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?

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I am just talking about tropes, because you have identified tropes you find icky. I never mentioned culture war or free speech (I mentioned some of these attitudes being stifling but that is about it). And I don't think there is anything bizarre about my post or position.

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.

This sounds like you want other people to see things your way when it comes to this stuff, and if they don't, you think they are being dishonest. I just think you are taking too much of an absolutist position. We are talking about entertainment and art. These things are going to be handled in different ways, in a variety of tones and with different degrees of seriousness, irony, etc at tables. To say "if the players are going X" then they have to be the bad guys, I think is simplistic. In some settings teh orcs will be entirely evil for example.

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.

Why? What does it matter to you that someone is playing a game this way. No real orcs are being harmed. There are probably all kinds of reasons behind why they doing it in this manner and not seeing a problem with it (it may just be a 'kill things and take their stuff' campaign to blow off steam. I get that type of campaign might not be for you. But not every campaign needs to be about real world morality. This is escapism and fantasy. To be clear I don't run campaigns like this, but I do often run campaigns where players are shady characters (I like mafia movies and I like films like Duel for Gold or the Hateful Eight, where the protagonists are morally questionable).

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.

Okay but Axis and Allies is based on a real history, involving real countries, and Germany really committed genocide during that war. So I think there is a big difference between apologizing for the Axis powers and creating a setting where the goods guys can kill orcs.

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.

No one owes you this. And you can't see into peoples souls. They may be being perfectly honest with themselves and their players but just have a different take on these things than you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"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.

Tons of people play the game this way. I don't personally enjoy this approach (i much prefer having things like diplomacy and subterfuge be on the table). But going into a dungeon and killing everything is just a hack n slash campaign. It isn't meant to be anything more than that. If a GM and group want a game where the humanoids are all team evil and the players are team good, is this really such a problem?

 

[Tonguez]

Unless the monsters are, well, you know, actual monsters.

Eek, I suppose it depends on the nature and 'humanity' of your monsters, but doing that in the context of colonisation invokes the worst notions of manifest destiny and divine right.

They dont even have to be humanoid monsters, as the recent movie Damsel invoked the trope to justify and redeem its vengeful Dragon v corrupt Humans.

Though I am reminded of Birthrights King of the Giantdowns as having colonial themes with the redeeming quality of making the humans as barbarous as the demihumans they were in competition with.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Here there is an asymmetry: the OP's articles are platformed by and thus implicitly endorsed, and perhaps paid, by Enworld. The horrifically cruel acts and prejudices adopted or constructed in service to colonialism make it a risky topic, one that has a problematic history in the narratives of TTRPG that many game designers and publishers are today conscious of and actively working to redress.

As such, writing an article to outline colonialist narratives and prompt folk in the community to contribute their own is in itself rather courageous. The OP presents eight facets under bold headers. None at all reflect the perspectives of the colonized. That deserves criticism.

Here is one of them

• 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.

The famine was driven by English colonization of Ireland. Why isn't that the narrative here? Other narratives (of the colonized) could include

Ethnic cleansing. Colonialists often characterised the colonized as less than human. Example, characters arrive home from working on the plantations of colonists to find their children removed by the same's ethnic cleansing program.​

​

Cultural supremacism. Colonialists often treated the rich cultures of the colonized with contempt. Example, colonial mining operations have destroyed or threaten to destroy a crucial magical site protecting your spiritual health (could be reinforced with mechanical effects).​

​

Funding kleptocracies. Colonialists often funded brutal local kleptocracies. Example, an autochthonic "king" is backed by colonial military and assassins to destroy your popular senate and install themselves as a pliant kleptocracy.​

But I am not asking for any one "specific narrative". I'm pointing out an absence of the plethora of valid, vivid and desperate narratives - the entire perspective - of the colonized. From the very beginnings (e.g. Keep on the Borderlands) the narratives of colonists have been given air aplenty. Given the position of the OP (the asymmetry I outline above) I would have celebrated their efforts had they been able to see those stories.

 

[clearstream]

These kinds of discussions get both uncomfortable...

Possibly something that makes it hard for folk to play from the perspectives of the colonized is that it can be uncomfortable. Their experiences were overwhelmingly not those of glorious conquest and enrichment. They're usually stories of the most grievous losses.

 

[ruemere]

Here there is an asymmetry: the OP's articles are platformed by and thus implicitly endorsed, and perhaps paid, by Enworld. The horrifically cruel acts and prejudices adopted or constructed in service to colonialism make it a risky topic, one that has a problematic history in the narratives of TTRPG that many game designers and publishers are today conscious of and actively working to redress.

As such, writing an article to outline colonialist narratives and prompt folk in the community to contribute their own is in itself rather courageous. The OP presents eight facets under bold headers. None at all reflect the perspectives of the colonized. That deserves criticism.

Here is one of them

• 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.

The famine was driven by English colonization of Ireland. Why isn't that the narrative here? Other narratives (of the colonized) could include

Ethnic cleansing. Colonialists often characterised the colonized as less than human. Example, characters arrive home from working on the plantations of colonists to find their children removed by the same's ethnic cleansing program.​

​

Cultural supremacism. Colonialists often treated the rich cultures of the colonized with contempt. Example, colonial mining operations have destroyed or threaten to destroy a crucial magical site protecting your spiritual health (could be reinforced with mechanical effects).​

​

Funding kleptocracies. Colonialists often funded brutal local kleptocracies. Example, an autochthonic "king" is backed by colonial military and assassins to destroy your popular senate and install themselves as a pliant kleptocracy.​

But I am not asking for any one "specific narrative". I'm pointing out an absence of the plethora of valid, vivid and desperate narratives - the entire perspective - of the colonized. From the very beginnings (e.g. Keep on the Borderlands) the narratives of colonists have been given air aplenty. Given the position of the OP (the asymmetry I outline above) I would have celebrated their efforts had they been able to see those stories.

I would like to say that this post is great. You're being specific, put forward examples and add content that enriches the original article. Seriously.

From my perspective, as a person who deals with project initiatives, I would like to say that no starting document is ever perfect or complete.
We're here as hobbyists, we're using our time to post stuff. So being able to collaborate is crucial. So is being able to accept others' perspectives.

So, thank you for your post. Hopefully, your take will also be included.

----

NOTE: I am very much biased, and in favor of the existence of pure evil, or dehumanized evil that uses human face and good PR to destroy. So in my worlds there is place for Rome, Vandal hordes, Hannibal ante portas, Phoenician slave traders, salting the earth and Mordor. Or East India Company. Or Churchill and British India famines.
I also try to take Emil Zola method of reporting the world - brutal, little emotion.

Making a difference is up to the players.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I can't really articulate things better than @clearstream has.

I know that I brought up the "elephant in the room" but, I did so because the article, as @clearstream so clearly points out, the article only presents colonialism from the perspective of the colonizer. Which is what has been presented in RPG's for a very, very long time. I did mention Keep on the Borderlands for a reason. As @Bedrockgames says, "lots of people play this way". So that makes it okay and it should never be pointed out the problems with this?

Why aren't "lots of games" being played where the PC's are on the side of those being colonized? Heck, even when it is presented, such as in one of the Candlekeep Mysteries adventures where the colonizing Yuan Ti are destroying the Grippli village, it's one of eight or ten adventures.

I mentioned Phandelver. Here's an adevnture where the "evil humanoids" are raiding and are all the bad guys. Why aren't the Cragmaw Goblins presented as the rightful owners of their territory?

Oh, right, because as soon as we start recognizing things like that, suddenly the adventures need to be completely rewritten.

 

[ruemere]

Yeah, I can't really articulate things better than @clearstream has.

I know that I brought up the "elephant in the room" but, I did so because the article, as @clearstream so clearly points out, the article only presents colonialism from the perspective of the colonizer. Which is what has been presented in RPG's for a very, very long time. I did mention Keep on the Borderlands for a reason. As @Bedrockgames says, "lots of people play this way". So that makes it okay and it should never be pointed out the problems with this?

Why aren't "lots of games" being played where the PC's are on the side of those being colonized? Heck, even when it is presented, such as in one of the Candlekeep Mysteries adventures where the colonizing Yuan Ti are destroying the Grippli village, it's one of eight or ten adventures.

I mentioned Phandelver. Here's an adevnture where the "evil humanoids" are raiding and are all the bad guys. Why aren't the Cragmaw Goblins presented as the rightful owners of their territory?

Oh, right, because as soon as we start recognizing things like that, suddenly the adventures need to be completely rewritten.

You know, the goblins are usually portrayed as creatures that breed beyond local resource capacity, and who turn to others for more.
Unless you present them as nice rural folk instead of hungry monstrosities, you do not have a case.

And if you change them into somewhat xenophobic, yet still decent neighbors, then sure. Let's trade with them.

 

[Hussar]

You know, the goblins are usually portrayed as creatures that breed beyond local resource capacity, and who turn to others for more.
Unless you present them as nice rural folk instead of hungry monstrosities, you do not have a case.

And if you change them into somewhat xenophobic, yet still decent neighbors, then sure. Let's trade with them.

I am soooo not touching this. The endless, "Oh, the intelligent humanoids are really evil so it's okay to kill them and take their land" discussion has been done to death and I'm not interested.

 

[ruemere]

I am soooo not touching this. The endless, "Oh, the intelligent humanoids are really evil so it's okay to kill them and take their land" discussion has been done to death and I'm not interested.

Ok, apologies for waking this particular sleeping dragon.

NOTE: The recent years turned me into a cynic with regard to this particular topic. I am now fully convinced that people love to ignore history lessons. So nowadays I try to stray from forcing a particular theme or experiences on PCs. I tend to present things "as is", complicated and bloody easy to spoil further, with each side ready to list hundreds of grievances, and youths always ready to shed blood while machiavellic elders plot to obtain more riches.