Worlds of Design: Escaping Tolkien

In my previous article we discussed technological differences; this article focuses on cultural differences. Perhaps the cultural differences aren’t as clear in one’s awareness, but can be very important and just as far-reaching. Don’t underestimate culture!

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Part of world building is figuring out the consequences of changes you make from the technological and cultural background that you start with. You always start with something. For example, there’s often an assumption that there are horses large enough to be ridden in the world, even though for thousands of years of real-world history, they weren’t large enough to ride.

Trapped by Tolkien​

Some world builders get “trapped by Tolkien” as I like to put it. They think elves must be like Tolkien’s (even though those aren’t traditional), dwarves must be like Tolkien’s, etc. Imagine elves with the capabilities of Tolkien’s, but inclined to be Imperials! It’s a change of culture only, but a mighty one. Imagine if dwarves and orcs tended to work together! Similarly, monstrous humanoids aren’t necessarily antagonistic towards humans and vice versa. These are cultural changes that can differentiate your fantasy world from so many others and while subtle, but they can make a big difference. Turn your imagination loose, don’t let it be constrained by a single author or book.

Magical Attitudes​

Attitudes toward magic make a big difference on how a setting works. In one setting the magic users may be the rock stars, while in another they may be dreaded and avoided shadowy figures; they can be as rare as professional athletes or an everyday occurrence.

Modern Attitudes​

It’s probably inevitable that modern attitudes will shape how game masters create their fantasy worlds. Using slavery as one example, whether or not it “makes sense” in a world must also be balanced by how it will be represented in the game. If you are going to take on mature topics for a fantasy world that has a long history similar to our world (including the unpleasant parts), you should consider how your players will deal with the topic.

Intentions​

I haven’t said much about intentional versus unintentional change to a fantasy world, because in the end it’s the change that matters, not the intention. I suppose you’re more likely to figure out what changes will occur, when you’re intending to introduce changes. But a world is a huge collection of interactions, and any change is likely to affect more than you intended.

Your Turn: In your experience, what was the change (from the “default”) in world-setting that made the biggest difference?

 

[Aldarc]

Theism is a bi-product of Bronze Age bureaucracy and slavery.

A "god" is literally a "master", and the servants of a god are literally "slaves".

Theism is highly problematic ethically.

You know what else is highly problematic ethically? When people make ridiculous reductionistic arguments like this about complex topics such as religious history and theology.

 

[oreofox]

And I don't think you'll ever see too many D&D settings where you can't play an elf, dwarf, or halfling. These things exist in the PHB and it would be off brand to create a setting where you couldn't use the basic races in the PHB.

My setting, I removed humans. Well, they used to exist in history, but the "modern" time of the setting has them as being eradicated. I only included elves because my sister loves them and exclusively plays elves. She doesn't play anymore, and I'd have to come up with something completely different in the setting if I wanted to remove them, so I keep them. Dwarves are in because dwarves are awesome. Halflings dies out millenia ago (even before the humans). I never liked hobbits, nor kender. The only halflings that exist are descendants of planetouched halflings, though those are rarer and rarer, only showing up from the offspring of gnomes who these planetouched halflings interbred with. The "monster races" such as orcs and goblins exist. Half-orcs and half-elves don't exist.

Of the PHB races, dragonborn (changed to fit better in my setting), elves, dwarves, and gnomes exist. Gnomes changed to be less trickster fey illusionists into a more regimented warlike culture. Tieflings are a "template" race: they have their own seperate trait write-ups, but they don't look like halloween costumes being worn by humans. They can look like any race/species. I also have many homebrewed races.

So while it is rare, it can be done. Though incorporating any published adventure is exceedingly difficult without the overly pervasive humans. Also, no one race/species is as abundant as humans in default D&D and other fantasy works.

 

[Haldrik]

You know what else is highly problematic ethically? When people make ridiculous reductionistic arguments like this about complex topics such as religious history and theology.

The problem of theism=slavery, is a complex issue. Diverse points of view are welcome.

At the same time, pressuring Cleric players to adopt theism or slavery, is wrong.

 

[Cadence]

The problem of theism=slavery, is a complex issue. Diverse points of view are welcome.

I'm guessing it steps on discussing real world religions too much for the board rules?

At the same time, pressuring Cleric players to adopt theism or slavery, is wrong.

It also feels like saying DMs can't run games in cosmologies where gods grant clerics powers is bad-wrong-fun too? Why is it worse than having some settings where folks of real world religions can't find something in game that is similar to what they have in real life?

But yes, I like the editions that make the source of cleric powers broad so each DM/play group can do what makes them happy within RAW.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Theism is slavery.

Dear Athe! What is this I don't even...

 

[Haldrik]

I'm guessing it steps on discussing real world religions too much for the board rules?

Yes. But the problem is, the core rules of D&D 5e force a religion. Discussion of religion for the sake of gameplay is necessary.

It also feels like saying DMs can't run games in cosmologies where gods grant clerics powers is bad-wrong-fun too? Why is it worse than having some settings where folks of real world religions can't find something in game that is similar to what they have in real life?

To force a Cleric player to roleplay a theist or a slave, is like forcing a Half-Orc player to roleplay being the product of a raped mother (God forbid). It can be, a certain player at a certain table wants to go there, and explore the issues sensitively. But these are not things to push on reallife humans who ethically dissent.

But yes, I like the editions that make the source of cleric powers broad so each DM/play group can do what makes them happy within RAW.

Yeah. The solution is for the core rules of D&D 5e to let the player define ones own character concept. Especially if the player is roleplaying a Cleric.

The player is responsible for deciding on a character concept. At the same time, the DM is responsible for roleplaying the world, and also needs official freedom to make the setting ones own. The Cleric class as currently written in the Players Handbook, is objectionable for several reasons.

 

[Cadence]

To force a Cleric player to roleplay a theist or a slave,

Does adding slave do anything for the conversation beyond just saying theist?

No one is forcing them to play a cleric. And I haven't seen many games where the DM actually enforces much religous duty on the cleric. If anything why aren't paladin oaths (theist or not) even more binding?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To force a Cleric player to roleplay a theist or a slave, is like forcing a Half-Orc player to roleplay being the product of a raped mother (God forbid).

No it isn't, don't be absurd. And as person who doesn't have particularly high opinion on theism or organised religion, I have to say that you comparison of theism and slavery is highly offensive, far more so than anything that is printed in PHB.

The player is responsible for deciding on a character concept. At the same time, the DM is responsible for the world, and also needs official freedom to make the setting ones own. The Cleric class as currently written in the Players Handbook, is objectionable for several reasons.

GMs are fully capable of customising the metaphysics and cultural aspects of their setting and nothing in the cleric rules prevents this.

 

[Haldrik]

Does adding slave do anything for the conversation beyond just saying theist?

No one is forcing them to play a cleric. And I haven't seen many games where the DM actually enforces much religous duty on the cleric. If anything why aren't paladin oaths (theist or not) even more binding?

It directly relates to coercion during gameplay, about reallife aspects that are ethically and culturally sensitive.

 

[Haldrik]

No it isn't, don't be absurd. And as person who doesn't have particularly high opinion on theism or organised religion, I have to say that you comparison of theism and slavery is highly offensive, far more so than anything that is printed in PHB.

GMs are fully capable of customising the metaphysics and cultural aspects of their setting and nothing in the cleric rules prevents this.

Some people were forced to join a religion against their will.

It is wrong.