[Setting] DnD Medieval Europe

[rob]

The complete document for this campaign setting can be found at: http://victor.soapyjoe.googlepages.com/home

I have changed the content of these posts significantly, to better keep with the fourm moderator's stated guidance and intent. Issues of real-world politics and religion are not to be discussed in this thread.

INTRODUCTION
This thread requests questions, comments, and suggestions on a campaign setting for DnD 3.5 edition, set in Medieval Europe, generally between 1066 AD and 1450-something AD (whenever the Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople). The setting is generally inspired by the story of the old PC adventure game Darklands, which was set "in Medieval Europe the way the Medieval Europeans saw it."

I have used this homebrewed world in my own games for years, and my players and I find it extraordinarily fun - mostly because with a little historical education it is very easy to get immediately into the game, and understand many of the ramifications of what's going on, without spending days reading the background text of campaign setting books.

DISCLAIMER
Because of the historical nature of the campaign world, campaigns in this setting will touch on many touchy issues. Issues regarding real world politics and religion in the campaign setting are not discussed on this forum.

I think, for people with more historical knowledge than I, that this concept could be used for interesting games in, e.g.: 1) pre Anglo-Saxon England; 2) Japan and China; 3) Arabia; 4) Africa; 5) Native America.

Table of Contents
1. The Basics
2. Character Races
3. Character Classes
4. Arcane Magic in the Setting
5. Equipment and Skills
6. Locations
7. Power groups

CHAPTER 1: The Basics

1. This is a low-to-medium-magic setting. Though spellcasting characters are allowed, they are few and far-between amongst the NPC population of the world. Divine spellcasters and sorceror-type 'hedge wizards' are far more common than 'academic' wizards. Low-powered magic items are fairly common - even small villages (30-100 people) may have a couple +1 or +2 items; but high-powered magic items are quite rare and precious.
2. Selection of languages and currency is very important. There is no common language - latin, because of the spread of the church, is the most common; but it is usually only spoken by the educated classes. Currency is rare, and where it exists it is generally specific to that location.
3. This is a moderate-level setting <--Note, this is one of my general rules. I seek comments about whether yall think this is important to the setting as a whole. I use it to prevent high level characters from dominating history
- First level characters are young and inexperienced. E.g., a 1st-level fighter might have recently been recruited into a military organization.
- Your average person, coming out of a childhood or professional education in a subject, is about 3rd level.
- People in positions of responsiblity start at about 5th level (e.g., a town watch sergeant with 4 subordinates; a brand-new knight; a senior apprentice in a trade; a town priest)
- Veterans of a position or those with more experience are 7th-8th level (e.g., someone who went on the first Crusade from Constantinople to Jerusalem; a veteran knight; a sergeant of 30-40 troops; a journeyman tradesman; a large-town priest)
- Those of 'battalion level responsiblity' are 12th level (e.g., a commander on a major campaign; a count or above; a sheriff of a city; a master tradesman; a major member of the clergy)
- Those of 'principality level responsiblity' are 16th level (e.g., a king's champion; a duke or a minor king; a region-reknown tradesman; a member of the highest council in a religion)
- Those of historic responsiblity are 18th level (e.g., Jacques D'Molay; Godfrey of Boullion; a king of a larger nation (the Holy Roman Empire); Kliegenthal (the sword-maker); the head of a religion; Hassan-I-Sabbah)
- Those of nigh-epic responsibility are 20th level (e.g., Charles Martel, Avicenna, Ibn Rushd)
- Epic levels are saved for epic people. Read a history book.
4. Alignments are more fluid in this setting: Like Ebberon, this setting dos not have the laws of good and evil etched into the firmament (or, etched into the game mechanics). While players are encouraged to pick an alignment for their characters, this will have less efffects in game terms. Only individual characters and NPCs have alignments in this settings. Deities, religions, ethnic groups, governments, etc. do not. Spells or abilities like smite evil or chaos hammer work quite differently.

[rob]

CHAPTER 2: Character Races

Player characters can only play humans.
1. Dwarves have the elemental earth subtype, and are good-aligned subterranean populations without organized society. They are the enemies of Kobolds, which have the earth subtype, and are an evil aligned bane of miners and explorers.
2. Elves have the 'fey' subtype, and are rare, NPC races with no established society.
3. Halflings, Gnomes, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs don't exist.
4. Orcs and Goblinoids can be used as generic bandits or pirates, if the DM wants. (this adds a less gritty feel to the game world, as it allows the dispossessed, desperate, and evil to be different from the players.)

CHAPTER 2: Character Classes
A list of appropriate character classes. I haven't scrubbed the various splatbooks yet, but they'll be in there.

1. Barbarian: Fine as is.
2. Bard: Fine as is.
3. Cleric: Fine as is. Clerics only represent a small subset of most religions, as they have a significantly militaristic bent and are more appropriate as 'military chaplains.' Some sort of class for non-militaristic clergy should be appropriate, here.
4. Druid: VERY RARE. The entire order of druids was devastated by the Roman invasion of England over a thousand years ago. Druids exist, but are extraordinarily uncommon, and travel in secret societies or amongst the fey.
5. Fighter: Fine as is. +2 skill points per level.
6. Monk: I haven't quite yet found a convincing way to work this class into the game setting yet.
7. Paladin: Fine as is. Non-spellcasting variant also useful. +2 skill points per level
8. Ranger: Fine as is. Non-spellcasting variant also useful.
9. Rogue: Fine as is.
10. Wizard: Wizards are quite rare, and represent the culmination of the academic tradition now beginning at the universities in Paris, Rome, and Florence. Many wizards exist among the religious, who have taken their monastic vows for the ability to study. It is rare to see a wizard of less than 5th level adventuring. (Lot more on wizards in the next chapter, on magic in the setting)
11. Sorcerer: Fine as is.

[rob]

General guidelines, more to follow.

1. Arcane Magic
1.A. Wizards - Most of their power controlled by access to spells. Simply put, ritualized study of magic, like study of most things except theology, is fairly new and only reviving in a few new-fangled 'universities.' Most of the higher level spells haven't been invented yet.
1.B. Sorcerers - Substantially restricted spell list, but more common. Sorcerors would represent things like 'old wise women,' 'witches,' 'conjurers and warlocks,' etc.
1.C. Bards - I don't know enough yet... Please help out?
More to follow, as I think more about balance

2. Divine Magic - Divine magic will not be covered on this forum.

3. Psionics: Doesn't exist. I can't see it adding anything to genre.

4. Monsters, Creatures, etc.
Variations on monsters in the SRD
Abberations - Most abberations of the gooey-tentacly-lovecraftian variety - Aboleths, Illithids, Beholders, Chaos Beasts, Gibbering Mouthers, etc. don't exist in the game setting as is.

Less-strange abberations - things like ettins, count as magical beasts.

Will-o-wisps are fey.
If you want lovecraftian abberations in your game, see the level 11-13 adventure below for a plot hook linking the appearance of Halley's comet, the beginning of the black plague, and the appearance of lovecraftian-variety monsters together. I took the theological crisis at the time (the fact that the movement of Halley's comet would have broken the crystal spheres, the framework upon which the stars were thought to reside) as an excuse for a 'horror at red hook/shadow over innsmouth scenario).

Constructs - most constructs are unknown within Europe. Homonculi are common companions of higher level wizards. Certain Jewish sects are known to create clay golems. More fantastic things have been reported by travelers through the lands of Prester John and into the mysterious orient.
In game terms, constructs should be the results of high magic or ancient secrets. Several plot hooks I could think of include - constructs, animated by demons, guarding Templar holdings, the bestiary of the fabled magi of persia, etc.

Dragons - Fine as is, though dragons are insanely reclusive. Even the rumor of seeing one has panicked entire villages. No dragon has ever deigned to interact, officially, with a humanoid government. They are beleived to terrorize portions of the countryside for their sustenance; though rumors fly around of them saving travelers from evil foes. Since the dragons have not been interacted with on a formal level, none know of the reasons for their actions or the scope of their power.
Most campaigns, especially those with historical interests, would never see a dragon. In game terms, one can do with dragons as one wants. The most famous medieval dragon story, that of Saint George, poses the dragon as a menace of inscrutable motive that was defeated by the noble paladin. Dragons should be powerful, rare, and epic foes; but should probably not play an important role in the temporal politics of the game world.

Elementals and elemental subtypes - Creatures of elemental subtypes, such as salamanders, are far more prevalent than pure elementals. Elemental subtypes are used in any case where there would be a magical or supernatural aspect to a natural phenomenon - a huge forest fire that devastated the land would be crawling with salamanders, giggling at the destruction.
For example, Kobolds, as above in 2.1.Option 1, are elemental earth subtype humanoids that cause tragedies in mines for inscrutable reasons.
Pure elementals are known of and studied by arcane wizards and alchemists. They are of strange and inscrutable powers, and their essence is essential to a theological understanding of the true nature of things.
In game terms, elemental subtypes add flavor to supernatural events... Even a few low-CR water or air creatures could wreak havoc on a navy. Pure elementals are summoned just as the rules give, but are always one size category smaller than the equivalent spell level would indicate in the spell description. Note that elementals and creatures of elemental subtypes are not outsiders, unless they specifically fall under the criteria below!

Fey - Perfect as is.

Giants - Fine as is.

Oozes - Only created by strange, fantastic supernatural occurences or by the subtle doings of alchemists and wizards. I can't think of any that are important.

Outsiders - At least among the Christians, Good aligned outsiders are Angels. This includes the kinds of things the monster manual puts down as Archons, Angels, Celestials, etc... Evil aligned outsiders are Demons. This includes devils, demons, whatever... Alignments are perfectly applicable to Angels and Demons - this is one area where there are NO grey areas.
Among other cultures, other outsiders exist - Djinn and Efreeti are perfect for the game world.
MORE TO FOLLOW, when I discuss planes. <-- Hint, there ain't any.

Shapechangers - By specific creature. Lycanthropes and Doppelgangers are fine in the settings, though doppelgangers are also fey.

Undead - In general, fine. Necromancy is an evil act, and is associated with high-powered supernatural evil. Some of the more exotic undead creatures, like Bodaks, aren't in keeping with the setting.

[rob]

Some short campaign/adventure descriptions in this world
Note: I've run all of these with my players. SOme were more successful than others.

4th-9th level: Italian politics.
The characters began at 4th level, as freelancers covertly-employed by Lorenzo D'Medici (the dude who Machiavelli wrote The Prince for. They were first called to travel to the ports at Milan and recover several shipments of imported weapons and armor; imported precisely because the makers' marks on the equipment couldn't be traced back to the Medici family and the makers' would be difficult to find. The players were to smuggle the equipment overland to a warehouse in Florence, where D'Medici would take care of it.
The characters get to Milan just fine, and hire a bunch (4) of swiss mercernaries to help them appear like a merchant caravan and escort the equipment (two 4-horse wagons worth). They begin the over-land portion of their journey. As they cross a stone bridge, they are attacked by (*gasp*) two trolls and a hag spellcaster. The trolls end up killing 2 of the swiss guards, seriously injuring one player, throwing the heavy-armored fighter into the river, etc. The hag turns into a deer and runs away when the going gets rough.
The characters take refuge in a nearby village, beatus crux; the town mayor welcomes them and gives them a barn to store themselves and their wagons. In the middle of the knight, the townspeople wake up the party, demanding they surrender the Dominican priest traveling with them (one of the characters). When the characters stall, they start to burn the barn down with the characters in them. Characters break out, town mayor has donned some medium armor, spear, sword, and a whitewashed shield with a red cross on it. Battle ensues. Players win, find satanic propaganda throughout the village and a coded journal in the mayor's house. Population of the town dissappears into the night. <-- scene ripped off straight from the game Darklands...
Characters get to Florence, pay off guards (who are on their way to Rome.). (note, this is during the Avignon papacy, so the church in rome is less organized) Patron orders them to Rome to find out why his informers haven't been reporting. The players get to Rome, start looking for Medici affiliated folks. Most of the folks stonewall them, one asks why his grain shipment hasn't arrived yet. Players get the impression that the guilds have stonewalled foreign investment in the city. The nobility does not travel through the city - the players observe one visit, where the nobility are spontaneously swarmed by 500+ impoverished begging for bread. Assassination attempt in the middle of the street against the players by a Persian assassin who casts darkness and kills their Medici contact; gets away.
Players try to break into a house rumored to be involved in criminal smuggling, most get captured. Party rogue (face-type) finds out that the old blind man who hangs around the city square is the spymaster who organized the guild revolution. Sucks up to him, gains a prestige class, breaks out his friends, and is told in no uncertain terms that if they ever screw with the citizens of Rome again they will all be killed.

9th-11th level: Decode the journal they found from the dude in the village (above). Turns out he's a *gasp* lay brother of the Knights Templar (disbanded 20 years ago in France, rumors that Jacques D'Molay escaped). Return to the village to investigate for clues. Find that the village has been burned to the ground by someone. While they're hanging around, a local kid walks up with a parcel for them, said that it had been left on the scene. Players open parcel, parcel explodes, seriously injuring one player and killing the messenger. 2 Templar knights and 1 templar cleric attack from ambush. Battle ensues, 1 templar dropped, cleric flamestrikes the corpse (destroying gear) and they run. hang around, harassing the players as they investigate the secret cavern complex near the village, which has indications of an observatory and some writings indicating that something apocalyptic is about to happen.

11th-13th level: Huge comet appears in the night sky. Players begin traveling west, to the coast, to get a boat to Nice to follow up on leads. In the middle of the journey, they come across a wierd blob of twisting, amorphous, screaming flesh that seems to warp the air around it (nothing any of them have ever heard of). One of them touches it, and starts changing shape and screaming. They eventually kill it, and the party alchemist scoops as much of it as he can into hermetically sealed bottles. The bottles eventually turn into stuff, but that's a different story. Travel more over land, begin seeing signs of plague. Cleric tries to cure some folks, but doesn't work. End up avoiding plague. Come to a fishing village, no signs of plague. Start organizing a quarantine and holding area, in case they get refugees. Villagers are strangely resistant. In the middle of the night, they notice wierd lights over a small island offshore and villagers filitting about in the night. Ask villagers about it, get stonewalled. Set up observation posts the next night, see deformed people traveling in and out of the sea. Follow them, eventually get stuck in a cave complex and encounter a wierd, twisted, mind-controlling fish-thingy with tentacles (never seen or heard of before). Epic battle.

13th-15th level: Travel to constantinople. Get in run-in with emperors' guards, because they were arrogant. Leave, make way to holy land with some Knights Hospitaller that they met. Request sanctuary from the people they meet, to investigate the battleground where the head of the templars was killed in one of the crusades (can't remember which one). Find cool stuff --> more to follow, not going to reveal everything.

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

Does this setting mean that the only playable race will be humans?

[Swordguy]

Absolutely looking forward to this article. And buck up! You can't possibly do any worse at this than FATAL. :smallwink:

[Maglor_Grubb]

Sounds really great. You have made it to my bookmarks, so I won't forget checking this for new content 3 times a day :smallwink:. Do your players sometimes buy with trading or is money a little less scarce? And how do adventurers fit in? I always saw them as the classless people at the time when cities started to become populair again, .

[rob]

Hey, yall, thanks for the interest.

Krimm, I've just put the races up in the starting posts.
Swordguy, I sure hope so...

Maglor, depends on what they're buying. In certain regions (germany and italy), among the cities currency is common enough. While the currency may change in denominations, people will generally accept an equivalent weight of gold. Most of my characters carried around a small chunk of gold, and shaved bits off it until they made enough weight to pay for the items. For more common items, or things from rural areas where money is of less use, you might have to pay in services or items of equivalent value. Most people will always take relics of a saint or small magic items for their local church. A few 'cure disease' spells will get always get you favors, as well.

Note that this also means it's really easy for the players to get taken... I've had many (more gullible) players shoving gold bits onto the scale, and they never looked hard enough to see that the scale was rigged...

As for the adventurers, no, they're not classless. Adventurers can be from any and all walks of life - former mercenaries, upstart peasants, traveling clergy, etc. Sometimes this causes social problems (no lord likes the idea of highly armed and armored warriors traipsing through his lands and talking to his serfs), but that's the fun of the situation.

[Bears With Lasers]

So... them brown folks are monster races.

Brilliant.

[Roethke]

So... them brown folks are monster races.

Brilliant.

To be fair (NPI), so are the white folks of Scandinavia. And don't forget, the Jews get the privilige being gnomes :) I figure the idea is to present a Eurocentric view of the 'civilized' world. Obviously, this is amusing as by most metrics of 'civilization' (Infant mortality, literacy), I'd wager the Ottoman empire would do a bit better.

But there's no stopping someone doing something like this from the other side. In fact the various crusades would make a great backdrop for an invading horde.

PS- Would that make Constantinople an Elvish (or Human) outpost surrounded by Hobgoblins? A bit weird.

[Matthew]

I have to admit, I agree with Bears with Lasers here, it is somewhat disconcerting to so overtly override historical peoples with D&D Races. Why not simply use Humans as the default Character Race, like in Conan D20? Is it pivotal to the concept?

On a related note, are you familiar with Palladium Fantasy, Ars Magica, Pendragon or any other RPG that has attempted to do a similar thing?

My concern here, is that any degree of historical authenticity you aim at is likely to be blown away or brought into serious question by the mechanical challenges of integrating medieval europe with default D&D.

[rob]

Yeah, Bears, this is a very eurocentric view of the world. I freely admit that I'm using wholesale stereotyping, but that was both the practice of the time and I think these stereotypes are very implicit in the DnD world as a whole.

In the games I've DM'd in this setting, this means precisely nothing to the game world. Myself and all of my players just referred to them as 'turks' or 'gypsies' or whatever. The Varangian excubitors of the byzantine emperor used 'ogre' stats, but nobody bothered to call them that. I also integrated humans in whenever. Only time it ever came up is if someone made a wisdom check to get an idea of relative attribute levels. The habits and culture of these folks in the game world is similar to their historical habits and culture; I don't use any of the SRD descriptions of their behavior. Take, for instance, the fact that I portray Saladin as a bugbear PALADIN. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem, they slaughtered (something along the lines of) 90,000 people. When Saladin took it back, he slaughtered NOBODY.

I'm going to edit the original post and disclaimer to encourage folks to PM me if they think I'm taking liberties with artistic license here, and please be frank. I will also edit the point that I reject the alignment notion and cultural descriptions of the various races... Turks are no more evil or less evil than any general person.

My reason for the orcish/goblinoid generalization of the arabians and ethnic turks is more the typical way they were presented by the medieval historians - the historians of the crusades often talked about (paraphrased) the 'brute savagery' of the 'arab horde.' In the account of Godfrey of Boullion, they're quite cheerful about (paraphrased) 'wading in the blood of the cowardly savages up to their knees.'

I specifically encourage people who have more historical knowledge than I to do it from the other way around (see in the OP). If I whipped out more of my history books, I might come up with something for the Middle East, but I can't right now.

And, Roethke, yep, Constantinople is a Byzantine outpost surrounded by Turks. Like in real life. Most of the Byzantine client kingdoms by this time had surrendered to the Turks and provided soldiers to them.

[Matthew]

Um, those quotes are strange. We don't know how many people were massacred in the storming of Jerusalem. The bit about blood up to the knees is presumably from the Gesta Francorum? Not a very accurate quotation, as far as I can see. You might be better off with the more gruesome account of William of Tyre. In any case, the wading in blood stuff has its roots in a certain religious passage.

Whenever anyone seeks to create a more authentic historical RPG, however, he runs the risk of offending sensibilities, putting too much emphasis on certain aspects and just plain old getting it wrong.

Why bother with the designations at all, if all you are using are the mechanics? Is Saladin actually a Bugbear Paladin, or is he Saladin with a Bugbear Paladin's mechanics?

This seems like really dangerous territory to me, regardless of disclaimers.

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying don't do it, but I'm not sure I understand the motivations here.

If it's that you think D&D is already doing this covertly and all you are doing is making it overt, I would strongly disagree with that point of view, as I do not see the connections you are making.

[illathid]

I did something like this with my group. The difference in my campaign was that I started with the idea of the world with magic/dragons/dwarves. I completely rewrote the worlds history to match with this conception, but still kept parallels with actually happened in the past. So, for example, Socrates' historical parallel was the founder of arcane magic. I also rewrote the religions from the ground up to provided for more moral ambiguity, but still maintained each ones flavor.

[rob]

Um, those quotes are strange. We don't know how many people were massacred in the storming of Jerusalem. The bit about blood up to the knees is presumably from the Gesta Francorum? Not a very accurate quotation, as far as I can see. You might be better off with the more gruesome account of William of Tyre. In any case, the wading in blood stuff has its roots in a certain religious passage.


You're right... Gesta Francorum was what I was trying to quote, but I was doing it from memory since its been a couple years since I've read it. It's almost certain everything in those passages was exaggerated - but that's kind of the point. It adds to the historical flavor of the thing. There's scenes in the Gesta where they find a true artifact-of-somebody-or-other and one of the priests uses it to rally the failing morale of his soldiers, etc... There's so much in there written in the style of high fantasy, why not play it?


Why bother with the designations at all, if all you are using are the mechanics? Is Saladin actually a Bugbear Paladin, or is he Saladin with a Bugbear Paladin's mechanics?


This is a very valid point. The reason I do it this way, is simply to add to the fantastic-but-grounded flavor. There is absolutely nothing ESSENTIAL about it, but I think it makes it less fun to only play humans.

My biggest problem with this aspect is some of the races having intelligence penalties. Personally, I despise this about the DnD system as well, but it's bread and butter for roleplaying games. In general, I just treat the 'intelligence' of the society as the exact same that it was historically. For any given NPC I DM-Fiat their INT score to something appropriate for their profession.

I'm not familiar with the Conan D20 game, so I can't say a thing about it. Palladium fantasy is not particularly realistic at all.

As far as the mechanical challenges go, Matthew, I'm most concerned about integrating magic in a way that will allow the society to remain plausible. In the games I've DM'd to date, there has not been a coherent and systematic approach to the magic system that would mechanically result in conditions similar to history. I doubt there can be. But, when I get to the magic system sometime this week I'll post a shot at it.

[Matthew]

Yes, its just that the emphasis is misleading when you put quote marks around something. If you're going for historical authenticity, it's best to indicate that you are paraphrasing or else just quote it as it is.
Indeed, the Gesta has the discovery of the Lance as a big deal in Antioch and it's a great trope to borrow and insert into fantasy, but it's easily done without reference to the actual event used.

Yes, I agree that the mechanics D&D currently uses with regard to Races and Attribute adjustments embedded in a point buy or array type system makes for some odd and unattractive conclusions, but that's just another reason to steer clear of tese mechanics altogether and just assign stats and modifiers as you feel appropriate.

Conan D20 is great; well worth a look. Palladium Fantasy is indeed, hardly relaistic, but I think that is where you will be heading with Fantasy Races as surrogates for historical peoples. War Hammer Fantasy Roleplay is probably a good example of the historical/fantasy conversion, but that suffers when the Fantasy Races = Historical Peoples idea comes under scrutiny.

I can kind of understand the feeling that humans are 'boring' and it's fun to play other races, but why bother delineating in this way. Why not use Grey Hawk's example and integrate races to form societies, whilst retaining a mostly human dominance?

[rob]

Yes, its just that the emphasis is misleading when you put quote marks around something. If you're going for historical authenticity, it's best to indicate that you are paraphrasing or else just quote it as it is.
Indeed, the Gesta has the discovery of the Lance as a big deal in Antioch and it's a great trope to borrow and insert into fantasy, but it's easily done without reference to the actual event used.


Good point. Previous post will be edited.



I can kind of understand the feeling that humans are 'boring' and it's fun to play other races, but why bother delineating in this way. Why not use Grey Hawk's example and integrate races to form societies, whilst retaining a mostly human dominance?


I don't think I'm doing something TOO different than that. Greyhawk only integrates the core races, and even then they are from distinct and separate backgrounds. And I always hate the cultural insensitivity of the DnD system to hobgoblins and orcs. I think they're cool.

I'm open to the suggestion, though. Could you post with a different (brief) concept?

Rob

PS: Warhammer fantasy is not particularly subtle about its historical parody - The Empire = Holy Roman Empire, even down to the elector counts. Brettonia = Renaissance France/England. Chaos Dwarves = Babylonians. Lizardmen = Aztecs/Mayans. Egyptian undead, transylvanian undead. Their dwarves have a distinct 'Scandinavian under Adolphus Gustavus feel.' Their orks and goblins are less parodized. Skaven have a bunch of parodies from everything.

[Matthew]

Heh, yes, that was rather my point about War Hammer Fantasy Roleplay. Once you start to scrutinise it, the versimillitude starts to suffer.

Well, the 3.x Grey Hawk Gazetteer has listings for Goblins, Hobgoblin and Orc populations included in the racial breakdowns for a number of realms, though these are generally 'evil' aligned; most realms have an 'other' category. If you are dispensing with evil descriptors altogether, though, I see no reason to not have races intermix relatively freely and mix within cultures.

That really is the crux of the issue for me; I see no problem having the Emperor of Byzantium as an Elf with a number of Ogre Varangian Guards, but I wouldn't then be inclined to categorise Byzantines as Elves and Anglo-Saxons as Ogres. Instead, consider dividing by culture instead of by Race. You would still have the Byzantines, Rus, Holy Roman Empire and so on, but they wouldn't correspond to a single racial archetype. For instance, the Byzantine Empire would have Byzantine Elves, Byzantine Dwarves, Byzantine Humans, Byzantine Orcs and so on, in varying proportions - all speaking the same language and sharing a common culture.

[Edit] With regards to magic, I strongly recommend a Magic Point system for Low Magic style games, as they are much easier to control (not the Unearthed Arcana version, though). Regardless, several Feats and Spells will need serious revision.

[rob]

Well, the 3.x Grey Hawk Gazetteer has listings for Goblins, Hobgoblin and Orc populations included in the racial breakdowns for a number of realms, though these are generally 'evil' aligned; most realms have an 'other' category. If you are dispensing with evil descriptors altogether, though, I see no reason to not have races intermix relatively freely and mix within cultures.

That really is the crux of the issue for me; I see no problem having the Emperor of Byzantium as an Elf with a number of Ogre Varangian Guards, but I wouldn't then be inclined to categorise Byzantines as Elves and Anglo-Saxons as Ogres. Instead, consider dividing by culture instead of by Race. You would still have the Byzantines, Rus, Holy Roman Empire and so on, but they wouldn't correspond to a single racial archetype. For instance, the Byzantine Empire would have Byzantine Elves, Byzantine Dwarves, Byzantine Humans, Byzantine Orcs and so on, in varying proportions - all speaking the same language and sharing a common culture.


I like this idea. So, for character races, I'll do the following in a couple days:
1. Straight up list of *standard* playable races.
2. List of realms with population breakdown.

Note that this is merely implicit identification of stereotyping, rather than the explicit.

[Swordguy]

Dude, don't sweat the stereotype stuff. There are 2 good reason not to care so much.

1) Whenever someone says something potentially negative about any ethnic group other than rich white people, (EDIT: Not at ALL a rich white person) it seems like they get called racist, don't they? We're primed to think it anymore, so a lot of calls on it may well be that knee-jerk reaction. And always remember, stereotypes come from somewhere. There are people of any group whom you care to name that will fit a negative stereotype. It doesn't become a bad thing until you refuse to filter your perceptions of that stereotype to fit the person with whom you interact.

2) D&D inherently stereotypes anyway. The vast, vast, vast majority goblins are evil, it says so right in the Monster Manual. Therefore, you can kill any given goblin you meet, and it's VERY long odds you've done a bad thing by doing so. Well, guess what? That there's a stereotype.

BONUS) You want "realism"? Tell me stereotyping other cultures isn't proper roleplaying for medieval Europe.

Actually, you can tell me. You'd be almost universally wrong. But you CAN tell me. :smallbiggrin:


Anyway, it's all in how you and your PCs play it. People are just gun-shy about the possibility of it existing in the first place. Write everything out and post some game logs - THEN we can judge if you and your group are horrible, evil racist people. :smallwink:

[Bears With Lasers]

Dude, don't sweat the stereotype stuff. There are 2 good reason not to care so much.

1) Whenever someone says something potentially negative about any ethnic group other than rich white people, (EDIT: Not at ALL a rich white person) it seems like they get called racist, don't they? We're primed to think it anymore, so a lot of calls on it may well be that knee-jerk reaction. And always remember, stereotypes come from somewhere. There are people of any group whom you care to name that will fit a negative stereotype. It doesn't become a bad thing until you refuse to filter your perceptions of that stereotype to fit the person with whom you interact.
Oh, get over yourself. Rich white people don't need your help. Yeah, saying something sweeping and negative about any ethnic group is pretty much a racist thing to do. If you're saying "oh, them Mexicans are all lazy"... yeah, that's prejudice right there. And it's a crappy thing to hold or encourage that kind of prejudice, even if you're fine with acknowledging your Mexican neighbor's a pretty hard-working guy.


2) D&D inherently stereotypes anyway. The vast, vast, vast majority goblins are evil, it says so right in the Monster Manual. Therefore, you can kill any given goblin you meet, and it's VERY long odds you've done a bad thing by doing so. Well, guess what? That there's a stereotype.No, it's D&D Fact. Goblins will usually detect as Evil. That's pretty different from saying that Middle-Eastern, or African, or other people are almost all Evil. One is a statement of fact, presented to you by the rules of the game. The other isn't, unless you've seen the Real Life Player's Handbook and know something we don't.


BONUS) You want "realism"? Tell me stereotyping other cultures isn't proper roleplaying for medieval Europe.

Actually, you can tell me. You'd be almost universally wrong. But you CAN tell me. :smallbiggrin: Yes! Let's model our actions after medieval Europe! CLEARLY this is the right thing to do!!!1111one
That aside, I'd expect people to assume negative things about a different culture, in a historical-type game. I wouldn't expect the rules to actually reflect it. Do you honestly not see why, let's say, slapping black people with an INT penalty in game might be a wee bit offensive? Why playing up the "hurr hurr, them black folks are strong an' like sports, but they sure are dumber'n us" stereotype is bad?


Anyway, it's all in how you and your PCs play it. People are just gun-shy about the possibility of it existing in the first place. Write everything out and post some game logs - THEN we can judge if you and your group are horrible, evil racist people. :smallwink:No one's saying they're horrible evil racist people, dude, but casting non-White European Folks as typically-evil monster races? You *can't* tell me that doesn't aid and abet racial prejudice and its stereotypes. Sure, it's just a game and they're not assuming it's reality... but it's the sort of thing I'd rather wasn't widespread.

[Fax Celestis]

...why use monster races at all? There are several "breeds" of human already. Why not instead remove all those superfluous other races and make everyone human, and use regional feats like the Forgotten Realms does?

[Matthew]

He already answered that one, Fax:

Post #15


This is a very valid point. The reason I do it this way, is simply to add to the fantastic-but-grounded flavor. There is absolutely nothing ESSENTIAL about it, but I think it makes it less fun to only play humans.

[Khantalas]

This means, specifically, that the Turks, Moors, Arabs, and Egyptians will be stereotyped as the big, bad, evil empire.

Well, depending on the age, we may have been. And at the given age, Ottomans were pretty much the evil nation in the eyes of the Europeans, conquering Anatolia, all of Byzantine and Constantinople and all that.

Well, I'm still trying to imagine bugbears as Turks. OK, we may have a number of pretty ugly people amongst us, but even they aren't that ugly.

About monks... Ottomans had an entire subarmy of men with imposing figure that charged straight into the battle, unarmed, unarmored, with the intention of breaking as many necks and skulls as possible before their inevitable death against armed and armored forces. They were called "Deliler", literally translated as "Crazies". Sounds like a monk to me.

[Swordguy]

Oh, get over yourself. Rich white people don't need your help. Yeah, saying something sweeping and negative about any ethnic group is pretty much a racist thing to do. If you're saying "oh, them Mexicans are all lazy"... yeah, that's prejudice right there. And it's a crappy thing to hold or encourage that kind of prejudice, even if you're fine with acknowledging your Mexican neighbor's a pretty hard-working guy.


You, sir, are holding a stereotype. No, really. Let me explain. clear everything out of your mind. Now, I'm going to type a word, and you picture the very first thing that enters your mind when you read the word. Ready...

...

...

BENCH

Now, whatever you pictured is a stereotype. I could have meant a wooden, green-painted park bench, a wrought-iron bench, or a 1970's Cincinnati Reds Catcher. A stereotype is simply the brain's way of cataloguing things. it doesn't become bad until you insist that your stereotype is always correct, even when faced with obvious evidence to the contrary. That's having a prejudice against a group, and that's bad (assuming, of course, that the negative quality you associate with a group isn't currently staring you in the face. Then, at that moment, it's no longer prejudice, but a fact applied to the people with whom you are interacting).



No, it's D&D Fact. Goblins will usually detect as Evil. That's pretty different from saying that Middle-Eastern, or African, or other people are almost all Evil. One is a statement of fact, presented to you by the rules of the game. The other isn't, unless you've seen the Real Life Player's Handbook and know something we don't.


The last I read his post, there aren't Middle eastern people in his game. There aren't African people in his game. There are various make-believe races that are adopting the cultural veneer of those real-world cultures. Secondly, THIS IS A GAME, one being played by the D&D rules in a different setting. If I take Black Panthers or KKK literature and substitute "goblin" for "white" or "black (respectively), it doesn't mean anything, because the GOBLINS DON'T EXIST. It's the same here.



Yes! Let's model our actions after medieval Europe! CLEARLY this is the right thing to do!!!1111one

I gathered that this was the point of the exercise. You may wish to re-read the thread title.



That aside, I'd expect people to assume negative things about a different culture, in a historical-type game. I wouldn't expect the rules to actually reflect it. Do you honestly not see why, let's say, slapping black people with an INT penalty in game might be a wee bit offensive? Why playing up the "hurr hurr, them black folks are strong an' like sports, but they sure are dumber'n us" stereotype is bad?


I saw it as he was trying to match up "D&D culture" with real-world culture. Take the real-world behavior traits of a particular nation or race (which can be characterized, on a macro scale) and figure out the best D&D match for it, from a Eurocentric point of view (since, I assume, that's the authors - and therefore the only one he can really have).

Whether I agree with the races he's assigned to various cultures is immaterial - but I have to ask if you'd have a problem if he took D&D stereotypically "evil" races and made them English, French, and German. Hell, I can make a really strong argument for casting Germans as hobgoblins, right?



No one's saying they're horrible evil racist people, dude, but casting non-White European Folks as typically-evil monster races? You *can't* tell me that doesn't aid and abet racial prejudice and its stereotypes. Sure, it's just a game and they're not assuming it's reality... but it's the sort of thing I'd rather wasn't widespread.

Sorry, I guess the winky got lost in translation. Normally, it denotes the previous statement as a joke or something to be taken in a lighthearted manner. As for the rest, again, what if he made the "white races" the evil humanoids? Would you have a problem with it then?


BTW, this is a good debate. Can we both tacitly agree to keep it non-confrontational/political so we don't get this really cool world concept locked? I'm game if you are.

[Matthew]

Hmmn. I can't find anything about these Dililer on the internet. Have you got a reliable source link, Khantalas? They sound intriguing.

[Khantalas]

Not in English.

[Swordguy]

Well, depending on the age, we may have been.
About monks... Ottomans had an entire subarmy of men with imposing figure that charged straight into the battle, unarmed, unarmored, with the intention of breaking as many necks and skulls as possible before their inevitable death against armed and armored forces. They were called "Deliler", literally translated as "Crazies". Sounds like a monk to me.

That is extraordinarily cool. It bears out the whole "berserker not being a Norse-only tradition" thing. I've gots to research me some of this (minor in Military History - no mention of these guys). Must...learn...more!

[rob]

And at the given age, Ottomans were pretty much the evil nation in the eyes of the Europeans, conquering Anatolia, all of Byzantine and Constantinople and all that.

Well, I'm still trying to imagine bugbears as Turks. OK, we may have a number of pretty ugly people amongst us, but even they aren't that ugly.

About monks... Ottomans had an entire subarmy of men with imposing figure that charged straight into the battle, unarmed, unarmored, with the intention of breaking as many necks and skulls as possible before their inevitable death against armed and armored forces. They were called "Deliler", literally translated as "Crazies". Sounds like a monk to me.

Khantalas - thanks for the post! I like the information about the 'deliler' - maybe as I get into the middle eastern portion of the campaign world in more detail they can be made into something like a combination monk/frenzied berserker.

Regarding the sterotyping, I'd had the bugbears as egyptian, but that's not particularly valid.

How's this for a compromise solution, so we can keep the thread on the topic - I will post, in the character races section, three options - Humans only, a racial breakdown of the various regions (which is merely implicitly stereotyping), and the 'stereotyped' solution as is. No-one seems to like the 'Core PC races only and relegate the monstous races out of the power balance of the game world' solution, so I'll leave that alone.

Vote for what you prefer on the poll. I'd like constructive feedback, and if the thread gets too off topic I'll call the mods and have 'em lock it myself.

Rob

[Fax Celestis]

Perhaps you should also take a look at the Warhammer Fantasy setting, which uses similar races-as-cultures transposals.

[rob]

Perhaps you should also take a look at the Warhammer Fantasy setting, which uses similar races-as-cultures transposals.

Yeah, we were thinking about that earlier. Though there's a lot to the warhammer fantasy setting, simply put it doesn't mesh with medieval europe aside from the prima facie resemblence of things like The Empire to the holy roman empire.

I hope that the adventure examples I posted give some ideas of what kind of things the game world is cool for.

Rob

[elliott20]

damn, talk about tight rope walking acts here.

I personally think that if you had simply just created a setting where these fictitious races already had their penalities, etc. Hey, I wouldn't have thought twice about it.

But you have clearly drawn lines that in some sense equates one from another. True, it doesn't reflect your true beliefs towards race. However the implication is still fairly clear. You can't possibly say that a -2 to mental stat of all people of a certain race is not in some way a little insulting.

Think about it, by imposing that -2 INT on say, African cultures, you're saying that no African person that exists in your culture can ever have an INT above 16. (Not without working EXTRA HARD on it)

What kind of message do you think that is sending? And hey, if you're players seemed comfortable with that, fine, by all means go ahead.

but rest assured that would be one game I would refuse to join. While I can understand that this is just a game, and it's in some way trying to play up one perspective, it doesn't make it any less offensive.

Ask yourself this. Say we're not doing D&D. Instead, we're writing a play. You want to write a play from the perspective of a KKK member. Through out the entire work, the KKK member continues to make some extremely racist remarks about other races over and over again. Yeah, it might make it a very close reflection of what said KKK member might think, say or do.

But you have to ask yourself, does that make the work any less offensive? Do you think anybody (especially those who are part of the minority group that was being shown in a very unflaterring light.) is going to nod their head and say, "ahhh, I see, it's SUPPOSED to be from a warped viewpoint. Well, that makes it okay then!"

It still doesn't.

[Swordguy]

Ask yourself this. Say we're not doing D&D. Instead, we're writing a play. You want to write a play from the perspective of a KKK member. Through out the entire work, the KKK member continues to make some extremely racist remarks about other races over and over again. Yeah, it might make it a very close reflection of what said KKK member might think, say or do.

But you have to ask yourself, does that make the work any less offensive? Do you think anybody (especially those who are part of the minority group that was being shown in a very unflaterring light.) is going to nod their head and say, "ahhh, I see, it's SUPPOSED to be from a warped viewpoint. Well, that makes it okay then!"

It still doesn't.

Read Othello. That is all.

[BlueWizard]

I've played an all human campaign once. Run by a good DM it can be very enjoyable.

[Krellen]

Clearly the OP already dislikes the idea of the racial penalties to mental stats reflecting his cultures; he mentioned specifically how that rule didn't sit right with him. So, really, there's a simple solution:

To heck with the SRD stats.

If goblinoid culture is a good analogue for Muslim culture (from the Eurocentric point of view of the time), let them be goblinoids - but that doesn't mean the goblins are Small, the Bugbears have Intelligence penalties, and the Orcs are grossly mentally insufficient. They can still be Goblins, Orcs and Bugbears without following the exact SRD stats outlined. The same holds true for the standard races; Byzantines having high Dexterities and low Constitutions doesn't really reflect history, but a parallel with Elven culture does.

So throw out the stats, and keep the ascetics. You can even shave down tusks and hair from the monstrous races, if you like, since you don't have those pesky Charisma penalties degrading their appearance any more.

[rob]

Hey all, I subdivided it into 3 racial configuration options.

Option 1 is the all-human campaign, with some of the previous core races changed in flavor the represent popular mythology at the time.

Option 2 is a mix of races for each region. I would really request some input - I just threw this up off the top of my head. I don't know if I'm keeping with the intent of the various suggestions, or not. Personally, to me it seems like the exact same thing as option 3, just in a slightly more ambiguous wrapping.

Option 3 is the stereotyped option we've been debating about.


Krellen - only reason I would keep the mental stats is for simple game balance reasons for player characters. I DM-fiat all NPC stats, but if someone wants to play a viking-ogre favored soul, devoted to the god of the ocean, I would want him to work a little bit harder on his mental scores, so he doesn't just dominate the other PCs.

...




But you have clearly drawn lines that in some sense equates one from another. True, it doesn't reflect your true beliefs towards race. However the implication is still fairly clear. You can't possibly say that a -2 to mental stat of all people of a certain race is not in some way a little insulting.

Think about it, by imposing that -2 INT on say, African cultures, you're saying that no African person that exists in your culture can ever have an INT above 16. (Not without working EXTRA HARD on it)


Give us some credit :smallwink: We have been thinking about it quite often for the last 25 posts. There's about a billion disclaimers, several arguments, etc. I raised the exact problem before. Everyone is quite cognizant of the potential problems.

...

Now, for me to take my own medicine, and give you some credit, :smallsmile: you had a positive argument at the start of your post. I'm not sure where you're going with it, though - what do you mean by 'already had their penalties?'



I personally think that if you had simply just created a setting where these fictitious races already had their penalities, etc. Hey, I wouldn't have thought twice about it.



...

Now, for all the debate to follow:
The goal of the character race configuration, whatever it turns out to be, is:
1. Make the game world fun. Schwerpunkt...

2. Enable a fun amount of variety and interest to the game.

3. Enable a good amount of historical - if not realism, then - plausibility, flavor, historical feel, mythology, etc.

4. Allow for the feel of immersion in a historical story - be it the Song of Roland, the Decameron, the Prince, the Gesta Francorum, Saladin's reconquest of Jerusalem, the Fall of the Byzantine Empire, the Mongol Invasion, the Inquisition, Tamerlane's destruction of the Assassins, etc.

We're all straight on the details. I'd love suggestions on how to make those work.

[Krellen]

Krellen - only reason I would keep the mental stats is for simple game balance reasons for player characters. I DM-fiat all NPC stats, but if someone wants to play a viking-ogre favored soul, devoted to the god of the ocean, I would want him to work a little bit harder on his mental scores, so he doesn't just dominate the other PCs.
I realise it's a lot more work for you, but what I meant was not to ignore the mental aspect of the stats while keeping the physical, but to retain the cultural (and possibly aesthetic) virtues while completely retooling the races to be balanced without implying insult to a large swath of people simply because of their race. I'd have to think on the exact mechanisms to do this, though off the top of my head a floating "+2 for -2" system, like that outlined in the DMG, might work (including the bit that a bonus to Strength or Dexterity is worth two, not one.)

[rob]

Added some stuff on magic in the setting.

[Krellen]

Domain suggestions:

Pagan: Pagan domains vary wildly depending on the exact brand of paganism and the pagan god chiefly revered. It's hard to suggest specific breakdowns. Paganism may be the perfect fit for the "cleric of an ideal" class, with any two domains. I'd suggest toning down or removing their turn undead abilities (anti-necromancy isn't typically the pervue of pagan priests) and perhaps their armour proficiency.

Muslim: Allah is Jehovah, who is God. Mohammed was calling for the Sons of Ismael to return to the worship of the God of Abraham. Therefore, Muslim domains may not differ much from Christian or Jewish domains, although the three religions do go about worshipping the God of Abraham in different ways.
I'd suggest the Law domain as heavily important to Islam, as well as War, since we're looking at it from a Eurocentric point of view. Knowledge and possibly Magic would also be fairly typical Muslim domains, especially in regions influenced by Sufism. Sun, Protection and Healing would also fit the religion.
You might even seperate the faith into Sunni and Shi'a - the Orthodox versus the Party of Ali, those that see Islam and the Caliphate as seperate and those that see the nation of Islam and the faith of Islam as one and the same. The Shi'a, however, are a bare minority in this time period; the family of the Prophet has been destroyed, so the Shi'a don't have anyone to rally around anymore; it may not be worthwhile making the distinction.

I don't really have any thoughts on domains for Judaism, although the Creation domain, from whatever suppliment it was in, works well with Kabbalah.

[elliott20]

Let me try to restructure my thoughts because I felt my initial post was driven far too much by my own personal feelings on the subject.

I agree that changing the aesthetics and fluff flare would have a far better option than just setting down mechanical penalties and bonuses. Or rather, I think that it shouldn't be the RACE that determines these bonuses, but the environment. this would also make me think you're option 2 would be your best bet.

The first important thing you need to ask yourself is where these bonuses came from. Keep in mind, this is not what people THINKS these differences came from, but where it REALLY came from. There was a period of time where racism was considered science, but this does not make their biological justification of superiority necessarily true. The same can be said of what you're trying to accomplish.

Is the racial bonus a result of culture or genetics? Are orcs just born with a sledge hammer slamming their poor baby skulls or were they simply raised in a culture that does not value education, clarity of thought, etc?

Don't forget, sampling bias caused by environmental elements can make a difference. In an environment that is naturally harsh and requires people of a tougher constitution to survive, most of the people from that region are probably going to have a decent CON mostly because the babies with the lower CON invariably rarely make it to adulthood.

The second part is what kind of professions and roles are available to them? Say I was doing a Mongolian culture, it would not be unreasonable to assume that "Ride" is a class skill for EVERYONE in that region, but literacy might not be? It will also determine the population that you'll see when venturing into the region.

In a tribal setting where strength and combat might is seen as important, the smart but weak ones who somehow managed to survive will probably be relegated to a completely different role than those in a scholar society.

All these things effect their attributes.

The problem with just porting the core races right over is that the core races don't really fit that well with the cultures you're talking about, even a stereotyped one. Orcish culture was not just described as more warlike and slightly less forgiving. In the core rule books they were outright ruthless evil brutes who were barely capable of dressing themselves in clean clothes, much less actually develop a well structured religious belief system that is not based on "Thog smash!"

[Roethke]

The first important thing you need to ask yourself is where these bonuses came from. Keep in mind, this is not what people THINKS these differences came from, but where it REALLY came from. There was a period of time where racism was considered science, but this does not make their biological justification of superiority necessarily true. The same can be said of what you're trying to accomplish.

Is the racial bonus a result of culture or genetics? Are orcs just born with a sledge hammer slamming their poor baby skulls or were they simply raised in a culture that does not value education, clarity of thought, etc?


I think that's the basic misunderstanding of the OP's intentions. In this case, you want to model what people THINK the differences are to create drama, historical flavor, recreate great historical moments. That may be a lot more fun (or at least a different sort of fun) than attempting fantasy version of realism.

Here's a ferinstance, that does away with some of the racial content...

Imagine designing a campaign around the Roman Invasion of Britain.

Take the Druids-- now if you're using the environmental method, they're just the local equivalent of priests. But by importing the D&D class, you make them something, other, unfamiliar to the Roman soldier.

More generally, by brushing the Britons as barbaric, (and maybe casting them as half-orcs), you can generate that weird feeling of being on alien soil that that must have occurred to each of the invading Romans at some point or another. They had a truly different religion, different mores, different tactics than what they were used to.

Would this be saying that the real Scots are half-orcs? Or less intelligent? Not at all. It's trying to recreate a particular historical narrative, without commenting on what really happened.

[Caduceus]

And from the opposite side, with the PCs being the Scots and Britons, and the opposition being the Roman invaders, you might cast the Romans as Hobgoblins or Bugbears (who don't have an Int penalty, contrary to popular belief based on looks). They're foreign and use different tactics, but they still have more in common with you than, say, a dragon or a giant.

And, unless I'm mistaken, the OP decided that there would be no more discussion of stereotyping in his thread, or else he'd shut this interesting campaign idea down. I'd hate to see this go to the bottom of the pile just because a few people couldn't keep their mouths shut.

[Roethke]

And from the opposite side, with the PCs being the Scots and Britons, and the opposition being the Roman invaders, you might cast the Romans as Hobgoblins or Bugbears (who don't have an Int penalty, contrary to popular belief based on looks). They're foreign and use different tactics, but they still have more in common with you than, say, a dragon or a giant.

And, unless I'm mistaken, the OP decided that there would be no more discussion of stereotyping in his thread, or else he'd shut this interesting campaign idea down. I'd hate to see this go to the bottom of the pile just because a few people couldn't keep their mouths shut.

Actually, an "Asterix & Obelisk" type campaign, with the Romans cast as Gnolls and Flinds could be a lot of fun, but I think I'm wandering....

[rob]

Man, I love the idea of Roman or Ancient greek campaigns, but that's for later days and different peeps...

My concern about the 'racism' bent of the thread was directed towards 'this campaign setting's racist' or tallking about racism without a constructive argument as to how to make it viable or fun to play. Inshallah, that seems to have stopped...

Elliott20, man, I love the thing about the class skills. Definitely Ride would be a class skill for every steppe nomad and every Bedouin. In my notes somewhere (I've been tossing my apartment trying to find the old notebook I wrote some of this stuff in) I had stuff about class skills and starting wealth for PCs of different socioeconomic class, as well. For instance, crossbows should be a martial weapon proficiency; longbows an exotic weapon proficiency, and shortbows simple weapons for most folks. Also, I find it silly that peasants wouldn't know how to use axes, sickles, and scythes.

... Edited because of religious references.

[Matthew]

Rob, we cannot really discuss Real Life Religion in this Forum, because we are prohibited by the rules. Even linking to a religious tract or discussion can be viewed as breaking this rule.

It's best to keep actual religion out and keep to clearly defined 'Fantasy Religions', even monotheistic ones.

[rob]

Hmm... Shucks.

I'll edit the above post to take out the historical discussion, and send another PM to the moderators for advice on this one. Still haven't heard back from them on the first ones...

Update: PM'd the moderators, and asked them to post under their mod name for how much/exactly what we can talk about within the rules. Please hold your horses with anything really specific/controversial/hyperlinked until we figger' out more. I'm gonna leave the 'orders' description back in section 3 on the first page, so they can see where it's going so far with this sort of thing.

Thanks!

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: For better or worse, this is going to be a difficult concept for you to explore on these message boards. Both real world religion and real world politics (including historical as well as present day aspects) are plainly Inappropriate Topics here. They just can't be discussed, pretty much at all. The idea of using D&D rules to model real world medieval Europe is an interesting one, but I'm not sure it can be accomplished within the strictures of this message board. The political issue is a bit touch-and-go on its own, though being purely historical and practically ancient, one could probably get away with minimal references. But I don't think this effort could deal with only minimal references. People are going to want/need to discuss how governments were set up, and armies, and so forth. Religion, however, is what really causes a problem. These religions still exist, so the discussion is less purely historical and far more likely to cause trouble. It's exactly the type of situation the blanket ban on the topic of real world religion is meant to prevent.

Honestly, I've spent the last couple days considering whether your attempt to model human political and/or ethnic groups as monster races is violative of the rules, implicitly racist, or just distasteful. I'm still not sure. What I can say though is that the real world politics and religion are completely out of bounds. If you can avoid those topics, this can probably continue. If not, it'll have to be locked.

[rob]

Edit! Alright, I've taken those portions of the campaign setting regarding divine magic and character races out of the first 4 posts, the setting description. In this thread, in the interests of precluding debates that will touch on banned subjects, I will present the campaign world as a human-only setting.

Given the forum moderator's guidance, I will also edit out my posts regarding divine magic in the setting, which touches on the blanket religion ban.

I have saved the campaign setting summary to date on a HTML file on my machine. Does anyone know of an easy website to post this stuff on? I don't want to use my university site, just because it's under my full name.

If yall want to discuss the stuff that hits banned subjects, we have a couple options:
1) Yall can PM me and each other.
2) We can set up an email d-list.
3) Someone can show me an easy way to collaborate on whatever other venue I move the banned stuff to.

Rob

PS: Does anyone know how to get rid of a thread poll?

[Draz74]

BTW, this is a good debate. Can we both tacitly agree to keep it non-confrontational/political so we don't get this really cool world concept locked? I'm game if you are.

Whoops ... there goes the "tacitly" part. :smallamused:


I have saved the campaign setting summary to date on a HTML file on my machine. Does anyone know of an easy website to post this stuff on? I don't want to use my university site, just because it's under my full name.

Make your own new website on Google (http://googlepages.com) or something.

[Roland St. Jude]

PS: Does anyone know how to get rid of a thread poll?

I can probably do that for you. Delete it or close it. Just drop me a PM.

[Crystall_Myr]

*pops out of nowhere*
You might try Tangled Web's Champaign Wiki (http://www.thetangledweb.net/wiki/campaigns/index.php?title=Main_Page).
*returns to nowhere*

[elliott20]

Man, I love the idea of Roman or Ancient greek campaigns, but that's for later days and different peeps...

My concern about the 'racism' bent of the thread was directed towards 'this campaign setting's racist' or tallking about racism without a constructive argument as to how to make it viable or fun to play. Inshallah, that seems to have stopped...

Elliott20, man, I love the thing about the class skills. Definitely Ride would be a class skill for every steppe nomad and every Bedouin. In my notes somewhere (I've been tossing my apartment trying to find the old notebook I wrote some of this stuff in) I had stuff about class skills and starting wealth for PCs of different socioeconomic class, as well. For instance, crossbows should be a martial weapon proficiency; longbows an exotic weapon proficiency, and shortbows simple weapons for most folks. Also, I find it silly that peasants wouldn't know how to use axes, sickles, and scythes.

... Edited because of religious references.

Well, the details of that would depend entirely upon you.

My point was that structuring a culture can be easily done by manipulating the class skills. Don't forget, class skills and the single feat is the primary resource of the commoner and expert classes. It is through them that you will reflect how the culture changes. Of course, there is also the aesthetic aspect such as customs, architecture, etc. but those are far more fluff related and thus should be relegated to your own research rather than doing a hard and fast rule, I think.

[rob]

Hey, all; I've posted the complete-to-date campaign setting on google pages, at this address. (http://victor.soapyjoe.googlepages.com/home) From now on, that will be the standard reference for the campaign setting; and I'll update these pages with the stuff outside of the prohibited stuff.

What would yall like to see more of/me to start posting? I'm a little discombobulated by the change in topic, so I'm not sure right now where to redirect my efforts.

Thanks:
Rob


Elliott - well, if you have some good ideas for how that would break down, feel free to write 'em up and post them, and I'll throw them in the setting. I can't write it all...

Crystall Myr - I liked the tangled web thing, but man was that hard to use...

[Caduceus]

Rob, the reason why axes, sickles, and scythes aren't listed as weapon proficiencies for peasants is simply because they don't know how to use them effectively as weapons. They know how to use them in their various trades, like farming and lumberjacking (I have no idea if that's the right word, but run with it). However, they are not trained combatants. They can still attack with said weapons without proficiency, albeit at a -4 nonproficiency penalty.

[Matthew]

Indeed. The way that Weapon Proficiencies are mapped out is for simplicity anyway. Exotic, Martial and Simple are always going to be relative to cultures. Weapon Proficiency Groups are a preferable, but not perfect option.

[rob]

I believe the simplicity part more than the trained combatant part - BAB is there to account for how trained a combatant you are.

I'll post some ideas for class background and interaction in the game world tomorrow.

Rob

[belboz]

I will say, with no discussion of the other options, that I very much like this campaign setting in it's human-only (I mean, except for *real* monsters) version.

Have you ever seen Ars Magica? It's very similar in concept, although it deals with the Magic problem very differently (rather than nerfing spellcasters compared to a standard high-magic setting, it makes the game revolve around them--*everyone* plays a spellcaster as their primary character, although they may also have other characters they take out on occasion). (That's not a suggestion, by the way; I think it would be quite unsuited to D&D. Just a difference from what might be otherwise an interesting resource.)

More similar, I think, than Warhammer Fantasy, since it makes the identification explicit.

[Matthew]

Yes, I did mention Ars Magica earlier on. A very nice concept and even better, it's free to download the Core Rules these days...

[belboz]

Oops. Sorry; missed it.

[rob]

Wellp, I'm open to ideas from any setting, but I myself am only familiar with DND 2/3/3.5 eds. I'm generally only inclined to stay DnD 3.5 ed, just because there's a larger player community that I think you miss by suggesting switched settings... I've been reading The Giant's sample campaign world, and I like his D20 Modern idea for magic, but I've never played D20 Modern and wouldn't know where to start.

As for actual content, I wanted to add the following idea:

CHARACTER BACKGROUND
Disposessed (rural): Character comes from a landless, classless and poor background. Survival, Bluff, and Hide are added to the character's class skill list. Character gains Endurance as a bonus feat.
Dispossessed (urban): Character was born homeless in an urban environment. Bluff, Hide, and Move Silently are added to the character's class skill list. Character receives the feat Urban Tracking for free if the character meets the prerequisites (see Ebberon campaign setting). Character gains +2 to Hide, Move Silently, Intimidate, and Bluff in home city.
Peasant: Character was born to an indentured, rural, farming family in service of a noble lord. Character gains Profession (farmer) as a class skill. Character gains proficiency in handaxes, battleaxes, and scythes.
Urban Tradesman: Character gains Profession (storekeeper) and any signle craft skill as class skills. Character gains twice normal background wealth for first level. Character is literate. Character gains a +1 bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate while in his home city.
Lesser Nobility: Character gains Diplomacy and Ride as class skills. Character can request hospitality from any non-noble whom character's kingdom is not at war with. Character gains Martial Weapon Proficiencies (Lance, Lognsword, Shortsword) and (Heavy) Shield Proficiency. Character is literate.
Higher Nobility: Character gains Diplomacy, Ride, Knowledge (Heredity), Knowledge (Law) to class skills. Character gainst two additional languages at 1st level. Character is not literate.
Nomadic Tribesman: Character gains Martial Weapon Proficiency (Shortbow, Composite Shortbow). Character gains Survival, Ride, and Handle Animal as class skills.

[Telonius]

CHAPTER 2: Character Classes

3. Cleric: Fine as is. Clerics only represent a small subset of most religions, as they have a significantly militaristic bent and are more appropriate as 'military chaplains.' Some sort of class for non-militaristic clergy should be appropriate, here.


I'd advise the Cloistered Cleric (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloistere dCleric) variant, it sounds very much like what you're looking for.

[rob]

Sweet! That's pretty much exactly what I'm looking for. I think I would probably rework some of the ideas - for instance, the ability to turn undead and demons should remain in the class; but I'd have to rework that for clerics anyway.

Rob