Worlds of Design: 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
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.

Well, I’m not really sure how one goes about seeing colonialism as a positive to be honest. It’s not really a case of want. The most horrific periods of history filled with a shopping list of atrocities is kinda hard to spin as a good thing, IMO.

So yeah, I’m not really implying that colonialism is bad and people should be aware that it’s bad. I’m straight up stating it. Colonialism is bad.

And huge, huge props to @Gilladian for talking about how the Lewis and Clark campaign should take a minute or two to think of the implications.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well, I’m not really sure how one goes about seeing colonialism as a positive to be honest. It’s not really a case of want. The most horrific periods of history filled with a shopping list of atrocities is kinda hard to spin as a good thing, IMO.

So yeah, I’m not really implying that colonialism is bad and people should be aware that it’s bad. I’m straight up stating it. Colonialism is bad.

And huge, huge props to @Gilladian for talking about how the Lewis and Clark campaign should take a minute or two to think of the implications.
So, if we can create a kind of fantasy "colonialism" that isn't evil, why shouldn't we. Must we only use the idea of expansion as a lesson about real world history being evil, even in our fun time elf game?
 

And, just to address the point about revising the article. I don't think that the article should be revised. The point of these articles is to stimulate discussion, which this article certainly has. There's no reason to go back and edit/change it. It is what it is. Now, I obviously think that the article is written from a particular bias that I strongly disagree with, but, that doesn't make it something that shouldn't be written. It just means that I disagree with it.

My disagreement is nothing more than that.

Why would the article need to be amended? That's what these comments are for.
 

So, if we can create a kind of fantasy "colonialism" that isn't evil, why shouldn't we. Must we only use the idea of expansion as a lesson about real world history being evil, even in our fun time elf game?
I'm not really sure how you do that. It's kinda like having a non-evil Holocaust.

So, I'll bite. What is a non-evil colonialism. What does that look like? You've mentioned this hypothetical a couple of times, but, never gone into detail that I can see. OTOH, I've repeatedly talked about what the game actually presents and how it's actually written in the real world. But, hey, let's see this non-evil colonialism where a benevolent power enters another culture and begins colonizing it without destroying it or committing a shopping list of atrocities.
 

So, if we can create a kind of fantasy "colonialism" that isn't evil, why shouldn't we. Must we only use the idea of expansion as a lesson about real world history being evil, even in our fun time elf game?
Not only, but I do feel the historical version of colonialism should be included where relevant in games purporting to represent plausible people and their actions. After all, real life is chock-full of bad actors past and present, and if you're going to remove that in your setting (or restrict antagonists to super-villain style activity only), my preference would be that the writer be explicit that they are making a break from reality in that regard. Many games have, and so long as they're clear and honest about it I see no issue.
 

I'm not really sure how you do that. It's kinda like having a non-evil Holocaust.

So, I'll bite. What is a non-evil colonialism. What does that look like? You've mentioned this hypothetical a couple of times, but, never gone into detail that I can see. OTOH, I've repeatedly talked about what the game actually presents and how it's actually written in the real world. But, hey, let's see this non-evil colonialism where a benevolent power enters another culture and begins colonizing it without destroying it or committing a shopping list of atrocities.
It always amazes me that gamers, supposedly the most creative people of all, can lack so much imagination.

The Arroval of the Eladrin: It was three centuries ago that the first Eladrin explorers followed the Roots of Yggdrisil to Nauon. There they found humans, living in small tribes of hunter gatherers, with rudimentary art and language but no signs of farming or other civilization. They were intelligent, though, and the Eladrin could see in them the Celestium Spark.

The Eladrin made contact and soon a wary friendship developed. The humans were bold and energetic and took to both the Eladrin ways of living and use of the Spark (aka magic) with gusto. But humans were also fractious and the Eladrin found themselves first negotiating peace between human tribes and eventually serving as overlords of that peace and the mascent human civilization.

An interesting thing happened when Eladrin and humans coupled. The children born were more Eladrin than human, but still carried their human boldness. These were known as the Elves.

Humans thrived under Eladrin rule. They learned many arts, from architecture to sorcery, and adapted the Eladrin lessons to the human mind. In turn, the Eladrin learned much from humanity, for the Eladrin were immortal and much of life had eluded them without the specter of death hovering nearby.

In the end, the Eladrin chose to leave humanity and return to the fae realm. The left their children the elves in charge in their stead.
 

It always amazes me that gamers, supposedly the most creative people of all, can lack so much imagination.

The Arroval of the Eladrin: It was three centuries ago that the first Eladrin explorers followed the Roots of Yggdrisil to Nauon. There they found humans, living in small tribes of hunter gatherers, with rudimentary art and language but no signs of farming or other civilization. They were intelligent, though, and the Eladrin could see in them the Celestium Spark.

The Eladrin made contact and soon a wary friendship developed. The humans were bold and energetic and took to both the Eladrin ways of living and use of the Spark (aka magic) with gusto. But humans were also fractious and the Eladrin found themselves first negotiating peace between human tribes and eventually serving as overlords of that peace and the mascent human civilization.

An interesting thing happened when Eladrin and humans coupled. The children born were more Eladrin than human, but still carried their human boldness. These were known as the Elves.

Humans thrived under Eladrin rule. They learned many arts, from architecture to sorcery, and adapted the Eladrin lessons to the human mind. In turn, the Eladrin learned much from humanity, for the Eladrin were immortal and much of life had eluded them without the specter of death hovering nearby.

In the end, the Eladrin chose to leave humanity and return to the fae realm. The left their children the elves in charge in their stead.

‘My Fellow Humans,

It is Three centuries since these Eladrin came to our world, coming with promises of enlightenment and prosperity, and for a time our people in humility and love believed them. We welcomed their magic, their wisdom, and their grandeur. Yet in doing so, we forsook our own sovereignty. For they did not come as equals, but as overlords, with the arrogance of saviors.

Who said our ancestors were not happy, content to live their own traditions, making their own choices? We were not empty vessels to be filled with another’s vision. The Eladrin watched generations of humanity born, grow and die, they saw our potential and they stole our strength, taking it upon themselves to shape our world in their image! Did we truely need their ways to replace our own? Did we trade our freedom for the favor of false gods?

Now, the Eladrin depart, they leave our society so intertwined with their influence that we struggle to remember who we truly are. But their leaving is not a gift; it is a betrayal. They leave behind their offspring reliant on their magic and bound by their rules, but they take with them the legacy that was our birthright.

We are not their creations. We are not their servants. We are humans, with our own spirit, our own will, and our own destiny. It is time to reclaim what has always been ours—to build a future defined not by the will of the Eladrin or their descendants, but by the hands and hearts of Human beings.

For too long, we have lived as shadows in their light. Now, it is time for us to stand in the light of the suns, as our own masters, charting a course that is true to ourselves. The time for rebellion is now. The time to reclaim our freedom is now. We will not be forgotten or diminished. We will rise as a united Humanity, united and strong, Rise, my friends, united Humanity, let us throw off the Eladrin taint and reclaim our future!
 
Last edited:


‘My Fellow Humans,

It is Three centuries since these Eladrin came to our world, coming with promises of enlightenment and prosperity, and for a time our people in humility and love believed them. We welcomed their magic, their wisdom, and their grandeur. Yet in doing so, we forsook our own sovereignty. For they did not come as equals, but as overlords, with the arrogance of saviors.

Who said our ancestors were not happy, content to live their own traditions, making their own choices? We were not empty vessels to be filled with another’s vision. The Eladrin watched generations of humanity born, grow and die, they saw our potential and they stole our strength, taking it upon themselves to shape our world in their image! Did we truely need their ways to replace our own? Did we trade our freedom for the favor of false gods?

Now, the Eladrin depart, they leave our society so intertwined with their influence that we struggle to remember who we truly are. But their leaving is not a gift; it is a betrayal. They leave behind their offspring reliant on their magic and bound by their rules, but they take with them the legacy that was our birthright.

We are not their creations. We are not their servants. We are humans, with our own spirit, our own will, and our own destiny. It is time to reclaim what has always been ours—to build a future defined not by the will of the Eladrin or their descendants, but by the hands and hearts of Human beings.

For too long, we have lived as shadows in their light. Now, it is time for us to stand in the light of the suns, as our own masters, charting a course that is true to ourselves. The time for rebellion is now. The time to reclaim our freedom is now. We will not be forgotten or diminished. We will rise as a united Humanity, united and strong, Rise, my friends, united Humanity, let us throw off the Eladrin taint and reclaim our future!
I love both stories!
 

The number of idealogical purity tests going on in this thread is pretty gross.
Calling the voicing of concerns a "purity test" is pretty insulting, please don't.

No-one is testing anyone. A few people are saying that the original article is bad. I am one of them. One person recommended adding to the original article. Note I said adding, not removing anything from it.

The problem with the article is that it only considers the point of view of the colonists. This is a problem. It is a problem exacerbated by the fact that the majority of published gaming stories have done exactly the same thing. Thus criticising the article for being one sided is fair comment.

Once again, asking for diversity in points of view is NOT any sort of test.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Trending content

Remove ads

Top