PDA

View Full Version : Fantasy-games: Should citizenship count for something?



Jon_Dahl
2013-07-17, 09:05 AM
Nowadays citizenship is important. Being a foreigner limits you in certain ways compared to citizens of that country. When you play a modern (and futuristic?) game this is evident if you travel to different countries.

What about fantasy? D&D especially, from my point of view... I was just thinking that the PCs in my group come from different kingdoms. Should I bring this up in the game?

A couple of examples:
1. Non-citizens are joining the local merchant guild. What are the implications? So far in my game: None.
2. Non-citizens buy property within the kingdom. I was thinking about putting severe limitations and doubled taxes for outsiders that try to buy property within almost any fantasy realm.
3. What about crime? I was thinking about slightly worse odds of getting non-guilty verdicts for non-citizens.

What do you think? Try to imagine a generic kingdom in a generic fantasy setting. What is the worth of being a citizen from the PC point of view? If you want a specific example, let's say Keoland from Greyhawk, but I'd rather avoid specific examples here. Let's talk in general terms.

Jay R
2013-07-17, 09:18 AM
The more civilized and settled a place is, the more laws it's likely to have.

Citizenship is likely to make no difference at all in a colony being carved out of wilderness, or in a forest filled with monsters.

In a small village, the newcomers will be met with suspicion, but no legal hassles.

In the capital of a large, bureaucratic kingdom, then many activities will require permits which might be difficult or impossible for foreigners.

Of course, if those foreigners have just saved the kingdom from a major threat, everything will be a lot easier for them for the first few months, followed by a period of jealousy and accusations of "taking jobs away from our people".

But the biggest threat to outsiders isn't from the legal structure, but from the people. Original D&D had the "Angry Villagers" rule.

hamlet
2013-07-17, 11:58 AM
But the biggest threat to outsiders isn't from the legal structure, but from the people. Original D&D had the "Angry Villagers" rule.

Always fun to employ. And I always add the cautious villagers rule. As in, the party is, most likely, a heavily armed and armored group of wandering ruffians whom the village folk have no real reason to trust yet and are likely quite afraid of them. Sometimes, in certain places, the party is likely to get asked to buzz off even before they've gotten the chance to introduce themselves.

Yora
2013-07-17, 12:57 PM
It depends entirely on the setting. In the setting I am writing, your membership in a clan determines everything. Guards will only defend people of their own clan, allied clans, or guests of their clan, while not taking risks for strangers. If you're of a hostile clan, you are automatically treated as an enemy, even if you never did anything yourself.
If you have no clan at all, it means you are basically uninsured and nobody will pay any damages you might cause, so you are a liability to everyone. Also, if there is nobody to take revenge on, if you commit a crime, you are basically a lose canon who could do whatever you want and simply run away before you are discovered.
With someone from a hostile clan, you could at least demand compensation from the clan leaders or threaten revenge, so someone without a clan is even less trustworthy than an enemy.

I've heard some stories of early ethnologists and adventurers who were guests of tribal people, which were really weird when compared to how justice and charity are understood in modern nation states. Yet entirely logical and sensible in their context. Which I want to make a major part of the setting.

In Eberron, citizenship of one of the five nations would probably also be an important issue. While in the Forgotten Realms there are almost no centralized states, except for Cormyr, Mulhorand, and maybe Calimshan and Thay, which are somewhat feudal. For all the other places, it only matters if you are an inhabitant of the settlement or not. Doesn't matter if you were from one village down the road or the other side of the world.

Slipperychicken
2013-07-17, 04:39 PM
[This is my guess. I'm not an expert on fantasy citizenship laws]

If you're not a citizen, and you cause trouble, you're likely to be deported to your country of origin rather than be tried/sentenced locally (or just dumped outside the gates and banned from the city). It does depend on relations between the two states, though.

Foreigners would face fees and penalties for buying property, if they're allowed to do so at all.

Foreigners might not have the same rights as locals (even the citizens probably don't have many rights). They might be imprisoned without trial, and might not be able to appeal against corrupt officials. They might be victimized by locals and police who know they'll get off scot-free because their word will be taken over a foreigner's.

If you can't present a right of passage, then you're at the mercy of the local authorities, who can do basically whatever they want, especially to a stateless person. Without political will to protect travelers, local thugs will have their way.

erikun
2013-07-17, 04:54 PM
The relevance of non-citizenship should probably mirror how important you want it to be in the campaign.

On one hand, if you want the citizenship to be a central part of the setting, then you'd probably make a big deal about it during character creation or during interactions in the game. For example, one big point in Legend of the Five Rings is being a samurai in one of the main families, and so which family a character belongs to is a big deal. If you want a city to have (unusually) strict laws about citizenship, then the characters should probably hear about it at the front gate - getting issues "visitor" passes and such - and make it significant throughout their stay.

On the other hand, if you don't want acquiring citizenship to be an important part of the campaign, then you'd probably waive and ignore the whole citizen/non-citizen consideration. I mean, you already have every civilized person on the planet speaking the same language and accepting all currencies as equal. Saying they all accept equal citizenship shouldn't be that unrealistic.

Eldan
2013-07-17, 04:58 PM
If you're basing this on the middle ages, remember that the idea of "nation" is a pretty new one, historically speaking. Two-hundred years and a bit, perhaps, less in some places.

In many medieval nations (it's always difficult to say "all", the European middle ages are culturally very diverse), as a peasant, you'd be beholden to your local noble. A king or other higher government is a distant concept.

Dimers
2013-07-17, 06:56 PM
Distrust of strangers is a survival trait that can potentially impact very large populations in a short time. A village being too trustful with a con man just bleeds off a little money, but even one person taking in an ill stranger can spread an epidemic that wipes out an area because nobody local has developed the immunity. Strangers can sometimes bring good things too (e.g. adventurers fixing local problems for you!), but distrust should be the general rule.

What a culture DOES with that distrust is another matter. That can vary a lot from place to place. Shut out strangers, fleece them, welcome them but stay alert, trade with them and send them on their way, use their skills to your own advantage -- lots of options.

Depending on whether divinatory abilities are more or less common/effective than deceptive abilities, the amount of trust given can be higher or lower.

Berenger
2013-07-17, 06:56 PM
I'd argue that citizenship is even more important in a classical or medieval inspired RPG. In a world without universal human (demi-human, humanoid...) rights citizenship may be the only thing protecting you and your family from arbitrary persecution. Well, aside from that Axe Of Town Guard Decapitation +3.


In many cultures citizenship, at least full citizenship, isn't given freely to every Joe Average just for being born and raised in a certain city / country. It is to be earned, bought or inherited and often to be supplemented with an oath of allegiance. It is a privileged status.


I'm also fairly certain that a "non-citizen joining the local merchant guild" is so not going to happen. Guilds are, among other functions, designed to shut out foreign competition. An aspirant desiring to join would surely need to attain a local citizenship first.


Verdicts and punishment in the middle ages tend to be extremely dependent on your social class, your reputation and the reputation of the people that are willing to testify in your favor.

Amaril
2013-07-17, 07:07 PM
This is interesting to me, because the world I'm working on right now has political norms inspired mostly by ancient Greece, with independent city-states rather than nations. In this tradition, I'm planning on making citizenship to a particular city a big deal--it'll be difficult to obtain, but having it will confer all kinds of advantages, like more rights to buying and owning property, protection from being sold into slavery (in cities that still have slavery), and more lenient punishments for crimes (non-citizens will almost always be either executed or thrown in prison and left to rot). If anybody familiar with the idea of citizenship in the ancient Greek poli has any suggestions or advice to offer about making it more authentic in my setting, I'd really love to hear it.

LongVin
2013-07-17, 07:14 PM
You can look at ancient Rome for examples. If you were a Roman citizen and arrested in one of the provinces you had the right to demand a trial in Rome. Whereas if you were just some random provincial person living in Gaul and you get arrested, the governor of Gaul sentences you, no ifs ands or buts.

TuggyNE
2013-07-17, 07:17 PM
If you're basing this on the middle ages, remember that the idea of "nation" is a pretty new one, historically speaking. Two-hundred years and a bit, perhaps, less in some places.

Although, consider Roman citizenship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship) as well. Complex, surprisingly comprehensive, and potentially available to a broad range of people, in at least some form.

Berenger
2013-07-17, 07:20 PM
If anybody familiar with the idea of citizenship in the ancient Greek poli has any suggestions or advice to offer about making it more authentic in my setting, I'd really love to hear it.

I'm no expert, but a vote in affairs of state and obligatory military service come to mind. Also, several "tiers" of citizenship (example in athens: Pentacosiomedimni, Hippeis, Zeugitae, Thetes [unsure of english spelling], Metic [resident alien]) defining the particulars of your rights and duties.

Fighter1000
2013-07-18, 12:32 AM
In my setting, there is one kingdom, and one king (who is a powerful wizard). There used to be a queen, but she died of a magical disease not even the king could cure.
Below the royal family, there are two kinds of people in the kingdom: commoners, and nobles.
Nobles have many more rights and privileges than commoners do, naturally. You can be born into a noble family, which is nice, or you can obtain a noble title (which costs a lot of gold).
Nobles are the only ones who can own property.
Both commoners and nobles have to pay taxes.
Also, the king has decreed that he and his descendents are the only ones in the kingdom who are allowed to practice arcane magic. If a commoner breaks this law, they are killed, and all their arcane paraphernalia destroyed. If a noble breaks this law, all their arcane paraphernalia is confiscated and brought to the king, and the king personally does a memory wipe of that noble (with an amnesia spell). The king does this to keep the people under his heel, as he believes he and his descendents are the only ones who would use arcane magic responsibly.
Slavery is legal, but nobles cannot be made into slaves. Only nobles are allowed to own slaves, and there is a limit to how many slaves a noble house can have.

Ashtagon
2013-07-18, 02:45 AM
A more fundamental question to answer first is, what is the proof of being a citizen?


Documentation: In modern societies, that typically means you can provide passport, birth certificate, ID card, or related forms of documentation on request. This typically won't exist in societies unless either central databases on the populace that can be checked rapidly exist, or the technology to make unforgeable documentation exists.

Ethnocentrism: In pre-modern times, it might be having the right skin colour, speak the right language, have the right accent, or some other characteristic that is obvious in any kind of social interaction. Essentially, it's a chauvinistic attitude that would be called of some kind of "-ism" of the type that often gets legislated against in modern times. It might even be gender-based (classical Greece springs to mind), wealth-based (most early "democratic" traditions), or some combination of two or more of the above.

Association: Another variant is based not on what you are, but on who you know. In essence, you aren't a "citizen", but you are "a guild member/friend of the baron/member of the guard/whatever". Again, not citizenship as we understand it, but a social network of influential people on whom you can call for favours. This was essentially how it worked in Roman times; St. Paul (I think; I'm no Bible scholar) once claimed to be a Roman in a court, and the judge was like, "says who?".

Incidentally, in early modern times, passports existed, but they were generally issued only to ambassadors and the like, and were essentially a standardised letter asserting that the named individual was indeed a "friend of the king".

Jon_Dahl
2013-07-18, 03:27 AM
That question about proof is very essential.
All the record keeping at that time was very poor and it seems unlikely that people carried "passports" like official documents of citizenship. I don't want anything fancy or modern. It's a kingdom of 1,800,000 people. Maybe citizenship is simply impossible to control?

Rion
2013-07-18, 06:46 AM
Another important factor to consider is that in pre-industrial times you weren't a citizen of a country, but rather of a city. A medieval frenchman might be a citizen of Paris, Bourges or Tours, not of France.

As others have said, citizenship was at the same time a privilege, conferring significant benefits. For example, IIRC at the very least partial citizenship was a requirement to even live inside the city walls during the middle ages. You could stay at inns and taverns inside the city for a while without being a citizen, but you couldn't live and work there.

Kiero
2013-07-18, 10:00 AM
This is interesting to me, because the world I'm working on right now has political norms inspired mostly by ancient Greece, with independent city-states rather than nations. In this tradition, I'm planning on making citizenship to a particular city a big deal--it'll be difficult to obtain, but having it will confer all kinds of advantages, like more rights to buying and owning property, protection from being sold into slavery (in cities that still have slavery), and more lenient punishments for crimes (non-citizens will almost always be either executed or thrown in prison and left to rot). If anybody familiar with the idea of citizenship in the ancient Greek poli has any suggestions or advice to offer about making it more authentic in my setting, I'd really love to hear it.

With citizenship comes duties regarding military service (you'd be expected to come ready for war if mustered) and serving on juries. There's also the potential for election to various magistracies, but there are also public expenditures (liturgies) which could be voted to you on behalf of the city.

Rights include voting and representation in both assembly and courts (non-citizens weren't recognised). An assembly can vote on grants of citizenship, assuming there isn't a powerful magistrate who's taken over that power.

Many Greek colonies had laws forbidding foreigners (ie non-citizens) from carrying weapons or wearing armour within the city walls, which might be a pretty serious imposition on the average adventurer. Though they didn't have a "town guard" or the like, for the most part relying on the citizens and social compact to keep order. Sometimes there might be publically-funded mercenaries (Athens had its Scythian slaves) to assist in the task.


That question about proof is very essential.
All the record keeping at that time was very poor and it seems unlikely that people carried "passports" like official documents of citizenship. I don't want anything fancy or modern. It's a kingdom of 1,800,000 people. Maybe citizenship is simply impossible to control?

It can be done by popular assent. In ancient Massalia (where my historical game is set), you had to be able to prove you were Massalian three generations back and had children. So if you can convince the other citizens that you are, by evoking shared kinship and the like, you could be granted citizenship. The latter part skews towards established people with an investment in continuing to live in the place.

Jay R
2013-07-18, 11:00 AM
If anybody familiar with the idea of citizenship in the ancient Greek poli has any suggestions or advice to offer about making it more authentic in my setting, I'd really love to hear it.

Originally, it was a city and its surrounding farmland over which it held sway. Eventually, larger cities started sending out colonies that were also part of the city-state (polis), though not part of of the specific city. The polis is the people, not the place, by the way. The Athenians, rather than Athens. This probably affects why foreigners who move in do not become citizens.

The first thing to realize is that citizenship was pretty rare. Only about 10% of the people living in a polis were full citizens. These were the free men who were born there.

The men who moved in from elsewhere had full property rights, but no political rights - they couldn't vote, hold office, or bear arms. They are all part of the assembly - they meet and vote on every law. This is similar to non-citizens living in a modern country

The women and children in the families of citizens had the same legal rights except that their financial interests are held in trust by the men. (Yes, the women could own property, but some man would do the buying and selling for her.) Like the foreigners, they have no political rights - they cannot vote, hold office, or bear arms.

Finally, there were slaves, who are property.

An adventuring party from outside would be in the second category, with full legal rights, but they cannot vote or hold office. This will not bother the average PC. But they also could not bear arms, unless you change it from the Greek model. Remember that this is where the legend of the Trojan horse was invented. Armed foreigners in the city are likely to look like the start of an invasion.

The most interesting use of a polis might be right next to a savage wilderness. The lands of the polis are those that they can keep the monsters away from, and there would be near-constant battles to keep their farmland safe and productive.

Amaril
2013-07-18, 01:37 PM
The prohibition against bearing arms in a city for non-citizens could be a big impediment to adventuring...I wonder, does anybody know what the opinion on bearing arms was during the high Middle Ages, for citizens and foreigners both? That's the other main period I'm drawing from for my setting, so if it makes adventuring more practical, I'll go that route instead of the Greek one for that aspect of things.

Eldan
2013-07-18, 02:03 PM
In a lot of medieval pictures I've seen, you see people walking around with large knives, six inches to a foot long and those don't really seem to count as weapons. Just a handy tool everyone has always handy.

Kiero
2013-07-18, 02:48 PM
The prohibition against bearing arms in a city for non-citizens could be a big impediment to adventuring...I wonder, does anybody know what the opinion on bearing arms was during the high Middle Ages, for citizens and foreigners both? That's the other main period I'm drawing from for my setting, so if it makes adventuring more practical, I'll go that route instead of the Greek one for that aspect of things.

I'm not sure it is an impediment, so much as something requiring creative thinking, and a useful brake on trouble-making in town.

There were more extreme expressions even than that; in ancient Rome, no one (bar the Master of the Horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magister_equitum#Magister_Equitum_.28Ancient_Rome. 29) - a temporary office to which a single man was elected in times of crisis) was allowed to wear armour within the pomerium, the boundary of the ancient walls.

Jay R
2013-07-18, 03:51 PM
The prohibition against bearing arms in a city for non-citizens could be a big impediment to adventuring...I wonder, does anybody know what the opinion on bearing arms was during the high Middle Ages, for citizens and foreigners both? That's the other main period I'm drawing from for my setting, so if it makes adventuring more practical, I'll go that route instead of the Greek one for that aspect of things.

First, the castle, not the city, is the center of medieval law.

Second, there's a much bigger distinction based on rank than on citizenship. A foreign knight can always carry his weapons; a local peasant might not.

Third, there's a lot of "might makes right". If you're more powerful than the local guard, yes, you can carry your weapons. (In a recent game, our party entered a town with strict "no weapons" rules. We marched around with our weapons unheeded. The townsfolk couldn't stop us - they had no weapons.)

Finally, it depends on the location, period, and political situation. English yeomen have rights no non-noble Frenchmen have, for instance. For a few centuries, Englishmen were required to have a bow, and to practice with it every Sunday after church.

There is so much variation that you can invent almost any annoying rule you want for your game.

Eldan
2013-07-18, 04:14 PM
First, the castle, not the city, is the center of medieval law.


Not really true. At least not for Germany and probably a lot of Eastern Europe and Italy, too. Free cities were free cities. There was the city council, mayor, guild council, whatever they had, and then the Emperor, with nothing in between.

Kiero
2013-07-18, 04:31 PM
First, the castle, not the city, is the center of medieval law.

Second, there's a much bigger distinction based on rank than on citizenship. A foreign knight can always carry his weapons; a local peasant might not.

Third, there's a lot of "might makes right". If you're more powerful than the local guard, yes, you can carry your weapons. (In a recent game, our party entered a town with strict "no weapons" rules. We marched around with our weapons unheeded. The townsfolk couldn't stop us - they had no weapons.)

Finally, it depends on the location, period, and political situation. English yeomen have rights no non-noble Frenchmen have, for instance. For a few centuries, Englishmen were required to have a bow, and to practice with it every Sunday after church.

There is so much variation that you can invent almost any annoying rule you want for your game.

That's a big difference in with antiquity. You stroll into a city armed like that, and you'll stir up the citizen-militia, assuming they're the sort who take training seriously and actually turn out when mustered. Just like a rival gang rolling into someone else's turf. Or else the tyrant's mercenaries if it's a polis captured by one man.

Greek citizens were required to train, though it's notable that when they were dealing with non-Greek populations (such as colonies), they generally tried to avoid arming and training the natives.

Amaril
2013-07-18, 04:50 PM
It is true that taking the players' weapons away in settlements would prevent them from causing the kind of trouble that really derails games while still being an organic part of the setting...actually, now I'm starting to like that idea. Members of the Sparta-type militaristic culture can arrange to have their honor weapons chained to their sheaths instead, since everybody knows they'll die before being separated from their swords. City guards are a pretty much universal thing in this region, so the restrictions would be enforced pretty strictly in larger settlements, but out in smaller villages, it'll pretty much be decided by might-makes-right, unless there happen to be some soldiers from the allied city passing through.

Kiero
2013-07-18, 05:46 PM
Members of the Sparta-type militaristic culture can arrange to have their honor weapons chained to their sheaths instead, since everybody knows they'll die before being separated from their swords.

If they're Spartan-inspired, surely it's their shields they refuse to be separated from?

Amaril
2013-07-18, 05:49 PM
If they're Spartan-inspired, surely it's their shields they refuse to be separated from?

Sparta-inspired (in many ways, though I like to think I'm not blanketly ripping off any one civilization or culture for any one of my own), but not exactly the same. They do tend to be somewhat attached to their equipment in general, but their most important possessions are their weapons.

Slipperychicken
2013-07-18, 07:13 PM
If they're Spartan-inspired, surely it's their shields they refuse to be separated from?

Also, spears were the weapon of choice in ancient Greece, not swords.

Amaril
2013-07-18, 07:17 PM
Also, spears were the weapon of choice in ancient Greece, not swords.

It's really only the politics (and to some extent the religion) that I'm borrowing from Greece--the tech level, aesthetic, and (of importance here) military styles are much more high Middle Ages. That said, the swords used as honor weapons by this culture are mostly ceremonial--it doesn't mean swords are generally the favored melee weapon in this world.

Jay R
2013-07-19, 10:18 AM
That's a big difference in with antiquity. You stroll into a city armed like that, and you'll stir up the citizen-militia, assuming they're the sort who take training seriously and actually turn out when mustered. Just like a rival gang rolling into someone else's turf. Or else the tyrant's mercenaries if it's a polis captured by one man.

Yes, it is a difference, and frankly, I think the DM went overboard. In this land, only nobles and guardsmen were allowed to carry weapons at all.

But the city's council had called us in to help with a menace they couldn't handle, which meant they knew (or at least believed) that we were stronger than their entire guard. Really, there was nobody there who could stop us.

My mage/thief (the game is 2E) was an orphan, and so had no rank. He had quietly decided that he didn't care what the law was; he only cared who had the power to force him, so he would carry his swords anywhere unless somebody was strong enough to stop him. The only time he took them off was when called before the king, and decided not to start a fight in the entrance to the throne room.

Emmerask
2013-07-20, 05:20 AM
But the city's council had called us in to help with a menace they couldn't handle, which meant they knew (or at least believed) that we were stronger than their entire guard. Really, there was nobody there who could stop us.


Or simply more expandable ^^
If a group of adventurers is killed then the council loses nothing pretty much (most adventurers get payed afterwards and only for a job done not a job tried), if the royal guards are killed on the other hand...