probably shouldn't be lecturing one another about these things or about real world morality
 

Hussar

Legend
See, this is why these conversations become so fraught.

Who said anything about "purging tropes"? Certainly not me. I've been very, very clear since the outset that this needs to be dealt with at the table in an open conversation at that table. @Bedrockgames is trying to frame this as some sort of bizarre culture war thing where the poor, downtrodden gamers are being "forced" to "purge" free speech.

It has nothing to do with that. It has EVERYTHING to do with being open and honest. If your (or my for that matter) campaign is about the PC's being the colonizers, then that should be right there in the open. The players are playing the bad guys. There's no burying the lede there.

And, if I start talking about my "Colonizing the Orcs" campaign in a public forum, I should absolutely, 100% be prepared for criticism here. If my response is, "Well, I don't see anything wrong with it", well, I should expect lots and lots of push back. "Hey, I'm running Keep on the Borderlands where the HEROIC PC's are supposed to exterminate all the humanoids in the Caves of Chaos so the GOODLY folk of the Keep will be able to spread out and take their land" absolutely, 100% SHOULD get push back in a public forum.

A while ago, at a board game day, I pulled out my copy of Endeavor. Great game. Lots of fun. The other players said, "Umm, we're the European powers spreading our control over the world in the 18th Century?" "Yup, we're 100% the bad guys here." It's perfectly fine to play Axis and Allies and win as Germany. But, at no point should anyone be pretending that this is a good thing.

That's the point I've been making in this thread all the way along. Being open and honest about a campaign like this is very, very important. And the first step is being honest with yourself.
 

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