• We are currently being subjected to a massive wave of spambots. We have temporarily closed registration to new accounts while we clean it up.

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

DrunkonDuty

he/him
Yep. Colonialism is going to pop up in a lot of games.

When it does maybe try to be a bit more aware of the issues being played with than simply framing the colonisers as good guys. Or even as morally neutral. Colonising (other than a dead world) is inherently an exercise in which a more powerful group takes stuff away from a less powerful group. At best.

@W'rkncacnter said " colonizers are the ones who make colonies - which is the entire point of the article! " Your emphasis.

Yes it is.

And that's the problem with the thing. It presents colonisation solely from the point of view of the colonists. It completely ignores the stories of the people being colonised. That it presents colonisation with an air of Protestant Work Ethic = Good; Muscular Christianity; and Manifest Destiny makes it pretty hard to stomach.

Nowadays we* are trying to make up for some of this ignoring of colonised peoples' stories in broader culture. So why not try doing it within our gaming.

Don't worry, I'm not about to write a long essay. I'll just refer you to @clearstream and @Hussar posts above. They cover the issues quite well. There's even a couple of examples of ways to include such stories in your game. :)


* for a given value of "we"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yep. Colonialism is going to pop up in a lot of games.

When it does maybe try to be a bit more aware of the issues being played with than simply framing the colonisers as good guys. Or even as morally neutral. Colonising (other than a dead world) is inherently an exercise in which a more powerful group takes stuff away from a less powerful group. At best.

@W'rkncacnter said " colonizers are the ones who make colonies - which is the entire point of the article! " Your emphasis.

Yes it is.

And that's the problem with the thing. It presents colonisation solely from the point of view of the colonists. It completely ignores the stories of the people being colonised. That it presents colonisation with an air of Protestant Work Ethic = Good; Muscular Christianity; and Manifest Destiny makes it pretty hard to stomach.

Nowadays we* are trying to make up for some of this ignoring of colonised peoples' stories in broader culture. So why not try doing it within our gaming.

Don't worry, I'm not about to write a long essay. I'll just refer you to @clearstream and @Hussar posts above. They cover the issues quite well. There's even a couple of examples of ways to include such stories in your game. :)


* for a given value of "we"

Again, the article is not about the morality of colonization. It is about the reasons (good or bad) for colonization. The only time the article refers to the campaign / players, it states "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." This quote from the article is about all it says about player roles / reactions to a colonial situation. In short there are several different takes on it, at least one of which you would (presumably) approve of. This is a world building article, not an exploration of the morality of the world. This article has, due to its topic, been pushed into an argument about which the article has very little to say. Again, just my 2 cents.
 

Hussar

Legend
The original article doesn't say much about colonialism being either positive or negative. It's about the types of colonialism and the motives for it. Its existence in settings. It talks about various PC roles including being the indigenes who oppose it (or the colonists or explorers who engage in it). It's about world building not morality. The morale judgment is up to the players / referee.

There are a number of systems / institutions in RPGs (feudalism, absolute monarchy, wars, religion, nationalism etc.) about which players make judgements and referees include in their settings. While you could cut out everything that could be morally "iffy" you would end up with a setting devoid of numerous points of conflict, choice, and interest. All imho, of course.
Again though, no one is saying "don't use colonialism in the game". That's the red herring that keeps getting dropped. All that's being said, is if you do use colonialist tropes in your game, maybe take a second or two to think about the implications of what you're doing.

Additionally, I'm adding the point that it would be nice if we saw just a few more "colonialism is bad" adventures once in a while instead of 99% of them not bothering to show the negative of colonialism at all.

...uh, yeah...maybe don't go around to people's tables and try to guilt-trip them into agreeing with you? people generally don't like that.
I know right? How dare I make the point that virtually every single adventure/setting/book for D&D that has anything to do with colonialism never shows it as a negative thing? That at worst, like the article here, it's a pretty much neutral take that glosses over the litany of horrific abuses from slavery to outright genocide that these colonial powers have engaged in for centuries. It's almost like we don't want to acknowledge history at all.
 

Hussar

Legend
Again, the article is not about the morality of colonization. It is about the reasons (good or bad) for colonization. The only time the article refers to the campaign / players, it states "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." This quote from the article is about all it says about player roles / reactions to a colonial situation. In short there are several different takes on it, at least one of which you would (presumably) approve of. This is a world building article, not an exploration of the morality of the world. This article has, due to its topic, been pushed into an argument about which the article has very little to say. Again, just my 2 cents.
Well... yes. That's the point of the whole "elephant in the room" comment I made that started this ball rolling. The fact that the article makes no mention whatsoever of the moral issues surrounding colonial narratives IS THE ENTIRE PROBLEM.
 

ruemere

Adventurer
Well... yes. That's the point of the whole "elephant in the room" comment I made that started this ball rolling. The fact that the article makes no mention whatsoever of the moral issues surrounding colonial narratives IS THE ENTIRE PROBLEM.
In that case, do consider writing such section, and request inclusion in the original article.
The amount of effort you've already committed to this thread, plus your decent writing skills, prove that you should be up to the task.

By the way, your caps lock seems to be failing.
 

Hand of Evil

Hero
Epic
Resources. Deforestation, food production, and everything else. The rich just want to stay rich and finding new sources of income and so, the dump their malcontent somewhere and tax them. It also gives them loopholes to laws back home.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Well... yes. That's the point of the whole "elephant in the room" comment I made that started this ball rolling. The fact that the article makes no mention whatsoever of the moral issues surrounding colonial narratives IS THE ENTIRE PROBLEM.

The article has a disclaimer at the introduction:

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.

The article doesn't get deep into the issues, but it mentions they are there and makes clear it isn't justifying colonialism
 

Hussar

Legend
In that case, do consider writing such section, and request inclusion in the original article.
The amount of effort you've already committed to this thread, plus your decent writing skills, prove that you should be up to the task.

By the way, your caps lock seems to be failing.

How am I the bad guy here?

Pointing out the fact that colonialism is not amoral should not be a big deal.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
The article doesn't get deep into the issues, but it mentions they are there and makes clear it isn't justifying colonialism
I took that line into consideration in forming my criticism. One obvious shortcoming of the OP is failing to grasp exactly what not justifying colonialism would really amount to.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top