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?

 

[ruemere]

How am I the bad guy here?

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

You're definitely not a bad person.
All I'm asking is that you write a piece, a short section that would meet your expectations, and then request adding it to the original article.
NOTE: I have no ties to ENWorld. This is just a proposal.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're definitely not a bad person.
All I'm asking is that you write a piece, a short section that would meet your expectations, and then request adding it to the original article.
NOTE: I have no ties to ENWorld. This is just a proposal.

I don’t think this is a good idea. And I don’t think Hussar is a bad person either (we just disagree on how the topic should be handled). But submitting revision requests to article writers here, that seems kind of like a bad precedent to set.

 

[ruemere]

I don’t think this is a good idea. And I don’t think Hussar is a bad person either (we just disagree on how the topic should be handled). But submitting revision requests to article writers here, that seems kind of like a bad precedent to set.

At the heart of the issue, we have several people who claim that an article is missing a section on negative impact of colonialism on indigenous people.

At the same time, the article is a fine piece of work. Requesting that the author puts more work is quite unfair. Especially since it could lead us toward a neverending feedback loop of unsatisfied demands.

So, to channel the ongoing effort, I set out to enlist the help of those who moved to criticize. This approach worked for Wikipedia and various Wikis out there.

If you feel it's not a good idea, let me peacefully bow out of this thread.

 

[talien]

At the heart of the issue, we have several people who claim that an article is missing a section on negative impact of colonialism on indigenous people.

At the same time, the article is a fine piece of work. Requesting that the author puts more work is quite unfair. Especially since it could lead us toward a neverending feedback loop of unsatisfied demands.

So, to channel the ongoing effort, I set out to enlist the help of those who moved to criticize. This approach worked for Wikipedia and various Wikis out there.

If you feel it's not a good idea, let me peacefully bow out of this thread.

Editor here,

We publish articles with the understanding that there are constraints involved in length, depth, and complexity. They are not meant to be the final word on anything, and because EN World is a forum, we fully expect diverse perspectives will be represented in the comments. In that way we're different from other news sites that simply post articles with no opportunity to comment (or correct).

That said, we don't usually revise articles unless to factually correct them (typically my fault when I miss a typo or something). The forums ARE the opportunity to express and add to the discussion, and those discussions stick with the article as well. So in that regard, forum posts are your means of adding your content to the article.

We will not always agree. That's okay. What's worse if we never even have the discussion in the first place. Ensuring we disagree respectfully helps the forums thrive and discussions flourish.

In short, thank you all for your thoughtful discussion on this. No topic is controversy free, and I think you all did an excellent job of respectfully putting forth your viewpoints while disagreeing on where you felt the article fell short.

 

[Bedrockgames]

At the heart of the issue, we have several people who claim that an article is missing a section on negative impact of colonialism on indigenous people.

At the same time, the article is a fine piece of work. Requesting that the author puts more work is quite unfair. Especially since it could lead us toward a neverending feedback loop of unsatisfied demands.

So, to channel the ongoing effort, I set out to enlist the help of those who moved to criticize. This approach worked for Wikipedia and various Wikis out there.

If you feel it's not a good idea, let me peacefully bow out of this thread.

I just don't know that it is a good thing for us to be filing requested changes to writers here. Writer's have editors and expect to be asked to make changes and adjustments from them, but for readers to submit requested additions to the article, that feels a little entitled to me, and goes beyond simply critiquing the article. Keep in mind, if it happens for this article, it could happen for all kinds of articles. I can't imagine a writer wants to work in conditions where people on the forum are adding things to their work

 

[ruemere]

I just don't know that it is a good thing for us to be filing requested changes to writers here. Writer's have editors and expect to be asked to make changes and adjustments from them, but for readers to submit requested additions to the article, that feels a little entitled to me, and goes beyond simply critiquing the article. Keep in mind, if it happens for this article, it could happen for all kinds of articles. I can't imagine a writer wants to work in conditions where people on the forum are adding things to their work

I understand your point of view. I also happen to agree with points raised by @talien.

In my work, when I need to deal with conflicting ideas, my preferred approach is to seek a draft, then to publish the version that is acceptable by most interested parties, and then we add supplementary sections as needed. The order of the original is mostly preserved, while the voice of those who dissented/criticized is also heard.

Note that this requires a sort of vetting stage, and a decision by an owner of the process what gets added and how.

Now, the reason I proposed this is that an objection was raised by several long timers, and that objection was put forth in a very reasonable fashion.

At X and at another public forum I frequent, there is a mod note/reader notes. We use it to add context to microblog entries. So why not here?

Colonialism is a sensitive subject, and making such an exception could go a long way for everyone.

 

[Bedrockgames]

At X and at another public forum I frequent, there is a mod note/reader notes. We use it to add context to microblog entries. So why not here?

Colonialism is a sensitive subject, and making such an exception could go a long way for everyone.

I think most writers don't like having their words changed by readers. The note on tweets at X is more like a footnote that is supposed to clarify how accurate something is or add context (i.e. if someone says they are showing footage of an LA riot but it was really in Honduras, the note would indicate that). Here the notes are in the form of red text from mods, changes to the articles requested by the editor for accuracy etc. But this is a different issue. This is posters saying they don't like how the article handled something. Now them not liking it, and them criticizing it in the thread is fair. But creating a process where that then leads to posters submitting revisions for the writer to incorporate into their article? I don't know I can't imagine that not making the writer resentful and leading to problems

 

[Reynard]

I think most writers don't like having their words changed by readers. The note on tweets at X is more like a footnote that is supposed to clarify how accurate something is or add context (i.e. if someone says they are showing footage of an LA riot but it was really in Honduras, the note would indicate that). Here the notes are in the form of red text from mods, changes to the articles requested by the editor for accuracy etc. But this is a different issue. This is posters saying they don't like how the article handled something. Now them not liking it, and them criticizing it in the thread is fair. But creating a process where that then leads to posters submitting revisions for the writer to incorporate into their article? I don't know I can't imagine that not making the writer resentful and leading to problems

Posters that don't like the piece should certainly air their grievances, but demanding changes is the kind of entitlement that I think is becoming too common. You don't get to say what other people should write or say. Ever.

 

[Gilladian]

I my campaign world there have been a series of empires that have each collapsed. 400+ years after the most recent collapse, a new series of kingdoms are arising. They are at the staage now where theyare bumping into each other in some places. Between them are larger and smaller regions of wilderness. Some are populated by small groups of intelligent nonhumans, some by a group of nomadic forest-dwelling humans, and some are simply overrun by monsters. A campaign I will soon be running involves a very “Lewis and Clark style” expedition across country seeking a near- legendary set of realms on the far coast. I will have to think more deeply about what colonialism means in my world!

 

[W'rkncacnter]

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's not the part of your post i took issue with. the part of your post i took issue with is when you implied you wanted tables to see it as a negative thing whether they want it or not, and also implied they lack self-awareness unless they do. what other tables do is, ultimately, none of your business.