Things that break verismilitude for you in a fantasy setting

[BootStrapTommy]

Always thought "adventurer" was a euphemism for "particularly unscrupulous mercenary"...

[Mechalich]

Adventurer Guilds are a response to a society that has an adventuring class, which is a thing that D&D has due to a bunch of weird incentives baked into D&D settings. Notably, having various monsters sitting around on top of vast piles of riches.

I agree with BootStrapTommy that adventurers are best treated as a kind of specialized mercenary company - and I set my setting up that way - as a sort of contractual special forces.

But yeah, 'guild' is probably the wrong term. The actually service provided by such groups is usually a sort of 'quest aggregator' and its more like a job-matching service, a group of people who keep an ear to the ground in society and gather together a list of things that people want done, providing the connection to adventurers for a cut.

[Yora]

That sounds very much like a guild to me.

[nrg89]

When wealthy bankers are introduced they always seem to have absolutely terrible business plans.

A good example, which makes me face palm all the time, are the Iron Bankers in A Song of Ice and Fire. They are basically less reasonable with money than a gambling addict.

They back big armies that will topple the existing regime. This requires enormous amounts of resources since a war like that could take years. A single siege can take months. And it is heavily implied that they provide the bulk of the funding. Without them, there is no war. In other words, they take a very large risk.
But a large risk is warranted when the reward is astronomical. But I don't see how it could be, that country the borrower conquered probably put up some fight and wars can be brutal. Disease, burning of crops, cities can be razed all that stuff so the country is probably busy rebuilding itself and won't be producing any huge surpluses anytime soon. And this is even assuming that the borrower is done yet, just because you've toppled the regime doesn't mean that everyone is ok with that and are willing to give their riches to the tax man without a riot or two. Suppressing those will also require a lot of resources.

And, what really grinds my gears, how do they deal with defaults? Wars are after all chaotic, your plan won't survive unscathed when it comes into contact with the enemy and a legitimately honorable borrower could simply have underestimated how long this war will take and be in a very poor situation once the fighting is over. The bankers solution? Start this whole carousel over again and fund another large war that will bring even more destruction to the country and make it in a significantly worse situation to turn a profit. Only now the pressure to produce surplus is even higher since there's two loans that needs to be paid back.

Compare this to a real, historical banking organization that was immensely powerful, the Medicis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Medici). They did what real banks do today, small services to many individuals so that you take many small risks and get many small rewards which adds up to profit. The only way to get a larger loan was to have a good history of paying back loans or using their institution for saving to get a good credit, so that there was actually tangible proof that this borrower is a relatively safe investment.

Another is the Templars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar). They got their revenue from fees on financial services such as a "rent" on wealth (in order to sidestep that the church forbid taking out a loan with interest) and the revolutionary way of providing the medieval version of a credit card. To over-simplify things, you could leave wealth in Europe and get a proof of credit, go to Jerusalem for pilgrimage and withdraw wealth over there. All for a fee, of course, just like a credit card. There was a lot of pilgrims to extract this wealth from which made the Templars very powerful. Of course, they could not have done this without having safe passage throughout Europe.

And, this has to be clearly stated, these institutions started wealthy. You need capital that you can risk and invest to turn a profit. The Medicis started with the textile industry and the Templars had the church backing them.

And I know that this love of risk every fantasy setting have is to add more drama and tension around a topic most consider boring. We want to see James Bond win a monster pot on a ridiculously low probability straight-flush instead of watching him take small bites out of the pot and grind the other players out. We love high risk takers but it's still very silly.

[VoxRationis]

A good example, which makes me face palm all the time, are the Iron Bankers in A Song of Ice and Fire. They are basically less reasonable with money than a gambling addict.

...

And I know that this love of risk every fantasy setting have is to add more drama and tension around a topic most consider boring. We want to see James Bond win a monster pot on a ridiculously low probability straight-flush instead of watching him take small bites out of the pot and grind the other players out. We love high risk takers but it's still very silly.

I have observed, and hated, the exact same thing regarding the Iron Bank. But really, that poor sense of risk/reward analysis is endemic in Westeros. The entire human population, or most of it, is lacking in basic common sense. We see a war, fought over a continent between numerous factions (where each faction has enemies on multiple sides), where the predominant strategy of warfare is "make daring strike deep into the heart of enemy territory, then figure out what to do from there." This results, of course, in characters on all sides being in dramatic "how will they get out of this one" situations perennially, which is good for suspense but makes us question why anyone trusts these guys with military forces.

[Tiktakkat]

. . . which is good for suspense but makes us question why anyone trusts these guys with military forces.

On trust, the rate of treachery is through the roof, particularly among the northerners, who are supposed to be at base more trustworthy than anyone else. It makes for continuing conflict, which leads to more books, but how does anyone trust any of these people more than a month out of sight or with more than a handful of bodyguards?

[Tzi]

I have observed, and hated, the exact same thing regarding the Iron Bank. But really, that poor sense of risk/reward analysis is endemic in Westeros. The entire human population, or most of it, is lacking in basic common sense. We see a war, fought over a continent between numerous factions (where each faction has enemies on multiple sides), where the predominant strategy of warfare is "make daring strike deep into the heart of enemy territory, then figure out what to do from there." This results, of course, in characters on all sides being in dramatic "how will they get out of this one" situations perennially, which is good for suspense but makes us question why anyone trusts these guys with military forces.

Aesthetically I love a Song of Ice and Fire, but yeah stuff like that irks me greatly. A Humans-Only low fantasy world is very amenable to me. But his setting has a lot of flaws.

[AMFV]

I have observed, and hated, the exact same thing regarding the Iron Bank. But really, that poor sense of risk/reward analysis is endemic in Westeros. The entire human population, or most of it, is lacking in basic common sense. We see a war, fought over a continent between numerous factions (where each faction has enemies on multiple sides), where the predominant strategy of warfare is "make daring strike deep into the heart of enemy territory, then figure out what to do from there." This results, of course, in characters on all sides being in dramatic "how will they get out of this one" situations perennially, which is good for suspense but makes us question why anyone trusts these guys with military forces.

This is definitely true. Anybody who is involved in a two front war, and loses literally HALF their standing Army in a single battle, would sue for peace pretty rapidly. Particularly if their enemy's terms are basically "Leave us alone", and then deal with reconquering them later.

Which brings me to mine, casualties in fantasy battles are always absurdly high. Like you see forces losing half their people without surrendering. That's absurd, and is historically ridiculous. I mean we remember battles with casualties of over fifty percent, hundreds of years later, precisly because that sort of thing rarely happens. But in Fantasy writing this sort of absurdity happens all the time. I think it's a result of fantasy with Orcs in it, not Tolkien (who had them break and flee), but the result of having large hordes of mooks who can be killed without any moral concern.


Aesthetically I love a Song of Ice and Fire, but yeah stuff like that irks me greatly. A Humans-Only low fantasy world is very amenable to me. But his setting has a lot of flaws.

I agree, I'd love to see a really well done realistic standard fantasy setting though. One where the different races are more fleshed out and interesting.

[nrg89]

I have observed, and hated, the exact same thing regarding the Iron Bank. But really, that poor sense of risk/reward analysis is endemic in Westeros. The entire human population, or most of it, is lacking in basic common sense. We see a war, fought over a continent between numerous factions (where each faction has enemies on multiple sides), where the predominant strategy of warfare is "make daring strike deep into the heart of enemy territory, then figure out what to do from there." This results, of course, in characters on all sides being in dramatic "how will they get out of this one" situations perennially, which is good for suspense but makes us question why anyone trusts these guys with military forces.

Yes, this is exceptionally stupid and I consider especially disappointing because I agree with GRRM; characters need to die for us to feel suspense. But really crazy ideas need to fail most of the time if we are to consider them crazy and suspenseful too. But somehow, terrible business plans take the cake for me especially if the setting is taking itself as seriously as GRRM's is. I mean, he goes into excruciating detail to explain how it works step by step and you're doing something very, very wrong if you feel less immersed the more you read about it. A good writer knows when something should be left to mystery, like the force in Star Wars. It felt less ridiculous the less you knew about it. Or that a wealthy citizen in Qarth is a spice merchant. Just like that, he has something valuable and we don't need to know every pain staking step of the way he took to edge out the competition, we believe he's rich now move on with the story, we'll buy it.


Which brings me to mine, casualties in fantasy battles are always absurdly high. Like you see forces losing half their people without surrendering. That's absurd, and is historically ridiculous. I mean we remember battles with casualties of over fifty percent, hundreds of years later, precisly because that sort of thing rarely happens. But in Fantasy writing this sort of absurdity happens all the time. I think it's a result of fantasy with Orcs in it, not Tolkien (who had them break and flee), but the result of having large hordes of mooks who can be killed without any moral concern.


Well, I hadn't thought about it since military history has never been my favorite, but now that you mention it ... yeah, it's really silly.


A Humans-Only low fantasy world is very amenable to me. But his setting has a lot of flaws.

I totally agree. The setting I'm working with is human only, although I don't believe it's possible to make a world without any flaws, you just have to get rid of the glaring ones or shroud them in mystery.

[BootStrapTommy]

This is definitely true. Anybody who is involved in a two front war, and loses literally HALF their standing Army in a single battle, would sue for peace pretty rapidly. Particularly if their enemy's terms are basically "Leave us alone", and then deal with reconquering them later. Out of curiosity when did this happened in the stories?

[VoxRationis]

Aesthetically I love a Song of Ice and Fire, but yeah stuff like that irks me greatly. A Humans-Only low fantasy world is very amenable to me. But his setting has a lot of flaws.

Such as the agricultural cycle doesn't make any sense (save less than half of the last harvest in order to last through the whole winter, which is longer than the summer)?

Or the bizarre level of stasis in politics and noble lineages, in spite of the realistically high rate of stillbirths, infertility, battle deaths, and plagues, which should result in significantly more common failures in the male line?

Or the fact that almost all of the development of the setting's material culture seems to have gone into its castles, which are extravagantly enormous, in spite of the rest of the setting being firmly stuck in the meanest, most miserable poverty of the Middle Ages?

Or the idea that a continent-sized kingdom with such fractious upper nobility could have remained unified for any length of time after the last Targaryen dragon died?

Or the fact that travel from Westeros to Essos is quite possible on a trading ship, thus showing ready transmission of ideas and materiel, but Essos still considers hoplite formations to be the best form of combat, completely overlooking the advantages of mixed unit tactics or mass crossbow armies?

I love ASoIaF, but for a "pick-apart-everything" guy like me, it's easy and frustrating fodder.

[VoxRationis]

Out of curiosity when did this happened in the stories?


The Battle of Blackwater Bay stands out; most of Stannis' (quite limited) forces were tied up in that fight, and the casualty rate was enormous. That said, I can't fault Martin for making the casualty rate so high in this particular battle—the circumstances were quite appropriate for an anomalously lethal confrontation.

There are others, but I can't quite remember them.

[nrg89]

The Battle of Blackwater Bay stands out; most of Stannis' (quite limited) forces were tied up in that fight, and the casualty rate was enormous. That said, I can't fault Martin for making the casualty rate so high in this particular battle—the circumstances were quite appropriate for an anomalously lethal confrontation.

*Ahem*

And that's the same guy who gets a loan large enough that the best appraisers thinks he can edge out all his competition for the throne with it. The Iron Bank is literally like a tragic guy on the race track betting on the wrong horse who just got it's ass handed to it by another horse who's still in the race.

[BootStrapTommy]

The Battle of Blackwater Bay stands out; most of Stannis' (quite limited) forces were tied up in that fight, and the casualty rate was enormous. That said, I can't fault Martin for making the casualty rate so high in this particular battle—the circumstances were quite appropriate for an anomalously lethal confrontation.

There are others, but I can't quite remember them.I can't find source that put it at half, though.

Battle of the Blackwater plays much like the Battle of Marathon, which had quit considerable casualties. But the Persian didn't have to deal with most of their fleet being on fire.

[AMFV]

Out of curiosity when did this happened in the stories?

The first major battle. There was a loss of 20,000 men on the Lannister Side, which was (at that time) half of their 40,000 man force. That's pretty much an unsustainable loss. I don't recall which battle it was, but that would have been the time to sue for peace. And I'm sure that Tywin could have "convinced" Joffrey to do just that.

Edit: It's probably not as noticeable because they don't describe it as being a major loss, rather a "minor skirmish" and "one battle isn't the war", but frankly at that point that is the war, half your force in a single engagement with minimal losses to the enemy, is pretty much it, especially if they're offering relatively relaxed peace terms after, they're not demanding tribute or what-not, which they'd certainly have grounds to do.

Edit 2: It's particularly egregious since Tywin is supposed to be a master strategist.

Edit:

I can't find source that put it at half, though.

Battle of the Blackwater plays much like the Battle of Marathon, which had quit considerable casualties. But the Persian didn't have to deal with most of their fleet being on fire.

They didn't lose 50% of their total fielded fighting forces either. Which would have caused their entire empire to collapse.

[nrg89]

And, on the subject of fantasy battles, none of them seems to have heard of Florence Nightingale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Nightingale). You are far more likely to die from disease than from the enemy so while I can buy into the idea that a huge part of the soldiers die during a campaign I don't believe it when most of those casualties come from fighting itself.

The same goes for virtually every catastrophe. Surviving it is hard but rebuilding all that infrastructure is even harder now that you don't have as much food or clean water to keep you well fed and healthy. That's what's going to kill a lot of people.

[Tzi]

Such as the agricultural cycle doesn't make any sense (save less than half of the last harvest in order to last through the whole winter, which is longer than the summer)?

Or the bizarre level of stasis in politics and noble lineages, in spite of the realistically high rate of stillbirths, infertility, battle deaths, and plagues, which should result in significantly more common failures in the male line?

Or the fact that almost all of the development of the setting's material culture seems to have gone into its castles, which are extravagantly enormous, in spite of the rest of the setting being firmly stuck in the meanest, most miserable poverty of the Middle Ages?

Or the idea that a continent-sized kingdom with such fractious upper nobility could have remained unified for any length of time after the last Targaryen dragon died?

Or the fact that travel from Westeros to Essos is quite possible on a trading ship, thus showing ready transmission of ideas and materiel, but Essos still considers hoplite formations to be the best form of combat, completely overlooking the advantages of mixed unit tactics or mass crossbow armies?

I love ASoIaF, but for a "pick-apart-everything" guy like me, it's easy and frustrating fodder.

Population statistics, the fact that Martin admitted he isn't a numbers guy or particularly interested in linguistics, there is a lot you can pick apart. But my heart goes out to the Wildlings and the Ironborn. XD

[BootStrapTommy]

The first major battle. There was a loss of 20,000 men on the Lannister Side, which was (at that time) half of their 40,000 man force. That's pretty much an unsustainable loss. I don't recall which battle it was, but that would have been the time to sue for peace. And I'm sure that Tywin could have "convinced" Joffrey to do just that.

Edit: It's probably not as noticeable because they don't describe it as being a major loss, rather a "minor skirmish" and "one battle isn't the war", but frankly at that point that is the war, half your force in a single engagement with minimal losses to the enemy, is pretty much it, especially if they're offering relatively relaxed peace terms after, they're not demanding tribute or what-not, which they'd certainly have grounds to do.

Edit 2: It's particularly egregious since Tywin is supposed to be a master strategist.The first battle of the war is between Roose Bolton and Tywin Lannister. Tywin wins and Roose retreats. Tywin's losses are minimal.

At the Battle of the Whispering Woods the Lannisters lose 2,000 soldiers. However it is stated that most are captured, like Jaime. This battle sees Jaime's force trapped between a river and two Stark forces, with more Stark forces waiting across the river.

The Battle of the Camps, however, sees the Lannister lose 8,000. The set up for this battle was identical, the Lannister force being caught between Stark, the river, the castle of Riverrun, and an army of Rivermen. Oh, and it was a night attack. Like the first battle, not all the losses are dead. Many were free riders who were captured and joined the Starks.

After both battles, Tywin still has more troops in the region than Robb.

They didn't lose 50% of their total fielded fighting forces either. Which would have caused their entire empire to collapse. Yes, they lost 20%. But, as I said, they were not trapped between a heavily defended city, a giant body of water, the flaming remains of most of their fleet, and an army over twice their size.

[AMFV]

The first battle of the war is between Roose Bolton and Tywin Lannister. Tywin wins and Roose retreats. Tywin's losses are minimal.

At the Battle of the Whispering Woods the Lannisters lose 2,000 soldiers. However it is stated that most are captured, like Jaime. This battle sees Jaime's force trapped between a river and two Stark forces, with more Stark forces waiting across the river.

The Battle of the Camps, however, sees the Lannister lose 8,000. The set up for this battle was identical, the Lannister force being caught between Stark, the river, the castle of Riverrun, and an army of Rivermen. Oh, and it was a night attack. Like the first battle, not all the losses are dead. Many were free riders who were captured and joined the Starks.

After both battles, Tywin still has more troops in the region than Robb.
Yes, they lost 20%. But, as I said, they were not trapped between a heavily defended city, a giant body of water, and the flaming remains of most of their fleet.

To be fair I'm actually referencing the show where the numbers do match the ones I described. I should probably have clarified that earlier.

[BootStrapTommy]

To be fair I'm actually referencing the show where the numbers do match the ones I described. I should probably have clarified that earlier.*sigh* They conflate the Battles of the Whispering Wood and the Camp. Even then, your numbers are wrong. The Lannisters had 60,000 total, not 40,000. Tywin was left with over 30,000 not 20,000. And, as I said, that results in him still fielding more than Robb.

[AMFV]

*sigh* They conflate the Battles of the Whispering Wood and the Camp. Even then, your numbers are wrong. The Lannisters had 60,000 total, not 40,000. Tywin was left with over 30,000 not 20,000. And, as I said, that results in him still fielding more than Robb.

That's still roughly half his force, and he's in a two front war. That's pretty much sue for peace by any ANY military strategy. It doesn't matter that he has more he can't afford another loss, which is when you sue for peace. You can't fight till you have no army. Nobody does.

Edit: Additionally, it's worth noting that so far he'd had to spend 20,000 of his troops to take 2,000... That means that he would have to assume it would take 10 of his troops to beat 1. So he doesn't have sufficient superiority of numbers. Also you would probably see people start to defect, if we're trusting medieval history. Nobles would jump ship very quickly to the winning side, the one likely to be able to give them land and titles.

[Mechalich]

Which brings me to mine, casualties in fantasy battles are always absurdly high. Like you see forces losing half their people without surrendering. That's absurd, and is historically ridiculous. I mean we remember battles with casualties of over fifty percent, hundreds of years later, precisly because that sort of thing rarely happens. But in Fantasy writing this sort of absurdity happens all the time. I think it's a result of fantasy with Orcs in it, not Tolkien (who had them break and flee), but the result of having large hordes of mooks who can be killed without any moral concern.

Actual casualties in medieval battles could be extremely high, especially if one counts forces actually engaged rather than extraneous troops that stand around and don't fight. However, medieval campaigns tended to be short and have few battles involved - often only one - as commanders knew that battle was a huge risk, numbers were not decisive, and troop morale was often quite low overall. A lot of medieval campaigning involved armies marching past each other pillaging the countryside and trying to besiege strategic points into submission before relief could arrive.

Fantasy does have a problem in that it tends to take particularly deadly and well known medieval engagements like Agincourt and project them as 'normal' or part of a continuous campaign. They also tend to add magic to the mix as a force multiplier and forget to adjust tactics, formations, and overall strategy accordingly.

[AMFV]

Actual casualties in medieval battles could be extremely high, especially if one counts forces actually engaged rather than extraneous troops that stand around and don't fight. However, medieval campaigns tended to be short and have few battles involved - often only one - as commanders knew that battle was a huge risk, numbers were not decisive, and troop morale was often quite low overall. A lot of medieval campaigning involved armies marching past each other pillaging the countryside and trying to besiege strategic points into submission before relief could arrive.

I don't think you'll find many where 40-50% of total forces were killed. I don't think you'd find much more than ten percent in most battles. Hell Agincourt may have been that low, depending on whose numbers you use. The thing people don't realize is that ten percent of total causalities is a really really lethal battle. The reason why they tried to avoid fighting, is that battles are costly and dangerous, which again backs my "half my forces are gone"



Fantasy does have a problem in that it tends to take particularly deadly and well known medieval engagements like Agincourt and project them as 'normal' or part of a continuous campaign. They also tend to add magic to the mix as a force multiplier and forget to adjust tactics, formations, and overall strategy accordingly.

I agree. And again, depending on whose numbers you use, Agincourt may have been as low as ten percent (or as high as sixty), but that's a battle we're remembering hundreds of years later, because it was unusual. I don't think that magic would alter how many troops you could waste.

[BootStrapTommy]

I don't think you'll find many where 40-50% of total forces were killed. I don't think you'd find much more than ten percent in most battles. Hell Agincourt may have been that low, depending on whose numbers you use. The thing people don't realize is that ten percent of total causalities is a really really lethal battle. The reason why they tried to avoid fighting, is that battles are costly and dangerous, which again backs my "half my forces are gone" I think you missed Mechalich's point. In a battle, not all troops actively engage in combat. Some sit in reserve, while others get locked into a good formation. One of the reasons surrounding an enemy is so effective is that troops get trapped in the middle, rendering them useless. Mechalich was pointing out that mortality among those who actively fight during a battle may be notably higher.


I agree. And again, depending on whose numbers you use, Agincourt may have been as low as ten percent (or as high as sixty), but that's a battle we're remembering hundreds of years later, because it was unusual. I don't think that magic would alter how many troops you could waste. So you think magic would not have the same effect as gunpowder, potentially greatly increasing the mortality rates on the battlefield? That claim is a verisimilitude challenge to me.

[AMFV]

I think you missed Mechalich's point. In a battle, not all troops actively engage in combat. Some sit in reserve, while others get locked into a good formation. One of the reasons surrounding an enemy is so effective is that troops get trapped in the middle, rendering them useless. Mechalich was pointing out that mortality among those who actively fight during a battle may be notably higher.


It's hardly relevant since I was referring to total casualties. The 20,000 number was total casualties, including support personal. But you still don't see mortality rates around the fifty percent range, not even in modern firefights, not except for in very exceptional circumstances.



So you think magic would not have the same effect as gunpowder, potentially greatly increasing the mortality rates on the battlefield? That claim is a verisimilitude challenge to me.

If mortality rates increase with technology, why are you claiming that mortality rates were higher previously? I mean in the Civil War we had unprecedented mortality rates, and those fifty percent casualties was still too high to be considered acceptable.

[Mechalich]

Actually I was trying to point out that medieval forces were often cobbled together out of weird alliances of disparate parties and it was not uncommon for fairly large forces to show up to a battle without really intending to fight at all but still getting counted as part of the order of battle and thereby inflated the overall numbers - the Battle of Sekigahara is a good example of this. It is also common for medieval chroniclers to vastly inflate the number of effectives in an army where a huge proportion of the troops would be disabled by disease or perhaps flatly deserted earlier in the campaign.


I agree. And again, depending on whose numbers you use, Agincourt may have been as low as ten percent (or as high as sixty), but that's a battle we're remembering hundreds of years later, because it was unusual. I don't think that magic would alter how many troops you could waste.

Well, actually, D&D style clerical magic, or Wheel of Time style healing, or any number of other options can actually be used to dramatically increase the effective size of an army. The remove disease spell drops the impact of dysentery and similar ailments down to close to zero, drastically reducing loses on campaign and allowing the troops to fight in better health overall. It also allows wounded men to return to the field of battle in a matter of minutes to hours rather than potentially never.

Besides, Agincourt wasn't that unusual. Casualties may have actually have been proportionally less than at Crecy or Poitiers. The French lost all of those battles, but they never conceded the Hundred Years War. However, those battles where effectively decades apart. A country can afford to lose half its army once a generation, and given the realities of medieval warfare you could still resist after that, depending on the circumstances involved.

It is at least theoretically possible for armies to sustain massive casualty levels and keep on fighting - it happened repeatedly in the American Civil War. Now the conditions that enabled that conflict to be so incredibly bloody and yet drag on are peculiar, but they could hypothetically be duplicated. ASOIAF is, overall, too bloody by half in terms of military operations and the depredations upon the population and so forth, but again, Martin has openly admitted that the numbers aren't going to be consistent, frustrating as that is.

[nrg89]

Well, actually, D&D style clerical magic, or Wheel of Time style healing, or any number of other options can actually be used to dramatically increase the effective size of an army. The remove disease spell drops the impact of dysentery and similar ailments down to close to zero, drastically reducing loses on campaign and allowing the troops to fight in better health overall. It also allows wounded men to return to the field of battle in a matter of minutes to hours rather than potentially never. In my setting I have an empire that becomes powerful for this very reason (they are alone with healing magic) but it all comes down to how powerful the healing is. I don't use magic as powerful as in vanilla DnD so the healers cannot fix cholera, infections or stuff like that (or bring back limbs, or make dead people walk again) but they can heal wounds and if they do it quickly enough the soldier won't get infected. But it still leads to a very noticable edge in warfare.

If there is easier access to the right cleric spell for a soldier at the field than a person with a decent trade close to the temple, something is very wrong. Today in 85% of the cases an American soldier has to go home because of medical conditions it's because of a non-fighting related illness. And this is in the 21st century with germ theory, camera aided surgery, proper sanitation and all of those luxuries the middle-ages could only dream of. If healing magic can surpass that, healing magic should be every generals number one priority.

[jqavins]

healing magic should be every generals number one priority.
All the ifs and maybes aside, I would go with just that.

Except not really. It still comes after supplies. But that's another topic.

[BootStrapTommy]

It's hardly relevant since I was referring to total casualties. The 20,000 number was total casualties, including support personal. But you still don't see mortality rates around the fifty percent range, not even in modern firefights, not except for in very exceptional circumstances. 149 divisions took part in the Battle of the Somme. Roughly 1.5 to 2 million soldiers. Over 1 million people died in that battle. The Somme was the bloodiest battle of the war, but casuality rates during the First World War were astronomically high in general.

The Japanese saw huge casualties in excess of 50% quit often in the Second World War. At Okinawa and Luzon, they basically fought to the last man. The US saw 50%+ casualities on Wake Island (they likewise fought to the last man).

The Battle of Stalingrad had casualities in excess of 50%. It was not the only battle in the European theater to see such (Battles of Moscow and Narva), though it was the deadliest (technically of all time).

At the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War, the Chinese sustained almost 50,000 casualities. That was a third of their army, but it was almost 75% of the troops they actually committed (see Mechalich's thing about showing up but not fighting). They won the battle anyway.

The first phase of the Tet Offensive saw the Viet Cong lose 37,000 of their 80,000 troops.

In the Iraq and Afghan Wars, it has been anything but rare for insurgent forces to experience mortality rates nearing or exceeding 50% during battles (Second Battle of Fallujah, for example).

Modern war is a whole different animal to medieval combat. I'm inclined to think Eberron gets it right that magic/technology transparency means lots of dead people on the battlefield.


If mortality rates increase with technology, why are you claiming that mortality rates were higher previously? Don't believe I ever said that, actually.


ASOIAF is, overall, too bloody by half in terms of military operations and the depredations upon the population and so forth, but again, Martin has openly admitted that the numbers aren't going to be consistent, frustrating as that is.GoT is. ASOIAF is not. I just did a lot of research because of this discussion, and only the Battle of the Blackwater stands out to me as excessively bloody. But the casualties of it are never actually enumerated.


All the ifs and maybes aside, I would go with just that.

Except not really. It still comes after supplies. But that's another topic.
So item creation magic first, then healing magic, followed by actual offensive magic.

[nrg89]

All the ifs and maybes aside, I would go with just that.

Except not really. It still comes after supplies. But that's another topic.



So item creation magic first, then healing magic, followed by actual offensive magic.

I think he meant stuff like water and food first and foremost. Create water items would be the envy of even modern armies, not to mention create food and water. Or just purify food items, that way you can just fill your coffers to the brim with whatever food you want and not have to worry about it's shelf life. And, by having an independent source of food and water, you can dump your waste wherever you want without risk of spreading diseases within the army.

Um ... shouldn't the agricultural economy, not to mention the salt trade, just collapse in a world where stuff like that is possible? How in the hell could they compete with clerics? Why aren't everyone clerics? Ok, the gods require you to follow this and that rule but every day is a lazy sunday after you've got down the ropes and you stay within the alignment.

[Yora]

In my setting I have an empire that becomes powerful for this very reason (they are alone with healing magic) but it all comes down to how powerful the healing is. I don't use magic as powerful as in vanilla DnD so the healers cannot fix cholera, infections or stuff like that (or bring back limbs, or make dead people walk again) but they can heal wounds and if they do it quickly enough the soldier won't get infected. But it still leads to a very noticable edge in warfare.

In my setting healing magic improves survival and recovery rates, but won't get a wounded warrior back into battle in less than a few days if the injuries were disabling.
There also is no creation of stuff (be it bread or gold) and no teleportation.

That makes the world work a lot more like we're used to.

[Steampunkette]

Things that break verisimilitude for me in fantasy settings:

Sexism
Racism
Transphobia
Homophobia
Biphobia

I'm here to slay dragons and kick open treasure chests while avoiding the struggles of reality. I don't need them in my escapism.

[jqavins]

I think he meant stuff like water and food first and foremost.
Just so. In the occasional debate over whether wars are won by generals or soldiers, both sides are wrong. Battles are won by generals or soldiers, but wars are won by farmers.


Um ... shouldn't the agricultural economy, not to mention the salt trade, just collapse in a world where stuff like that is possible? How in the hell could they compete with clerics? Why aren't everyone clerics? Ok, the gods require you to follow this and that rule but every day is a lazy sunday after you've got down the ropes and you stay within the alignment.
Not necessarily. The gods don't have ro take all comers into rheir ranks, and if there were floods of would be clerics then they surely wouldn't.

[Milo v3]

Things that break verisimilitude for me in fantasy settings:

Sexism
Racism
Transphobia
Homophobia
Biphobia

I'm here to slay dragons and kick open treasure chests while avoiding the struggles of reality. I don't need them in my escapism.

That's... the opposite of breaking verisimilitude.

[AMFV]

149 divisions took part in the Battle of the Somme. Roughly 1.5 to 2 million soldiers. Over 1 million people died in that battle. The Somme was the bloodiest battle of the war, but casuality rates during the First World War were astronomically high in general.

That is astronomically high, and pretty aberrant if you compare it to even other engagements of that era. Also if you'll read some of the texts by strategists and generals of the time, those particular kind of battles were entirely too costly, which is why nearly ALL of military doctrine was rewritten in the short span between the wars.

So you might see (when magic is introduced) a huge spike in casualties (or a sharp drop, for healing and logistical magic), which will result in high casualties. You're still not going to see fifty percent of one sides forces being wiped out without them wanting to pull out of the war. I mean the UK had the absolute highest casualty rate of World War 1 and they were at about ten percent, and that was considered absolutely astronomical. In individual battles you might see a loss of fifty percent of the forces committed. But I'll not that the GoT battle was fifty percent of ALL of the Lannister's forces, and 100% of the forces committed, that's such a ridiculous loss as to make pretty much any continued engagements untenable at a strategic level, particularly given the fairly lenient and relaxed terms the enemy was offering.



The Japanese saw huge casualties in excess of 50% quit often in the Second World War. At Okinawa and Luzon, they basically fought to the last man. The US saw 50%+ casualities on Wake Island (they likewise fought to the last man).

Although again, if you read commentators at the time, that was considered to be an aberration, completely unlike anything that you would expect to see. And to be fair sieges are often disproportionately high in casualties (which is why I didn't comment on the Battle of The Blackwater, that one didn't tickle me the same way)



The Battle of Stalingrad had casualities in excess of 50%. It was not the only battle in the European theater to see such (Battles of Moscow and Narva), though it was the deadliest (technically of all time).


And again was considered to be an aberration. And the Russians had in excess of 20 million soldiers, they could risk throwing manpower at the problem. They didn't lose 10 million soldiers in a single battle, which might have caused them to rethink their strategy.



At the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War, the Chinese sustained almost 50,000 casualities. That was a third of their army, but it was almost 75% of the troops they actually committed (see Mechalich's thing about showing up but not fighting). They won the battle anyway.


But not their total forces, only the forces they had committed to Korea, they still had a much much larger Army (1.35 Million men) and 50,000 casualties is barely a drop in that bucket, meaning that it would be worth it.

It's also considered to be not worth it by most people. So again a catastrophic failure.



The first phase of the Tet Offensive saw the Viet Cong lose 37,000 of their 80,000 troops.


And was a failure, a severe failure. If the US had not had to withdraw due to political considerations, it is very unlikely that the Viet Cong would have been able to recover from that particular mistake.



In the Iraq and Afghan Wars, it has been anything but rare for insurgent forces to experience mortality rates nearing or exceeding 50% during battles (Second Battle of Fallujah, for example).

That's almost impossible to prove, given that insurgents often vastly inflate the number of people killed in order to gain sympathy. And again, sieges are different.



Modern war is a whole different animal to medieval combat. I'm inclined to think Eberron gets it right that magic/technology transparency means lots of dead people on the battlefield.


I think only if you're looking at the initial development of magic, once it has been developed, people will develop doctrines to allow themselves to not lose as many troops as they would. So you might see a Civil War or World War 2 era of high losses, but you wouldn't see losses of all men involved very often, since most forces (except the Japanese, and if you read people commenting on it, that was exceedingly unusual)



Don't believe I ever said that, actually.

Fair enough, I inferred it (incorrectly) from your statement about Medieval Battles being particularly high in casualties, and the reason why you'd only see a loss like that in a generation is because people don't continue to fight after, they pull back, sue for peace, lick their wounds, regroup and then get back to it. That's why wars in that era could last for hundreds of years.



GoT is. ASOIAF is not. I just did a lot of research because of this discussion, and only the Battle of the Blackwater stands out to me as excessively bloody. But the casualties of it are never actually enumerated.

True, having not read the books I can't speak to that, but I'd believe it. Also of note, I love the series, that part just bothers my verisimilitude. But then I remember that it's only a show, maybe I should just relax.



So item creation magic first, then healing magic, followed by actual offensive magic.

Transportation Magic first, then production magic, then healing magic, then actual offensive magic (depending on type of course). In a vacuum this is easy to talk about, but depending on what spells or what-not we're discussing it could be very different.

Edit: As a sidenote increased casualties from new technology or drastic shifts in technology wouldn't break my sense of verisimilitude. Or if there's some kind of reason, it's when it's just treated as par for the course that it's immersion breaking for me (like the "It's just one battle" quote), in cases where that level of horrific loss would likely be the end of the war.

[nrg89]

Just so. In the occasional debate over whether wars are won by generals or soldiers, both sides are wrong. Battles are won by generals or soldiers, but wars are won by farmers.

I think a generalization would be that war is work and work is performed by energy. Food was for a very long time our primary source of energy and humans were the machines but now it would be unthinkable for the US to go to war without kerosene for jets and uranium for their aircraft carriers. But, without a food surplus, people are too busy farming instead of pumping oil or mining uranium so farmers are still very vital.



Not necessarily. The gods don't have ro take all comers into rheir ranks, and if there were floods of would be clerics then they surely wouldn't.

Yeah, one would hope that the gods think that one through. Although, it's very hard to see something like the Irish potato blight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)) happening if every priest could've purified the food or gotten some more. "Food magic" would still make the world history significantly different from our own.

[BootStrapTommy]

But not their total forces, only the forces they had committed to Korea, they still had a much much larger Army (1.35 Million men) and 50,000 casualties is barely a drop in that bucket, meaning that it would be worth it.

It's also considered to be not worth it by most people. So again a catastrophic failure. The Chinese could not muster an army of 1.35 million in 1950, when only 2.5 billion lived on the planet (about a third that live on it today and just under twice of China's current population). China had also just came out of a world war and a civil war. 6 million people died during said civil war.

And while some people see Chosin Reservoir as phyrric, it allowed the Chinese to drive the UN forces out of North Korea. Within a month, UN forces were on the retreat.

[AMFV]

The Chinese could not muster an army of 1.35 million in 1950, when only 2.5 billion lived on the planet (about a third that live on it today and just under twice of China's current population). China had also just came out of a world war and a civil war. 6 million people died during said civil war.

And while some people see Chosin Reservoir as phyrric, it allowed the Chinese to drive the UN forces out of North Korea. Within a month, UN forces were on the retreat.

The USSR had an Army in excess of 20 million (closer to 30 million, depending again on whose numbers you use) in 1942. Immediately after two civil wars, a purging, a world war, and in the midst of another world war. China has had one of the largest Armies in the world for a very long time. They had an Army of 1.35 million, look it up. Now they did not (and could not) commit 1.35 million troops to the Korean War, since they had their own borders to watch, and the fear of a resurgent Nationalist revolution. But 40,000 was not a significant loss for them. You'll find the relevant statistics (with citations) in the Wikipedia article for the Korean War).

Now I'm not saying that there haven't been foolish campaigns, but losing half your forces is a huge deal. Losing a tenth of your forces is a huge deal. I do agree that the Chosin Reservoir changed the war, but it had a good chance of backfiring, I mean MacArthur wanted to both nuke and invade China, so it's very possible that this battle could have went very very very wrong for them. It was a gamble, and they managed to win it, but only by the narrowest of margins.

You also can't reduce your standing army to zero, because then you'll be invaded by other powers. This is why the Game of Thrones example is so egregious, if you're engaged in a two-front war, that sort of loss is untenable, particularly if they offer peace terms that are particularly inoffensive (especially since as far as I can tell, there are no substantial resources in the North except for shipping, and that's not really under the control of the rebelling folks.) Losing control of the North (briefly) while you engage and destroy your other enemies and build up defenses would be the more ideal option.

Of course, the magical thing with warfare is a really interesting topic, and I would love to see that explored in greater detail, Turtledove may have done that, but I've not read enough of his works to be certain of it.

[Tzi]

The USSR had an Army in excess of 20 million (closer to 30 million, depending again on whose numbers you use) in 1942. Immediately after two civil wars, a purging, a world war, and in the midst of another world war. China has had one of the largest Armies in the world for a very long time. They had an Army of 1.35 million, look it up. Now they did not (and could not) commit 1.35 million troops to the Korean War, since they had their own borders to watch, and the fear of a resurgent Nationalist revolution. But 40,000 was not a significant loss for them. You'll find the relevant statistics (with citations) in the Wikipedia article for the Korean War).

Now I'm not saying that there haven't been foolish campaigns, but losing half your forces is a huge deal. Losing a tenth of your forces is a huge deal. I do agree that the Chosin Reservoir changed the war, but it had a good chance of backfiring, I mean MacArthur wanted to both nuke and invade China, so it's very possible that this battle could have went very very very wrong for them. It was a gamble, and they managed to win it, but only by the narrowest of margins.

You also can't reduce your standing army to zero, because then you'll be invaded by other powers. This is why the Game of Thrones example is so egregious, if you're engaged in a two-front war, that sort of loss is untenable, particularly if they offer peace terms that are particularly inoffensive (especially since as far as I can tell, there are no substantial resources in the North except for shipping, and that's not really under the control of the rebelling folks.) Losing control of the North (briefly) while you engage and destroy your other enemies and build up defenses would be the more ideal option.

Of course, the magical thing with warfare is a really interesting topic, and I would love to see that explored in greater detail, Turtledove may have done that, but I've not read enough of his works to be certain of it.

To the defense of that narrative in A Song of Ice and Fire, History does show people make dumb tactical and strategic mistakes often out of pure hubris and vainglory. As Sam Houston said "The only thing dumber than defending the Alamo, was attacking it." Or something to that effect. Or Hitlers obsession with conquering Russia in general could be argued to have been a completely strategic unnecessary action. ect.

Humans make bad calls. I can somewhat let the tactically idiocy of Westerossi people slide as "These people don't know how to War."

[AMFV]

To the defense of that narrative in A Song of Ice and Fire, History does show people make dumb tactical and strategic mistakes often out of pure hubris and vainglory. As Sam Houston said "The only thing dumber than defending the Alamo, was attacking it." Or something to that effect. Or Hitlers obsession with conquering Russia in general could be argued to have been a completely strategic unnecessary action. ect.

Humans make bad calls. I can somewhat let the tactically idiocy of Westerossi people slide as "These people don't know how to War."

I could, if they adapted and became better, or if they treated a loss as huge and crippling as that with any kind of gravity. I think though that the main problem is that authors often don't know how to war (or how to military), and even those that do or have experience often get things wrong. Elizabeth Moon (a former Marine) talking about how you should adjust to deal with weapon recoil, when that is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do, you should go out of your way to not anticipate any kind of recoil when firing a weapon. Now it's possible that she was just a bad shot, or that she didn't remember all of her training. But that's an egregious error.

If it were depicted as being a horrible decision I could live with it, but it's mostly depicted as being just an unavoidable loss, we know that Hitler's generals were furious about that mistake, that they started plotting to kill him. So we can expect that there would be a similar negative reaction to this sort of thing.

Again, I can normally, just let it go, but it's something I notice.

[nrg89]

Again, I can normally, just let it go, but it's something I notice.

I think I have the same response to terrible business plans. I can let it slide sometimes, maybe they're still burning through some early investor's money or they have some other sort of revenue or something else, but when the story basically is "they're business geniuses, look at all this money they're rollin in! Anyone with capital should've done the same!" I roll my eyes.

I guess that's what's bothering you? When they're portrayed as genuinely good commanders despite burning through their manpower and keep pushing on like it ain't no thang?

[AMFV]

I think I have the same response to terrible business plans. I can let it slide sometimes, maybe they're still burning through some early investor's money or they have some other sort of revenue or something else, but when the story basically is "they're business geniuses, look at all this money they're rollin in! Anyone with capital should've done the same!" I roll my eyes.

I guess that's what's bothering you? When they're portrayed as genuinely good commanders despite burning through their manpower and keep pushing on like it ain't no thang?

Yes, although to be fair usually it doesn't bother me, it does pull me out of the fantasy. But that's not the entire point, so I don't usually mind it. I mean anything with guns is something I can't enjoy if I get finicky, since literally almost no movie captures that correctly. So I normally just file it away, but it does grate on me.

I mean the Soviets are a good example of poor military leadership that won the war, but they had so much manpower, that was the thing. It's the same principle as with your investment thing, sure if you have an army of 30 million men, you can afford to lose a couple million, but if you have an army of 5 million that's no longer the case. Which I'm pretty sure is the same sort of deal as with economics, although I don't know enough about that to comment.

Actually to be fair, fantasy military books are extremely rare, and there are very few examples that are actually intended to be realistic. Usually I'm okay with something that isn't realistic if it doesn't seem that it's intended to be so.

[Steampunkette]

That's... the opposite of breaking verisimilitude.

If it kicks me out of character with frustration at how upsetting/annoying it is then it breaks verisimilitude, Milo.

Even if it's something that exists in the real world. Like Machine Guns in Forgotten Realms. Nearly every fantasy setting these days is written pretty explicitly as unbiased on gender/race/sexuality lines. And having a DM throw it in there to be edgy is just annoying.

So while it might be something you consider as immersive it just kicks me right out of the game, breaking immersion rather than fostering it.

[AMFV]

If it kicks me out of character with frustration at how upsetting/annoying it is then it breaks verisimilitude, Milo.

Even if it's something that exists in the real world. Like Machine Guns in Forgotten Realms. Nearly every fantasy setting these days is written pretty explicitly as unbiased on gender/race/sexuality lines. And having a DM throw it in there to be edgy is just annoying.

So while it might be something you consider as immersive it just kicks me right out of the game, breaking immersion rather than fostering it.

Would you have an issue with that sort of thing if it were discussed beforehand? Or would that be equally immersion breaking? If I am understanding you correctly, the issue is that the settings are presented as unbiased, when in fact they are not. Am I correct?

[nrg89]

So while it might be something you consider as immersive it just kicks me right out of the game, breaking immersion rather than fostering it.

Most societies have bigots in them, it's a very unfortunate thing but people instinctively like other people who look like them. It's a bad side effect that probably finds it traces in love of family. So, just to be clear, what displays of bigotry is it that breaks your level of immersion? I could understand if a bigot NPC appears and I have to humor him or her that it would be very annoying, or if the DM express some prejudices he or she has (have had that happen multiple times and it breaks immersion completely) or is it when some organization in the game systemically discriminates against some people (which could be very annoying because now I suddenly have to humor even more people in order to get something useful)?

[Milo v3]

If it kicks me out of character with frustration at how upsetting/annoying it is then it breaks verisimilitude, Milo.
It's something that realistically would probably be there. It can frustrate/upset/annoy you and you'd be entirely justified, but it is increasing verisimilitude. It just doesn't matter if it increases verisimilitude for you because of how it will harm your experience.

[nrg89]

It just doesn't matter if it increases verisimilitude for you because of how it will harm your experience.

I would lose verisimilitude if my DM clearly expresses his or her own crack pot views. Let's say we have two human cultures with a long history of contact between them and a similar access to resources (both produce food surpluses too), and some how one of them is in the stone age while the other one is on the dawn of the Renaissance and the explanation I get is "that race isn't smart enough to advance" the world start to feel less like a world and more like blotches of ink expressing ignorance. VoxRationis gives an example which is probably more of an honest mistake, but a flaw none the less.



Or the fact that travel from Westeros to Essos is quite possible on a trading ship, thus showing ready transmission of ideas and materiel, but Essos still considers hoplite formations to be the best form of combat, completely overlooking the advantages of mixed unit tactics or mass crossbow armies?


I don't think GRRM believes dark skinned people are immune to the induction of new ideas, but it looks like they are from this example. If GRRM was running a game and I spotted that (which I might not, I can admittedly be won over by a compelling story and not think too hard) I would ask him to give an explanation. Either he gives me an explanation that has nothing to do with their race or fesses up, the third option would make me shake my head in disbelief.

[Steampunkette]

Would you have an issue with that sort of thing if it were discussed beforehand? Or would that be equally immersion breaking? If I am understanding you correctly, the issue is that the settings are presented as unbiased, when in fact they are not. Am I correct?

The settings and most editions of D&D themselves are presented as unbiased, with female characters or members of different ethnicities able to perform the same roles with no issues. Same thing for a lot of other tabletop RPGs. They're written to be specifically inclusive.

It's when the DM decides "Y'know what this fantasy needs? To make one or two of my players feel super uncomfortable so I can feel happy there's (insert bias against player's choices here) in my game!"

If it were discussed beforehand I'd be like "Oh. Well. Then that's not the game for me, but thanks for the opportunity!" 'Cause like I said: It breaks my immersion.


It's something that realistically would probably be there. It can frustrate/upset/annoy you and you'd be entirely justified, but it is increasing verisimilitude. It just doesn't matter if it increases verisimilitude for you because of how it will harm your experience.

The question isn't "What breaks Verisimilitude in an Objective Fashion in Fantasy Games" in which case the answer would be "Anything that isn't extant in the real world or previously accurate in a historical sense". It's about Subjective Immersive Quality and being "Real" for you.

Modern biases don't increase my verisimilitude any more than guns in a Medieval European setting improve other people's, even though gunpowder was totally a thing and they accept Eastern Monks as a reasonable fantasy trope.


Most societies have bigots in them, it's a very unfortunate thing but people instinctively like other people who look like them. It's a bad side effect that probably finds it traces in love of family. So, just to be clear, what displays of bigotry is it that breaks your level of immersion? I could understand if a bigot NPC appears and I have to humor him or her that it would be very annoying, or if the DM express some prejudices he or she has (have had that happen multiple times and it breaks immersion completely) or is it when some organization in the game systemically discriminates against some people (which could be very annoying because now I suddenly have to humor even more people in order to get something useful)?

If it's one jerk NPC it's not a big deal. That's just a single person to work around.

The stuff I'm talking about is Systemic Bias on a societal level, which gets lobbed at me in a surprising number of potential games I look to sign up for. To the point where everyone automatically assumes my female character should be at home taking care of the babies, or my (insert ethnic character here) character is automatically an ignorant barbarian who fulfills (insert racist stereotype). Or that society itself not only assumes my (sexual orientation defined character) is wrong but should be "Repaired" through reparative therapy or sexual assault.

If it was presented as one jerk I'd be able to deal with it as "This one character is a terrible person" but instead I wind up facing a whole game world of the stuff and that's not fun at all. It breaks my ability to assume the game world is real by forcing me out of character again and again and again.

[Steampunkette]

I would lose verisimilitude if my DM clearly expresses his or her own crack pot views. Let's say we have two human cultures with a long history of contact between them and a similar access to resources (both produce food surpluses too), and some how one of them is in the stone age while the other one is on the dawn of the Renaissance and the explanation I get is "that race isn't smart enough to advance" the world start to feel less like a world and more like blotches of ink expressing ignorance. VoxRationis gives an example which is probably more of an honest mistake, but a flaw none the less.



I don't think GRRM believes dark skinned people are immune to the induction of new ideas, but it looks like they are from this example. If GRRM was running a game and I spotted that (which I might not, I can admittedly be won over by a compelling story and not think too hard) I would ask him to give an explanation. Either he gives me an explanation that has nothing to do with their race or fesses up, the third option would make me shake my head in disbelief.

Could be an issue of resources/training time/local fighting situations.

If you can't get enough crossbows to equip enough people to make it worthwhile then it's kind of a moot point whether you -should- upgrade or not, for example.

Then there's the size of the forces of Essos to consider, which seem to field ungainly huge armies. It'd take a long time to disseminate training materials and equipment throughout.

And the local fighting. Crossbows work best in open terrain rather than rocky valleys. So while they'd be fantastic out on the plains, in any sort of interpersonal engagement field with 15-20ft sight ranges due to obstructions they'd be as much a liability as anything else.

Though yeah. Usually the response I get as to why the systemic bias exists is either "That's how it is in real life" in which case I say "Magic and Dragons, why not No Sexism?" and the other response is a litany of reasons why X group is functionally weaker/ignorant in stereotypical arguments that ignore the setting's stated disagreement with the DM's ideas.

[VoxRationis]

Could be an issue of resources/training time/local fighting situations.

If you can't get enough crossbows to equip enough people to make it worthwhile then it's kind of a moot point whether you -should- upgrade or not, for example.

Then there's the size of the forces of Essos to consider, which seem to field ungainly huge armies. It'd take a long time to disseminate training materials and equipment throughout.

And the local fighting. Crossbows work best in open terrain rather than rocky valleys. So while they'd be fantastic out on the plains, in any sort of interpersonal engagement field with 15-20ft sight ranges due to obstructions they'd be as much a liability as anything else.


Essos seems to have a lot of the open terrain (studded with defensive positions like ziggurats) that would be fantastic for crossbows, and the Great Masters are wealthy enough to afford far more outlandish expenses for their armies than a weapons overhaul. I think the main issue can be addressed with a couple of Watsonian explanations and one overriding Doylist one:

[Watsonian]: Crossbows would be too effective in the hands of a slave revolt, which is a perennial concern around Slavers' Bay;
[Watsonian]: The social structure of Essos results in the agentive class being so divorced from the travails of the working class that there is little incentive for them to innovate;
[Watsonian]: Wood is scarce in Essos, and the total wood cost of making crossbows and their ammunition exceeds that of making spears;
[Doylist]: GRRM likes rehashing historical periods, and he wanted something that resembled ancient Mesopotamia or the Hellenistic period, even though the rest of his world is clearly medieval.

[AMFV]

The settings and most editions of D&D themselves are presented as unbiased, with female characters or members of different ethnicities able to perform the same roles with no issues. Same thing for a lot of other tabletop RPGs. They're written to be specifically inclusive.

I realize that. In most games that's pretty much the accepted standard, but I could see the virtue of having it not be, at least in terms of presenting a world that's less pleasant, or grittier, which has it's merits, or at least it can.



It's when the DM decides "Y'know what this fantasy needs? To make one or two of my players feel super uncomfortable so I can feel happy there's (insert bias against player's choices here) in my game!"

I think you do people a disservice by attributing their motivation in that way. I think generally the logic goes in this way. This is a thing that's present in the real world. I want my fantasy world as close to that as possible, even in the parts that are unpleasant, as such that's why they would put it that way.



If it were discussed beforehand I'd be like "Oh. Well. Then that's not the game for me, but thanks for the opportunity!" 'Cause like I said: It breaks my immersion.


Fair enough, and I can definitely understand how something that's too close to the real world could pull you back to it, unpleasantly. So I can understand, although for me, personally I like to talk about issues in game, since it makes the game feel more real to me, although that's sometimes unpleasant.



Could be an issue of resources/training time/local fighting situations.

If you can't get enough crossbows to equip enough people to make it worthwhile then it's kind of a moot point whether you -should- upgrade or not, for example.

Then there's the size of the forces of Essos to consider, which seem to field ungainly huge armies. It'd take a long time to disseminate training materials and equipment throughout.

And the local fighting. Crossbows work best in open terrain rather than rocky valleys. So while they'd be fantastic out on the plains, in any sort of interpersonal engagement field with 15-20ft sight ranges due to obstructions they'd be as much a liability as anything else.

Though yeah. Usually the response I get as to why the systemic bias exists is either "That's how it is in real life" in which case I say "Magic and Dragons, why not No Sexism?" and the other response is a litany of reasons why X group is functionally weaker/ignorant in stereotypical arguments that ignore the setting's stated disagreement with the DM's ideas.

Generally the tactics in GoT and ASoIaF are pretty lackluster to begin with, which isn't really something that can be helped. Also point of order Crossbows work much better in rocky valleys than they do in open plains. Or at least equally, being able to shoot at people who are in the valleys, from behind cover, is a pretty huge advantage. This is why crossbows are such effective weapons at siege defense, those same principles make them effective in terms of rocky and hilly terrain.

Also one could argue "Magic and Dragons, why not NO WAR" or some such. I would argue that something's inherent unpleasantness shouldn't result in it being removed from fiction.

[Milo v3]

The question isn't "What breaks Verisimilitude in an Objective Fashion in Fantasy Games" in which case the answer would be "Anything that isn't extant in the real world or previously accurate in a historical sense". It's about Subjective Immersive Quality and being "Real" for you.

Modern biases don't increase my verisimilitude any more than guns in a Medieval European setting improve other people's, even though gunpowder was totally a thing and they accept Eastern Monks as a reasonable fantasy trope
There is a difference between verisimilitude and immersion, just because something harms immersion doesn't mean it isn't increasing verisimilitude. But I will drop the subject as I doubt either of us will change our opinions.

[Yora]

Actually to be fair, fantasy military books are extremely rare, and there are very few examples that are actually intended to be realistic. Usually I'm okay with something that isn't realistic if it doesn't seem that it's intended to be so.

Speaking of which, I always get slightly to pretty annoyed when fantasy gets even the most basic military things wrong. When the overall style of the world is 80s action movie carnage with silly one-liners, I can suffer quietly through it. But when it's presented in a way that makes you assume the creators consider this a serious recreation of medieval warfare, then it very quickly all falls apart for me. Though that's mostly an issue of describing action moments, less so affecting worldbuilding. But it happens.
Important stuff being not mentioned is bearable, you can just tell yourself to assume it's there. Presenting important stuff in a way that is outright wrong really hurts, though.

[nrg89]

Could be an issue of resources/training time/local fighting situations. Maybe, but there's no indication that's the case. Europe and the Islamic caliphates both used mixed units and if I'm not mistaken Essos is supposed to look a lot like Asia and the Unsullied come from a place very heavily influenced, both culturally and geographically, by the Middle East.

Westeros and Essos trade a lot, just like Europe and the Middle East did, so if you can't produce them yourself you trade. But Essos seems to have the resources too produce crossbows too so I simply don't understand why they're left behind. They have *sigh* the big financial institution but they still cling to outdated tactics in warfare.

[Steampunkette]

Fun thing about massive systemic bias?

It's a lot younger than we think of.

During the whole Roman Empire thing there were Romans and there were Barbarians. Once your people were conquered or joined Rome, however, you were a Roman, not a Barbarian. There were simply SO MANY PEOPLE from so many parts of the world that were folded into the Empire that there wasn't much point in instituting racism. Romans were Romans. Sure there was still some Nationalistic bias, mostly about white people from different parts of Europe, but Blackness wasn't even considered a thing.

Black Romans, particularly from Sudan and Ethiopia, weren't treated any differently from any other Roman Citizen. At least from everything we can tell. Racism as an idea just wasn't a concept that had been invented, yet.

Whether you were a Pict, a Nubian, or a Gaetulian you were just as able to achieve political and social power without any particular blocks in your path. Roman Emperors were Spanish, Syrian, Gauls, Tunisian, Thracian, and more. Social mobility was massive back then, without clear white or Roman bias.

It wasn't until the Renaissance that racism really became a -thing- as a strong and centralized white Europe interacted more heavily with nonwhite individuals. And it was kind of thanks to the Church at the time who gave the official "It's okay to keep Heathens as slaves"

Sexism is a lot older, but it was also based off cultural standards that weren't globally held and were based off Unilineal Evolution which was proven -so- wrong.

So while they do exist in our world, it's not strictly improving objective verisimilitude that they exist in others. Especially in a Medieval-Analogous time frame. Though subjective verisimilitude means it's totes fair ground.

[BootStrapTommy]

Unfortunately, Steampunkette, it's okay to kill Nazis (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ANaziByAnyOtherName).

Unfortunately, Us Versus Them (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WithUsOrAgainstUs) is not just a trope, it is an evolutionary adaptation present in almost every social species. It is not nearly as new as you seem to be trying to say it is. Prejudice and bigotry has its root in biology, and many studies indicated we all do it subconsciously no matter how "progressive" we think we are. You and I were both biologically programmed to be bigoted, no matter how much we want to think we aren't.

A very interesting thing about human beings is that we are notoriously bad at killing each other. Empathy makes it very hard for people who possess it to take others' lives. Which is why every military in the world trains their soldiers to be racist. It's also way no one sympathizes with Orcs. Because it is easier to kill an enemy you don't think is human (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Dehumanization). Which happens to be why I seem to have so much trouble making friends with veterans who aren't minorities.

As a result not only is bigotry almost a necessary component of war, it is a very convenient source for conflict. Conflict drives stories. Given that RPing is collaborative storytelling, it's hard to resist taking the shortcut that hardwired into our brains. Which is why the High Elves in my campaign setting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?429900-Ll%F6thlor-Don-t-Ask-Me-How-It-s-Pronounced-(WIP-Help)&p=20396227#post20396227) are a thinly veiled Nazi reference.

[VoxRationis]

Which is why the High Elves in my campaign setting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?429900-Ll%F6thlor-Don-t-Ask-Me-How-It-s-Pronounced-(WIP-Help)&p=20396227#post20396227) are a thinly veiled Nazi reference.

The high elves in everyone's campaign settings are thinly veiled Nazi references. It's got to the point where they really aren't recognizably the same, culturally, as the origin of the trope.

But yes, bigotry of some form is pretty endemic to human societies, and appears pragmatically in response to whatever convenient enemy or other is available. Romans weren't prejudiced against those of darker skin; they were prejudiced against northern barbarians (and southern barbarians, and eastern barbarians). Before that, their society revolved around the systemic oppression of the plebeians. At almost all times, their social structure enforced rigid or semi-rigid distinctions between stations in society (being a citizen was a very important thing, and it was difficult to become one, with the easiest way being a full 25 years as an auxiliary).
These sorts of distinctions help the ruling classes more easily content themselves with oppressing the ruled classes, and they also help the society as a whole compete against its neighbors.

[BootStrapTommy]

But yes, bigotry of some form is pretty endemic to human societies, and appears pragmatically in response to whatever convenient enemy or other is available. Romans weren't prejudiced against those of darker skin; they were prejudiced against northern barbarians (and southern barbarians, and eastern barbarians). Let us not forget that the term "barbarian" derives from the Greek βάρβαρος, which is basically a derogatory term from people who aren't Greek. And that the Romans used it liberally for those who were not Roman. Sometime for those who were.

Oh, and yes the Roman's offered citizenship to basically any one who would fight for them. But 90% of Roman subjects weren't citizens (63 million people at one point).

[Steampunkette]

The first Imperator of Rome, Augustus, ruled from 27 BC to 14 AD.

By 54 AD a Gaul was Caesar.

The first Spaniard, Trajan, was the ruler in 98 AD.

Libyan in 211 AD

Moroccan in 217

Syrian in 218. Guess the Moroccan wasn't popular!

Bulgarian in 235

Turk in 238

Bosnian by 249

Serbian in 251

Then an Algerian in 253

Croatian in 284

Romani in 305

Yeah. 90% weren't citizens. But they were still Romans. Heck a lot of the Romans in ROME weren't citizens because they didn't want to get shipped off to the outskirts of the Empire to fight and expand. The point is that there was no systemic imbalance that impeded anyone willing to engage in public service from advancing.

[AMFV]

A very interesting thing about human beings is that we are notoriously bad at killing each other. Empathy makes it very hard for people who possess it to take others' lives. Which is why every military in the world trains their soldiers to be racist. It's also way no one sympathizes with Orcs. Because it is easier to kill an enemy you don't think is human (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Dehumanization). Which happens to be why I seem to have so much trouble making friends with veterans who aren't minorities.

I very rarely curse on this forum. But that... that is ****ing bull****. Like literally that is the biggest load of tripe I have ever heard. The military absolutely does not train people to be racist, in fact the military is by far the least racist organization I have ever been a part of. I would trust a black, brown, yellow or whatever Soldier or Marine with my life, and they would trust me with theirs, without even a second's hesitation. That's not racism, that's pretty much the opposite. Yes, people in the military do make jokes that can be off color, but that, that statement is ridiculous and absurd.

To answer the other point. Racism is not new, sexism is not new. There are demonstrable cases of sexism in cultures that have survived thousands of years, and of racism. Racism and sexism are fundamental parts of people, that's demonstrable.


The first Imperator of Rome, Augustus, ruled from 27 BC to 14 AD.

By 54 AD a Gaul was Caesar.

The first Spaniard, Trajan, was the ruler in 98 AD.

Libyan in 211 AD

Moroccan in 217

Syrian in 218. Guess the Moroccan wasn't popular!

Bulgarian in 235

Turk in 238

Bosnian by 249

Serbian in 251

Then an Algerian in 253

Croatian in 284

Romani in 305

Yeah. 90% weren't citizens. But they were still Romans. Heck a lot of the Romans in ROME weren't citizens because they didn't want to get shipped off to the outskirts of the Empire to fight and expand. The point is that there was no systemic imbalance that impeded anyone willing to engage in public service from advancing.

That doesn't disprove racism, it only proves that people were able to advance despite potential racism. We have enough writings from the period to know that the Romans were very very racist, you should probably read some Tacitus before declaring that Romans weren't racist. Since those texts are pretty explicitly racist.

[Steampunkette]

Allow me to be more clear: I'm using the current sociological hierarchy of bias in my discussion of racism.

Essentially you've got 4 tiers of bias that become more and more widespread, with "Isms" and "Phobias" being the highest tier.

Tier 1: Limited Interpersonal Bias
This is the one racist jerk in an otherwise unbiased society who believes that all X are Y(Derogatory).

Tier 2: Local Interpersonal Bias
This is where a limited community has an interpersonal, but not systemic, bias against a group of individuals. People are rude to the group in a localized area, but it does not impact housing or job opportunities. Nor does it result in incarceration or physical violence in the majority of instances.

Tier 3: Widespread Economic or Physical Threat
At this point enough members of a given society hold the interpersonal bias that it threatens economic stability for members of the biased group and puts them in danger of physical harm due to generalized dehumanization and othering.

Tier 4: Systemic Bias
This is the tier where Racism becomes a term. This is the part where the law and the structure of society actively become biased against the targeted group. At this level of bias you have laws that explicitly or implicitly target the group. Whether it's codified law about (Group) being unable to participate in public events or the law says nothing about the group in particular but targets activities practiced by the group more than other groups. It can also result in overpolicing of the group for a crime that is equally common in other groups but ignored in favor of targeted arrests.

Homophobia, Transphobia, Sexism, Racism, Ableism, and the like all exist at tiers 3 and 4.

Misandry and Anti-White sentiment exist at tiers 1 and 2 (with tier 2 often being a small community in a larger environment like Tumblr's more extreme voices in the larger Tumblr community which is a miniscule portion of the internet) to give a comparison.

So while interpersonal bias certainly existed in Rome, it was not tier 4 Racism, a systemic bias specifically designed to maintain a power dynamic of inferiority.

[BootStrapTommy]

I very rarely curse on this forum. But that... that is ****ing bull****. Like literally that is the biggest load of tripe I have ever heard. The military absolutely does not train people to be racist, in fact the military is by far the least racist organization I have ever been a part of. I would trust a black, brown, yellow or whatever Soldier or Marine with my life, and they would trust me with theirs, without even a second's hesitation. That's not racism, that's pretty much the opposite. Yes, people in the military do make jokes that can be off color, but that, that statement is ridiculous and absurd.But do you think that way about those you were trained to kill/help kill? Would you trust them with your life? Of course not. Because they're "the enemy". Just because you trust a fellow soldier no matter their race (the brotherhood of war, the "us", is so important to the equation that ancient Thebes found a wonderful way to exploit it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes)) doesn't mean your training did not involve learning to dehumanize those who you may have to kill. The root of that kind of dehumanization is the same as racism. And that often takes the form of hate directed toward the most recent enemy. That's why numerous racial slurs that exist have their origins in the military (see every slur for Germans, most slurs for Asians, and most slurs for Arabs). Because they are a natural result of being trained to kill people from those groups.

I noticed veterans seem to take issue with that being brought up. It's understandable. But a ton of ink has been spilled on the phenomenon, mostly by people in the military. Given almost all of my military friends are minorities, I've heard it from them personally. The military thrives on fostering "us versus them". It couldn't accomplish its goal without that.

The reason I have trouble making friends with white veterans? Because of the common anti-Muslim rhetoric. I have Muslims in my family.


To answer the other point. Racism is not new, sexism is not new. There are demonstrable cases of sexism in cultures that have survived thousands of years, and of racism. Racism and sexism are fundamental parts of people, that's demonstrable.

That doesn't disprove racism, it only proves that people were able to advance despite potential racism. We have enough writings from the period to know that the Romans were very very racist, you should probably read some Tacitus before declaring that Romans weren't racist. Since those texts are pretty explicitly racist. Aye. America has a black president.


Moroccan in 217http://s4.e-monsite.com/2011/06/15/09/resize_550_550//caracalla.jpg

The ethnic makeup of many regions were not what they are today.

[AMFV]

But what do you think that way about those you were trained to kill/help kill? Would you trust them with your life? Of course not. Because they're "the enemy". Just because you trust a fellow soldier no matter their race doesn't mean your training did not involve learning to dehumanize those who you may have to kill. The root of that kind of dehumanization is the same as racism. That's why numerous racial slurs that exist have their origins in the military (see every slur for Germans, most slurs for Asians, and most slurs for Arabs). Because they are a natural result of being trained to kill people from those groups.

While I personally never did, a lot of my friends depended on ANA, IA, IP and ANP dudes with their life, those are as Iraqi and as Afghan as they come. Yes, there are slurs, and yes, I would kill the enemy. But killing somebody has nothing to do with hating them, it really doesn't.



I noticed veterans seem to take issue with that being brought up. It's understandable. But a ton of ink has been spilled on the phenomenon, mostly by people in the military. Given almost all of my military friends are minorities, I've heard it from them personally. The military thrives on fostering "us versus them". It couldn't accomplish its goal without that.

Actually the only ink I've seen on it is by Lt Col Grossman, who is a POG Lt Colonel, who never saw combat or was even in the military during a major conflict. Best actual quote by somebody who actually did things (other than write books about how video games are training our children to kill as per LtCol Grossman):

"The Marines don't have any race problems they treat everybody like they're black" - Lt Gen "Chappie" James Jr. USAF.

That's pretty much the long and short of it. Race doesn't affect promotion, at all. In fact 2 out of the 3 Sergeants Major I had while on Active duty were minorities. One was a black female. One out of the three COs I had was a minority. Of my actual immediate chain of command, it was around 30-40% minorities (which is notably higher than you would see in the civilian population). Just because somebody makes racist jokes, doesn't make them a racist. Neither do slurs. The evidence speaks for itself, race does not affect promotion in the military, nor deployment, nor how one is treated, that's the opposite of a racist culture. In fact race is such a non-issue, that people joke about it in much the same way you'd joke about hair color, or whatever, it's not even seen as offensive, because nobody really factors race into anything.

[BootStrapTommy]

While I personally never did, a lot of my friends depended on ANA, IA, IP and ANP dudes with their life, those are as Iraqi and as Afghan as they come. Yes, there are slurs, and yes, I would kill the enemy. But killing somebody has nothing to do with hating them, it really doesn't.

Actually the only ink I've seen on it is by Lt Col Grossman, who is a POG Lt Colonel, who never saw combat or was even in the military during a major conflict. Best actual quote by somebody who actually did things (other than write books about how video games are training our children to kill as per LtCol Grossman):

"The Marines don't have any race problems they treat everybody like they're black" - Lt Gen "Chappie" James Jr. USAF.

That's pretty much the long and short of it. Race doesn't affect promotion, at all. In fact 2 out of the 3 Sergeants Major I had while on Active duty were minorities. One was a black female. One out of the three COs I had was a minority. Of my actual immediate chain of command, it was around 30-40% minorities (which is notably higher than you would see in the civilian population). Just because somebody makes racist jokes, doesn't make them a racist. Neither do slurs. The evidence speaks for itself, race does not affect promotion in the military, nor deployment, nor how one is treated, that's the opposite of a racist culture. In fact race is such a non-issue, that people joke about it in much the same way you'd joke about hair color, or whatever, it's not even seen as offensive, because nobody really factors race into anything. I can see that you are getting defensive.

Are you actually trying to argue that people can use racial slurs to describe people who are not members of the same group as them but from a group they specifically oppose to the point of violence, and the act can be not bigoted because it's a joke?

Because that is an absurd premise.

Remember, I'm not saying "the Marines teach you to hate blacks". I'm saying "the Marines teach you to dehumanize group X so you can more easily kill members of group X because non-psychopaths find it hard to kill other humans because of empathy without dehumanizing them first". Because soldiers who are not willing to kill the enemy can be problematic. That kind of dehumanization is central to war propaganda in general. And that same dehumanization is central to racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia, among other forms of bigotry.

This is not even limited to the military in wartime, either. Remember how the US put Japanese-Americans in internment camps during WWII? Ever hear what happened to German-Americans during WWI?

Interestingly enough, your claims of military comradery actually support my claim, rather than refute it. The other side of the dehumanization of the enemy is the fostering of teamwork. Dehumanizing a foe makes it easier to kill, humanizing you fellow soldiers makes it easier to die (in their defense). It takes a rare person to die for a stranger. But a lot of people are willing to die for a friend or family (which was the secret of There's Sacred Band).

Whether you wanna admit it or not, the military specifically plays on natural tribalistic tendencies of people in order to field more efficient soldiers.

[Tiktakkat]

The first Imperator of Rome, Augustus, ruled from 27 BC to 14 AD.

By 54 AD a Gaul was Caesar.

Claudius was born in Gaul, but he was a pure-blood Roman of ancient lineage.

You are conflating the modern countries and ethnicities with the locations of ancient birthplaces.
In many cases, ethnic groups would not show up in the area for centuries.
For others, the ethnic groups have maintained themselves in the area, but are no longer the dominant group.

You are also missing that everyone after Claudius was emperor by means of conquest rather than by general choice.


Yeah. 90% weren't citizens. But they were still Romans. Heck a lot of the Romans in ROME weren't citizens because they didn't want to get shipped off to the outskirts of the Empire to fight and expand. The point is that there was no systemic imbalance that impeded anyone willing to engage in public service from advancing.

The Roman Empire absolutely displayed systemic bias against people who were not culturally Roman, and often against people who were not the "right" kind of Roman, or just "recently" Roman.
This was embedded in the requirements to be properly educated in the Latin "classics", along with having the right connections and references, to gain appointments, and was absolutely set up to maintain the power of those who already had it.
To gain those two required money, often quite a bit of it. The Senatorial class was distinguished by lineage and wealth, while the Equestrian class was distinguished by wealth. In the Republic and Principate, both were overwhelming factors in achieving power. During the later Empire the restrictions faded until anyone could seize the throne, but that took considerable time, and didn't change access for most of the rest of the bureaucracy.
Things became worse on all accounts after the Western Empire fell and the Byzantine Empire adopted more and more "oriental" trappings of rule.

The Roman Empire can be used as an example of many things, but a general sense of equality is absolutely not one of them.

[Tzi]

As someone mentioned gunpowder, I've found a total aversion on the part of some TOO gunpowder weapons in fantasy games all. Some players seem to hate them as a matter of principle. I like to include them but this tends to become highly contentious.

[BootStrapTommy]

As someone mentioned gunpowder, I've found a total aversion on the part of some TOO gunpowder weapons in fantasy games all. Some players seem to hate them as a matter of principle. I like to include them but this tends to become highly contentious. Most assume gunpowder makes other techs they enjoy obsolete. What they fail to recognize is the time it took for that obsolence to occur. There was a time gunpowder coexisted with our favorite medieval tropes. And a few generations enjoyed that weird transitional period (or didn't, depending on whether you had the guns or not).

[nrg89]

Bigotry is mostly not getting the same opportunities as others, institutionalized racism or sexism where minorities are clearly defined and seen as an official threat is far more rare. Apartheid South Africa, as a strong nation state, actually invested a large part of their resources to physically stop black people from leaving the shanty towns. The Taliban also devoted a lot of time to patrol and make sure that women didn't leave their designated corner in society. Both regimes responded with violence swiftly on small infractions.

Can we find examples of regimes like this in Medieval and Ancient times? Because it's regimes like these that would be really annoying to play in.

[Tiktakkat]

Can we find examples of regimes like this in Medieval and Ancient times?

No, primarily because of a lack of technology to enforce such things to such a degree.
If you consider similar things to a lesser degree, then absolutely, and pretty much everywhere.

The simplest example is the Spartans and the Helots, which was very much a case of a conquering group using "police state" tactics to keep a conquered group that heavily outnumbered them under control by means of fear.
A more comprehensive example is the caste system that developed in India.
The word "ghetto" comes from the Italian word for an "armory", and is the district where Jews were forced to live, with identifying marks.
The word "slave" comes from the ethnic group of "Slavs" who were used as trade goods to such a degree that their tribal name supplanted the Latin word "servus" for the social class.

Another thing to note with such distinctions is that a lot of groups and nations we consider "the same" today were anything but back then.
"Spain" did not have its modern territory until 1492. Even then it was conglomeration of separate territories with the same ruler rather than a single nation, more akin to something like the EU than a single country. Even "Spanish" is just the dialect of a single member territory rather than an actual "national" language. That level of organization didn't come about until 1936. Italy and Germany weren't even countries until the 19th century.
A Genoan treating a Venetian like dirt wasn't two Italians fighting, but two people from completely different countries, whose speech was mutually intelligible but quite distinct languages, expressing their hatred for despised foreigners of different races.
And that doesn't include the various conquests and "foreign" dynasties, leading to things like the Sicilian Vespers.

The ability to isolate women tended to be more wealth related, as only the truly wealthy could afford to not merely lock women away, but successfully protect them from outside interference while supporting them.

[jqavins]

If it kicks me out of character with frustration at how upsetting/annoying it is then it breaks verisimilitude, Milo.

Even if it's something that exists in the real world. Like Machine Guns in Forgotten Realms. Nearly every fantasy setting these days is written pretty explicitly as unbiased on gender/race/sexuality lines. And having a DM throw it in there to be edgy is just annoying.

So while it might be something you consider as immersive it just kicks me right out of the game, breaking immersion rather than fostering it.
Definitions. Just as verisimilitude isn't the same as realism, it also isn't the same as immersion. If bigotry like this breaks immersion for you, I can surely see that, and that it would be annoying or worse. Also, it most certainly is realistic. So how does it effect your "sense of realism?" Does it really seem more real to you to have such bigotry absent? That would surprise me. It feels more immersive, and feels more enjoyable, but does it feel more real? Or is verisimilitude, in this particular, undesirable?

[TheTeaMustFlow]

The high elves in everyone's campaign settings are thinly veiled Nazi references. It's got to the point where they really aren't recognizably the same, culturally, as the origin of the trope.


Got to admit, I'm really sick of Nazi elves. I've long since switched mine for Byzantine/Imperial Russian ones, and it works much better.

[Sam113097]

Got to admit, I'm really sick of Nazi elves. I've long since switched mine for Byzantine/Imperial Russian ones, and it works much better.

On this subject, I can't stand the stereotypical "one-culture" portrayal of non-human races in most fantasy settings. Humans usually get to have different nations with various languages and traditions, but elves, dwarves, and the like usually only have one or two kingdoms with the same language and culture. To make it even worse, they are usually divided by sub-race, so that all hill dwarves are from the same city, all high elves from the same kingdom, etc. I want to see a fantasy setting where each race is given multiple cultures and religions. That's why I prefer human-only settings, because I like to create unique fantasy cultures that don't tie in to fantasy-race tropes.

[Yora]

My setting doesn't even have High Elves for that very reason. There are only brown skined Wood Elves and gray skinned Jungle Elves.

I love elves, but hate elitist snob elves as much as any devoted elf hater.

[BootStrapTommy]

Okay, when I said "thinly veiled Nazi reference" I didn't mean snooty and so convinced of their racial superiority that they put on the Reich. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PuttingOnTheReich)

I meant so convinced of the racial inferiority of other races that they are actively engaging in genocide.

My elves are not just arrogant and full of themselves, they are objectively Evil and are murdering and enslaving other races en mass.

[Lacco]

@Yora and @ BootStrapTommy:

How do you view elves as written by Sapkowski? Just curious about your point of view...

[Tiktakkat]

Okay, when I said "thinly veiled Nazi reference" I didn't mean snooty and so convinced of their racial superiority that they put on the Reich. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PuttingOnTheReich)

I meant so convinced of the racial inferiority of other races that they are actively engaging in genocide.

My elves are not just arrogant and full of themselves, they are objectively Evil and are murdering and enslaving other races en mass.

I used that as an ancient history "secret" for my last campaign arc.
The players discovered it resulted in a curse, which caused the migration of the elves to avoid it, and ultimately a cultural shift that left them "merely" obnoxious.

As for monolithic dwarves and elves, I made a deliberate effort to set up distinct cultural divergences for the geographically separated groups in my version of Greyhawk.

[BootStrapTommy]

How do you view elves as written by Sapkowski? Just curious about your point of view...I've litte experience with the literature, but I sided with the elves in Witcher 2 for what it's worth.

[VoxRationis]

On this subject, I can't stand the stereotypical "one-culture" portrayal of non-human races in most fantasy settings. Humans usually get to have different nations with various languages and traditions, but elves, dwarves, and the like usually only have one or two kingdoms with the same language and culture. To make it even worse, they are usually divided by sub-race, so that all hill dwarves are from the same city, all high elves from the same kingdom, etc. I want to see a fantasy setting where each race is given multiple cultures and religions. That's why I prefer human-only settings, because I like to create unique fantasy cultures that don't tie in to fantasy-race tropes.

There was one setting I created where the developmental process began with the sentence "It is common for people to assume that all elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc. are of one culture and tongue, but this is not the case." The basic idea was to develop numerous well-fleshed-out cultures for each race, as well as to include realistic linguistic fragmentation, coinage systems, etc.

My current setting has turned it down a bit, but there's still lots of the same themes. The dwarven mountains are filled with different dwarven cultures (one's even a cavalry raiding culture on the subalpine meadows!), there are numerous wood elven cultures (only one high elf culture, but there's a good reason for that), and the gnomes are practically defined by rapid sociolinguistic evolution and fragmentation.

[Yora]

@Yora and @ BootStrapTommy:

How do you view elves as written by Sapkowski? Just curious about your point of view...

I like it. In the first encounter with elves the elves are very hostile and violent, but he puts enough effort into explaining their personal situation that you can understand why they feel and act the way they do.
In a later encounter with Scoia'tael, Geralt is fighting with a mixed group of humans and dwarves against an attack by Scoia'tael fighters and his dwarf friends are taking serious casualties. And these dwarves are making well developed arguments why they are fighting for racist humans against nonhumans who claim to fight for the freedom of all nonhumans. The Scioa'tael make it a simple case of "them against us", but many other elves and dwarves are very critical of that view to the point of siding with their opressors and being killed for that by "their people".

Whether you support the cause and motives of the Scioa'tael is one thing, but the stories make it very clear that the view of treating all humans, elves, and dwarves as the same is just as bad as when humans are doing it. And in that case causing even more harm to everyone. As the books are written, it's all individuals trying to find a place for themselves. Any lines drawn between people based on race are artificial and only causing harm.

In my worldbuilding I've made the descision to not categorize people as elves or humans, but focus on their specific ethnicity. The setting doesn't have 4 races, but 16 cultures.

[Mechalich]

On this subject, I can't stand the stereotypical "one-culture" portrayal of non-human races in most fantasy settings. Humans usually get to have different nations with various languages and traditions, but elves, dwarves, and the like usually only have one or two kingdoms with the same language and culture. To make it even worse, they are usually divided by sub-race, so that all hill dwarves are from the same city, all high elves from the same kingdom, etc. I want to see a fantasy setting where each race is given multiple cultures and religions. That's why I prefer human-only settings, because I like to create unique fantasy cultures that don't tie in to fantasy-race tropes.

This is indeed a problem, especially the sub-race part. It should actually be more difficult for long-lived races such as elves and dwarves to divide into subraces compared to humans. In many D&D settings the 'sub-races' of the more common fantasy groups are really just cultural divisions - in Dragonlance they absolutely are - but authors feel more comfortable fitting mechanical variation to these cultural groups than they do to human ones because they are nominally 'not-human.'

The 'one-culture' problem is a bit different. There are several ways it can be partly justified. First, if the framing is primarily that of human observers, they may simply be largely blind to the internal cultural variations among the non-human species because they are focusing instead on the differences between that species and humans. This actually should be the case - all dwarf kingdoms should be of greater variance from all human kingdoms than they are from each other if species differentiation is actually meaningful. Secondly, demographic realities may limit cultural divergence among many of the less populous species. This is the route I took in my setting - where the humans are 85% of the sapient population and elves, dwarves, and goblinoids are most of the rest. 110,000 halflings, living mostly in a small uniform sub-region, can really only muster one major cultural grouping, especially given that being surrounded by other species is likely to increase internal solidarity.

Now, if a setting contains species with close to equal numbers, then they should probably have similar levels of internal cultural diversity barring some sort of mitigating factor - D&D has one in that it assigns racial pantheons to the more prominent races, and because D&D's active gods serve as massive cultural enforcers, this explains the lack of diversity. Drow are probably the clearest example - Lloth's got power over all of them, and she only accepts one culture of matriarchal spider-worship, and the only way they can even have cultural divergence is by worshipping weird splinter deities like Kiriansalee.

[VoxRationis]

Secondly, demographic realities may limit cultural divergence among many of the less populous species. This is the route I took in my setting - where the humans are 85% of the sapient population and elves, dwarves, and goblinoids are most of the rest. 110,000 halflings, living mostly in a small uniform sub-region, can really only muster one major cultural grouping, especially given that being surrounded by other species is likely to increase internal solidarity.


Cultural differences come about more as a result of differences in environmental circumstances combined with isolation in communication. You can have a fairly homogenous culture of many millions if they're in constant contact (a modern nation-state), or you can have a population of a few hundred thousand with vastly different cultures and taboos (as a friend once said, "there's a tribe in Papua New Guinea for every practice"), if geography and other factors keep them largely separate.

[Mechalich]

Cultural differences come about more as a result of differences in environmental circumstances combined with isolation in communication. You can have a fairly homogenous culture of many millions if they're in constant contact (a modern nation-state), or you can have a population of a few hundred thousand with vastly different cultures and taboos (as a friend once said, "there's a tribe in Papua New Guinea for every practice"), if geography and other factors keep them largely separate.

I'm of the opinion that the usual assumptions of fantasy - magical communication, dangerous monsters, and the existence of multiple sapient species with different ecological niches and so on - would limit the development of tiny cultural groups common among Earth's tropical mixed use societies and hill tribes. Anyway, most fantasy settings are largely temperate in focus and those cultures tended to be larger in size.

On the other hand, its certainly possible to have a super-fragmented fantasy setting were every culture, regardless of species, existed in isolation. Such a setting wouldn't be especially game-friendly though.

[jqavins]

On the other hand, its certainly possible to have a super-fragmented fantasy setting were every culture, regardless of species, existed in isolation. Such a setting wouldn't be especially game-friendly though.
And it's very much not world builder friendly. Making up all those cultures, even one or two at a time as needed, would be a tonne and a half of work.

Which hints at what is probably the root cause of the racial monocultures: the laziness of world builders. Not that it would be overwhelming to have some cultural variation, but it's work that many builders just don't bother with.

[Yora]

You can play in them perfectly well, it just requires a bit of effort. Players making characters whatever way they feel like isn't goint to work and you can't simply drop any generic adventure in such a world either.
Which I think makes them much more interesting.

The workload gets a lot more managable when you don't attempt to create a complete world but just a region of sufficient size to work as a setting.

[MrZJunior]

I think you could make very interesting games in a setting which is culturally fragmented. It creates all sorts of interesting challenges and opportunities for adventure.

[Mechalich]

The thing is, cultural fragmentation means linguistic fragmentation, and language barriers kill games. Nobody wants to conduct their story through a translator, and if you have magical means of overcoming the language barrier that creates its own problems and implications (if only the PCs have this then your setting is something like Exalted and there's other problems as a result).

It's common in fantasy novels for the authors to cheat and either have many cultures share languages for some faux-historical reason or just fiat handwaving, or they let the protagonist and his/her crew be super-linguists for no reason at all (my favorite example is KOTOR, Revan speaks like a dozen languages purely out of narrative ease).

And jqavins is correct, lots of cultures is a lot of work, and even when the authors are willing to put in that work, demonstrating cultural traits is a lot of wordcount. In a giant novel series with patient readers like ASOIAF or WoT you can get away with that and it is in fact important, but most people don't want to deal with learning cultural nuances in the course of a game, especially because they are generally only useful in a social context and social systems in games are notoriously bad.

[Tzi]

The thing is, cultural fragmentation means linguistic fragmentation, and language barriers kill games. Nobody wants to conduct their story through a translator, and if you have magical means of overcoming the language barrier that creates its own problems and implications (if only the PCs have this then your setting is something like Exalted and there's other problems as a result).

It's common in fantasy novels for the authors to cheat and either have many cultures share languages for some faux-historical reason or just fiat handwaving, or they let the protagonist and his/her crew be super-linguists for no reason at all (my favorite example is KOTOR, Revan speaks like a dozen languages purely out of narrative ease).

And jqavins is correct, lots of cultures is a lot of work, and even when the authors are willing to put in that work, demonstrating cultural traits is a lot of wordcount. In a giant novel series with patient readers like ASOIAF or WoT you can get away with that and it is in fact important, but most people don't want to deal with learning cultural nuances in the course of a game, especially because they are generally only useful in a social context and social systems in games are notoriously bad.

I take a different approach. Linguistics provides a "soft boundary," or perimeter to the "setting," within the game world. I spoke of this earlier but it sort of allows a game world designer to avoid having to fully color in the WHOLE world on the grounds that the players will likely never understand that part of the planet.

Of course this is a different sort of game world than the standard D&D world with its continent hoping, globe trotting, and eventually Godlike adventurer class but typically I find world builders have a predilection towards breaking the conventions of many D&D campaigns and designing worlds that are different.

I use language primarily to give "texture," to different cultures but also to give limits to the world so I can plan around the fact that say "Players are unlikely to know X, Y, and Z," thus I can assume they aren't going to go to far out of the "playground." Basically I save time by building a nice playground with a fence, but the fence is a fence they don't even realize is there.

[MrZJunior]

I think trying to communicate through sign language or gestures could be fun, at least for a little while. It would be a cool open ended puzzle.

[Tzi]

I think trying to communicate through sign language or gestures could be fun, at least for a little while. It would be a cool open ended puzzle.

Its also that, an easy source of challenge. Players encounter someone they can't understand, OR they encounter text in a language they don't understand.

[JoeJ]

The thing is, cultural fragmentation means linguistic fragmentation, and language barriers kill games. Nobody wants to conduct their story through a translator, and if you have magical means of overcoming the language barrier that creates its own problems and implications (if only the PCs have this then your setting is something like Exalted and there's other problems as a result).

Indeed. For my Land of Two Rivers, based on a fantasy version of California, I have to significant reduce the cultural diversity and severely reduce the linguistic diversity from what was actually present, just to make it possible for one person (me) to accomplish at all.

[Bohandas]

Regarding the cultural and technological stagnation, one could resolve that by introducing some sinister progress-stifling conspiracy to the setting, which, with a little thought, could also be useful for explaining away rules introduced solely for game-balance reasons (ie. perhaps you can't conjure copper, gold, and silver because the Regulators placed an epic curse upon the multiverse to prevent such conjurations and therefore stifle the proliferation of electronics).

You could build a campaign around taking them down

[kraftcheese]

Regarding the cultural and technological stagnation, one could resolve that by introducing some sinister progress-stifling conspiracy to the setting, which, with a little thought, could also be useful for explaining away rules introduced solely for game-balance reasons (ie. perhaps you can't conjure copper, gold, and silver because the Regulators placed an epic curse upon the multiverse to prevent such conjurations and therefore stifle the proliferation of electronics).

You could build a campaign around taking them down

There's the inevitables of Mechanus in D&D lore, but they're more concerned with time travel, wish spells, etc.; could always add an extra couple of classes of them that frown on gunpowder, the printing press, etc in to maintain the current level of tech in the multiverse?

[Bohandas]

I was thinking of using the Regulators from the Epic Level Handbook

and/or maybe giving some kind of backstory about the Battle of Pesh having been fought with atomic weapons and assorted doomsday devices and so some of the forces of order decided to work some kind of uber epic magic to prevent the future production of such things.


This for certain is part of my gripe with standard D&D religion. Mainly the whole Gods are universal aspect. I.E. no matter what culture you are in all gods and goddesses are uniform across all societies.

Really, Palor is Sun God good guy law guy everywhere? EVERY CULTURE HAS PALOR?!

Only the denizens of Greyspace have Pelor. IIRC He's specifically controls Liga.

[Bohandas]

Regarding the so-called poor understanding of polytheism, from everything I've heard there were most certainly priests and priestesses of single specific deities in cultures with polytheistic religions (or in Ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt at any rate).

Nor was it entirely unheard of for the church of a specific deity, or some aspect of that deity's worship, to be persecuted or deprecated by others within the same belief system. In 186 BC, for example, the Roman senate banned the celebration of Bacchanalia.

[Mechalich]

So there's definitely stuff you can do to explain the lack of technological progression, although I think the easiest would be to say the particular society you're in never stumbled upon the idea of structured experimentation, empiricism, and rationalism. Without those, things'll just keep on keeping on from the average person's point of view.

It's also possible, in a fantasy setting, for structured experimentation, empiricism, and rationalism to simply produce nothing. D&D strongly implies, if not outright proclaims, this. The laws of thermodynamics don't hold, perpetual motion machines are possible, and there's no periodic table. With the right spells you can outright change cosmological constants like Pi - and those changes can be put in place permanently over whole planes.

The Empress of Blood flies in utter defiance of gravity.

It is entirely possible to say that the laws of physics have been beaten up behind the woodshed sufficiently in a fantasy setting that industrial technologies simply won't function due to 'thaumic interference' or some other justification. So a scientific revolution may not be possible.

Now that doesn't prevent the possibility of a magitech revolution, so you need a different mechanism there.

[Bohandas]

It's also possible, in a fantasy setting, for structured experimentation, empiricism, and rationalism to simply produce nothing. D&D strongly implies, if not outright proclaims, this. The laws of thermodynamics don't hold, perpetual motion machines are possible, and there's no periodic table.


Rationalism doesn't mean what's true in our world, it's what's true in whatever world you happen to be speaking about at the time.


EDIT:
Or in other words, If ghosts or fairies or magic spells (etc.) existed there'd be absolutely no reason why they couldn't be studied and measured. The only reason why they can't be studied is that they don't exist; it is the non-existence that puts them beyond science, not the ghostliness.

EDIT:
Shandor Island represent

[JoeJ]

It's also possible, in a fantasy setting, for structured experimentation, empiricism, and rationalism to simply produce nothing. D&D strongly implies, if not outright proclaims, this. The laws of thermodynamics don't hold, perpetual motion machines are possible, and there's no periodic table. With the right spells you can outright change cosmological constants like Pi - and those changes can be put in place permanently over whole planes.

The Empress of Blood flies in utter defiance of gravity.

It is entirely possible to say that the laws of physics have been beaten up behind the woodshed sufficiently in a fantasy setting that industrial technologies simply won't function due to 'thaumic interference' or some other justification. So a scientific revolution may not be possible.

Now that doesn't prevent the possibility of a magitech revolution, so you need a different mechanism there.

That seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem, though. Technological stagnation only needs to be invoked if you insist on the incredibly long histories that some worlds have. With a more reasonable timeline, you can ditch the concept entirely.

[jqavins]

That seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem, though. Technological stagnation only needs to be invoked if you insist on the incredibly long histories that some worlds have. With a more reasonable timeline, you can ditch the concept entirely.
Bing-Bing-Bing-Bing! We have a winner! Apparent technological stagnation over a decade or two in a pseudo-medieval setting is perfectly realistic. Actual stagnation over centuries is not, but that only needs to be addressed in the context of the setting's background history, and the differences in tech between "then" and "now" are usually irrelevant when important events of the past are spoken of. If they are relevant in a particular case, write them in. Otherwise forget about it.


While true, a universe that that where experimentation produces nothing would have to be done extremely well to not break my verisimilitude in half.

Although, if done well it could be interesting. The big book that invented Empiricism did, after all, make the argument that there's no way to known for sure if the sun will come up, since all knowledge about the past can only tell us that in the past the future was similar to the past.

---

Let's say you're a wizard and you're trying to experiment with a spell. You say the magic words "Abra, Kadabra, Alakazam!" and a small woodland bunny appears. You write down the result. Then you say the same words "Abra, Kadabra, Alakazam!" with the same tone/inflection/whatever. Assume its laboratory perfect and there are no other variables.

This time it starts raining. You write down the result.

"Abra, Kadabra, Alakazam!", and this time you get a mild stomach ache. You write down the result. [Etc.]

Interesting premise, right? Yet, at least to me, it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would allow for a typical human society to form - society is fundamentally built around predictable events (especially agricultural societies) and the kind of universe where structured experimentation doesn't work couldn't have the kind of consistency needed for me to believe in a world with knights, castles, giants, wizards, and windmills.
It would be an interesting challenge and a premise for an interesting setting to make ordinary things work in ordinary ways while magical things behave erratically. But not too erratically to be useful. Perhaps the reason spells are complicated is that, while making a big ball of fire appear isn't hard, making damn sure that you get a ball of fire every time and never a cloud of bunnies is hard. Perhaps add the twisted, evil twin of the Heisenburgian observer effect; the more carefully you try to measure the effect the more erratic it becomes. Getting fire every time: hard but doable if you're not examining the fire too closely. Try to measure precisely how much heat is released: bunnies!

This could even apply to ordinary things in less dramatic ways. Make an iron rivet, about 1/4" (± about 1/32" or so) by about 2" (± 1/8" I guess) then put it into holes in two pieces that are 5/16" (more or less, within 1/16" should do) then form the head on the second side to make a nice, tight joint: no problem. Tighten those tolerances by a factor of ten, because your new machine design requires great precision, and the head breaks off while you're forming it. Try it again and the holes don't line up. Etc. This won't bother the blacksmith, the armorer, or the farrier, but it'll be really hard to get any higher tech off the ground.

[JoeJ]

Bing-Bing-Bing-Bing! We have a winner! Apparent technological stagnation over a decade or two in a pseudo-medieval setting is perfectly realistic. Actual stagnation over centuries is not, but that only needs to be addressed in the context of the setting's background history, and the differences in tech between "then" and "now" are usually irrelevant when important events of the past are spoken of. If they are relevant in a particular case, write them in. Otherwise forget about it.

Something also to consider is that, apparent technological progress can often be very much slower than actual progress. Even someone working in a medieval foundry, for example, may be unaware of how much the production of iron had changed in the 2,500 or more years since it first started being used. And a lot of medieval art depicts Biblical characters wearing clothes and living in houses modeled after the ones from the artist's own time, making it appear that there had been no change at all.

[sengmeng]

Adventurers break all the verisimilitude, usually. Especially adventuring parties, and ESPECIALLY especially adventuring clerics. "It seems that it's really important to my god that I hang around with an illiterate barbarian, a thief, a wizard, and a minstrel, and heal them constantly when their mishaps lead to injury, while they in no way serve the interests of my church." I mean, it's up to the players and the DM to correct this, but most do not try to cohesively weave a story for why these characters are a team. Belkar is the perfect example; almost no party would put up with an NPC Belkar, but lots put up with a PC Belkar.

[Yora]

That would be a case of groups using the setting in ways that are inconsistent with the description of the setting.

Though of course there are many cases where the creators seem to quite clearly intend the setting to be used by a groups of random strangers fighting monsters and collecting treasures together, but they still created the world in a way that does not really match that.
When creating a setting for an RPG campaign, I think one of the first steps needs to be to put some thoughts into what kind of parties will be playing in that setting. Because it does not have to be random strangers from all paths of life. Limiting what kinds of player characters are allowed in a campaign is completely legitimate and allows the creator a focus that can really increase the realness of the world a lot.

[Bohandas]

Honestly the mosy versimilitude breaking thing is the way characters level up, especially wizards. How does hitting rats with a stick and spamming fireball over and over again help one to better understand and master the arcane mysteries of the universe?

[nrg89]

That seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem, though. Technological stagnation only needs to be invoked if you insist on the incredibly long histories that some worlds have. With a more reasonable timeline, you can ditch the concept entirely.


Bing-Bing-Bing-Bing! We have a winner! Apparent technological stagnation over a decade or two in a pseudo-medieval setting is perfectly realistic. Actual stagnation over centuries is not, but that only needs to be addressed in the context of the setting's background history, and the differences in tech between "then" and "now" are usually irrelevant when important events of the past are spoken of. If they are relevant in a particular case, write them in. Otherwise forget about it.

Something as weird as a cultural quirk could actually halt technical progress for a long, long time and could be explained, but these are two really specific examples.

One is the stagnation of mathematical development during and after the Roman Empire because Roman numerals are absolutely god awful when you're doing math. Then Fibonacci introduces Hindu-Arabic numerals in the 13th century and basic accounting no longer is as tedious a project as it was back then. By then, the muslims had already made significant contributions to algebra without which it's hard to imagine how the European focus on functions and later calculus would have emerged.

And another is the printing press adoption in Europe and China. China has a very different alphabet that requires an obscene amount of blocks, and new symbols were introduced all the time, so printing wasn't practical for mass production of books which is probably why the printing press did not start a literary revolution there despite arriving much sooner than in Europe. In Europe however we could express anything we wanted with less than 30 symbols and the printing press took down the monopoly of the literate monks who wrote books all day within a century and it's hard to imagine how European scientists could have this decentralized, scientific discussion without independent publishers chugging out their works so it profoundly changed the continent and made the scientific revolution possible.

Now, is cultural quirks like these the number one reason for progress? Some will say "absolutely" and others will say "maybe" and others will say "it's complicated" but many of them can sure add up.

[jqavins]

Now, is cultural quirks like these the number one reason for progress? Some will say "absolutely" and others will say "maybe" and others will say "it's complicated" but many of them can sure add up.
I've got to go with "it's complicated" at best. Because, as your own examples show, these sorts of things work themselves out over time. Europe had a terrible system for writing numbers, but a better one was developed elsewhere and eventually adopted. When China saw the benefits Europe was gaining from the printing press, they eventually found a way to adapt their printing practices to gain the same advantages. What you have is a good explanation of developmental delays, but not, as I see it, for centuries long stagnation. Personally, I'd still have to go with apparent stagnation only, and long term progress that exists but simply isn't important.

[nrg89]

What you have is a good explanation of developmental delays, but not, as I see it, for centuries long stagnation. Personally, I'd still have to go with apparent stagnation only, and long term progress that exists but simply isn't important.

You're right, because the examples I gave only apply to their respective fields. While Rome did not advance their understanding of math they made leaps in engineering and while China had to wait a little longer for their literary revolution after inventing the printing press they also improved their daily lives during the whole time. Total, technological stagnation for centuries is hard to stomach, but that some steps are delayed because of random things for centuries is very common throughout history.

[Bohandas]

Adventurers break all the verisimilitude, usually. Especially adventuring parties, and ESPECIALLY especially adventuring clerics. "It seems that it's really important to my god that I hang around with an illiterate barbarian, a thief, a wizard, and a minstrel, and heal them constantly when their mishaps lead to injury, while they in no way serve the interests of my church."

It kind of works if they're a cleric of Kord or Olidammara.

[JoeJ]

Something else to consider about technology is that the modernist idea of progress is not universal. A game world could just as easily be based on the idea that people are not generally very inventive: the gods taught our ancestors all the arts of civilization, and nothing much has changed since then.

Or, the world could be characterized by universal degeneration: life was perfect in some ancient Golden Age until somebody did something to screw it up. Since then, people have gradually but inevitably been growing smaller, weaker, less intelligent, and more inclined toward evil. This will continue until some point in the future, when the present world will come to an end and a new one be created.

Or possibly a more postmodern idea that none of these are natural or inevitable: sometimes things progress, sometimes they degenerate, and sometimes they stay the same. However, the ideologies of particular societies often focus on one of these processes and downplay or deny the others in order to naturalize the dominance of society by elites.

[Xaphedo]

About a common language, I may have found an interesting, in-setting solution which is strictly tied to an active and somewhat tangible pantheon. Because "but, GODS!"

In my setting, anybody who has half a brain speaks Tall Speach. Why? Beacause that's the language the Tall Ones speak, and you better know how to ask Pelor for a clement weather, Boccob for a plentiful future and Ehlonna for an undisturbed sleep. Why yes, each god has a preferred language (which is why most languages don't change or evolve that much), and extra points if you happen to speak it, but being able to pray multiple deities for multiple occasions is too useful to be ignored.

Incidentally, Common Speach, or Common, is the collective name for the simplified and localized dialects of Tall Speach which are actually spoken among mortals.


To the realism apologists I say: realism is nice, relatability is cool, but coherence is way cooler.

Let's Keep It Fantasy, what do you say? :smallwink:

[Gastronomie]

Three ideas for in-game reasons of why the "Common" language can exist. Mainly based upon the only real example of a logical world (which is, obviously, this world we're living in).

First reason: The real world rarely faces great evils threatning to destroy all civilization. Contrary to this, the typical fantasy world has that. A lot, too. Pretty common in fact, you could say. The tribes and races need to bond together in order to fight the invasion of demons and other vile, terrible threats. "But I can't imagine them fighting together!" you say. Except, well, the various races do exist in your world afterall, so there needs to be a reason why the forces of evil haven't made them go extinct yet. And the easiest solution is that they bond together in times of trouble.

Second reason: A super-powerful empire once took control over all the other nations and forced everyone to use the same language. This is something that has happened all over the world in various countries - in fact, chances are, it's happened in almost every single country in the current world. It's not realistic to think there was only one language in the vast land of any country - there had to be pre-historic wars and fights between tribes, resulting in one "common language" that eventually reigned over the area. Powerful emperors such as Alexander were able to spread a particular language over a vast area, and you could have it that a particular ancient king in your campaign did the same, except in his case, he was able to conquer all of mankind (or at least a portion of mankind so large that the others eventually had no choice but to learn their language as well).

Third reason: A common language is a very good thing to have if you want to trade overseas. The Aramaic language is one prominent example, as is the Phoenician letters, which later grew to be the current Alphabet - which is in one way a "common language" in the real world.


Now, look at the real world. The spreading of English in North America and India, and Spanish in Middle/Southern America are good real-life examples of the "second reason". In one way, you could even say that English being the current "world language" could be an example of the "second reason" as well - except now it's not done through explicit colonization, but by America putting the economies of other various countries under its control. Then again, globalization could belong in the "third reason" - it certainly is nice when every trader in the world can speak English.

tl;dr: Choose one of the three reasons - "to fight a common enemy", "because powerful guys told us to do so", and "because it gives us profit". It's realistic enough and makes good sense. Especially in a fantasy world where there are various powerful (including some evil) entities, and magic may smoothen up trading routes and such.

[Bohandas]

You left out the possibility of the intervention of the gods resulting in a commpn language as well.

[Bohandas]

One of the things that breaks versimilitude for me is the way characters level up. Increases in skill are correlated with increases in quite unrelated things such as physical durability. There are vast gulfs of power between people that are unrelated to those people's station in life.

And finally, the protagonists are able to grow in skill and power at a freakishly rapid pace doing things that, unless they are a fighter, are only tangentially related (at best) to those skills and powers

[Gastronomie]

You left out the possibility of the intervention of the gods resulting in a commpn language as well.

Yes I did, but I only gave "three possible reasons". Never did I say those three were all the possible reasons available.

Also, having the gods do everything is sorta bland (at least I think so). Like, it would result in questions like "Why do have the adventurers have to fight this horde of demons? Why can't the god of justice simply incinerate them on the spot?" that sorta defeat the purpose.

I say having the gods appear is a last resort reserved for when the DM has no real logical excuse. The word "Deus Ex Machina" exists for a reason.

[jqavins]

One of the things that breaks versimilitude for me is the way characters level up. Increases in skill are correlated with increases in quite unrelated things such as physical durability.
That's less of a problem in some game systems than others. It's a problem in level based systems like D&D, where everything goes up with level. It's less of a problem with levelless systems like GURPS, where new character points are allocated by the player to specific areas, and the GM can easily say (as many do) that points earned in a given adventure can only be applied to things that have been used in that adventure. To me, that's one of the major appeals of such systems, and GURPS is the best developed example that I am familiar with.

All that said, note that my point is that it's less of a problem, not that it's not a problem. And I still use D&D more than I use GURPS, for other reasons.

[Xaphedo]

Also, having the gods do everything is sorta bland (at least I think so).
They can still do quite a lot without making things dull. I like to think of the pantheon as the fantasy counterpart to the Internet: very few can ignore its existence in a society that is based on it, it solves many problems but it creates many others, it's filled with factions, inner fightings and weird quirks, it can help you if you know how to use it or it can ruin your life if you're not careful, and so on.



Like, it would result in questions like "Why do have the adventurers have to fight this horde of demons? Why can't the god of justice simply incinerate them on the spot?" that sorta defeat the purpose.
Except it makes sense for gods not to interfere in such conflicts. We may glance over this, but they are politicians more than anything else. In order to function, they need their worshippers to prosper, build temples and not get involved in constant onslaughts with other cults. Moreover, they may express antipathy and encourage aggressive acts, but actively slaughtering someone else's pawns will usually bring only bigger problems to the table.



I say having the gods appear is a last resort reserved for when the DM has no real logical excuse. The word "Deus Ex Machina" exists for a reason.
Having the gods appear is actually a really nice way to comunicate to the players (and the rest of the pantheon) that things just got REAL. I'm oversimplifying, but it's like if /u/spez got out of his way to argue with somebody on a site other than reddit. There better be some logical excuse for that.

[Yora]

For efficient communication, you don't need a language that everyone speaks. All you need is a language that is spoken everywhere by at least some people.
As long as every person who matters has a close advisor or aide who speaks Latin, English, Arabic, or something like that, you don't really have to worry about PCs being able to communicate if one of them knows some of these languages. You only limit which members of a group are able to do the talking, but the groups are still able to efficiently communicate with each other.

This doesn't require any divine intervention or contrived game mechanics. This is how it works in the real world all the time.

[Xaphedo]

For efficient communication, you don't need a language that everyone speaks. All you need is a language that is spoken everywhere by at least some people.
As long as every person who matters has a close advisor or aide who speaks Latin, English, Arabic, or something like that, you don't really have to worry about PCs being able to communicate if one of them knows some of these languages. You only limit which members of a group are able to do the talking, but the groups are still able to efficiently communicate with each other.

This doesn't require any divine intervention or contrived game mechanics. This is how it works in the real world all the time.

That is actually an excellent point.

I still think that bigger settings with pockets of isolated civilizations will better be off with a Deus Ex Causa, but for everything else it's a very elegant solution.

[Yora]

In my setting there is no single universal language. Instead there's just the languages of the three or four greatest trading peoples, which are more or less commonly spoken in different areas. As long as group contains one person for each of these languages, they are able to talk to people everywhere.

[Sam113097]

I have a thought about a common language in fantasy settings:

In the real world, all languages evolved from a few ancient proto-languages over thousands of years (the Proto-Indo-European language alone is the root of Spanish, English, German, Hindi, Russian, and more).

However, many fantasy worlds have histories that don't go back very far, usually only around ten thousand years. If the world was spontaneously created by the gods only a few thousand years ago, language would have less time to diversify. Long-lived species like elves might even still speak the first proto-language.

[Yora]

Speaking of which: Settings in which the humanoid peoples were fully formed by the gods relatively recently are one thing that just never works for me. It's not a design flaw, but a stylistic choice. But one that simply makes a world feel completely fake to me.

[Bohandas]

Speaking of which: Settings in which the humanoid peoples were fully formed by the gods relatively recently are one thing that just never works for me. It's not a design flaw, but a stylistic choice. But one that simply makes a world feel completely fake to me.

I agree. It seems cheap and fake to me too.

[Milo v3]

Speaking of which: Settings in which the humanoid peoples were fully formed by the gods relatively recently are one thing that just never works for me. It's not a design flaw, but a stylistic choice. But one that simply makes a world feel completely fake to me.

Yeah, closest I normally ever go with "Gods made x race" is that they groomed an existent species towards their preferences. Creatures spontaneously appearing just makes ecosystems and history confusing @_@

I do have one setting where people were formed spontaneously by gods, but that's strange setting since it's set in the "Eden" stage of history so I could try and see how a society would work in a world were everyone starts as high level magic users and figureout what technologies would exist when they have so much magic at their disposal.

[VoxRationis]

Most of my settings imply that the gods are the creations of humanoid cultures, not vice versa.

[Bohandas]

Most of my settings imply that the gods are the creations of humanoid cultures, not vice versa.

It zig-zags on this. The racial pantheons are generally creators, but the other deities are created from belief

[jqavins]

In the real world, all languages evolved from a few ancient proto-languages over thousands of years (the Proto-Indo-European language alone is the root of Spanish, English, German, Hindi, Russian, and more).
In the real world, only a few languages that are ancient enough to be called proto managed to leave descendents into the present day. This does not mean that, in the time when these proto-languages were being spoken there weren't many other languages as well but those others didn't leave successful descendents. As I understand it, much of what we know of proto-languages is deduced as there are very few if any survuving remnents. Thus, other contemporary languages without descendents would be unknown to us today.

[Mechalich]

Speaking of which: Settings in which the humanoid peoples were fully formed by the gods relatively recently are one thing that just never works for me. It's not a design flaw, but a stylistic choice. But one that simply makes a world feel completely fake to me.

Generally though, the beings in a fantasy world needed to be created fully formed at some point. Special creation is much, much less complicated than fantastical evolution and allows for greater world-building friendliness.

Is the gods created everyone fully formed a long time ago (and you can easily go back a million years or two without really having to consider major evolutionary processes) then you have a long timeline problem - because no matter how much you shroud history there are records, and more likely memories - especially if you fantasy includes immortal anything.

There are some ways to map around this. One is massive cataclysm. This is the standard D&D Planescape/Spelljammer scenario, in which history goes back to the end of the Illithid empire ~35000 years ago and everything that happened before that is irrelevant. You can also utilize migration, if you have a multiverse scenario, in which your specific world was only settled X amount of years in the past (I used this method for Resvier).

[Yora]

Creationist worldbuilding is certainly quicker and easier. But I always find the result unsatisfying. I'd rather have the whole subject of creation not adressed at all. Which really isn't a problem unless you have personal immortal gods that directly reveal themselves to mortal people.

[johnbragg]

Yeah, closest I normally ever go with "Gods made x race" is that they groomed an existent species towards their preferences. Creatures spontaneously appearing just makes ecosystems and history confusing @_@

I do have one setting where people were formed spontaneously by gods, but that's strange setting since it's set in the "Eden" stage of history so I could try and see how a society would work in a world were everyone starts as high level magic users and figureout what technologies would exist when they have so much magic at their disposal.

ACtually, "creatures spontaneously appearing" explains some of the LACK of ecosystem out in the Wild Areas--in areas not dominated by a civilized culture, magical beasts and aberrations and oozes and complicated templated things just spring up periodically, coalescing out of raw chaos seeping into the world, the way pre-moderns thought flies spontaneously generated out of rotting meat.

The reason that minotaurs and devils and dragons and mummies don't spring up in the middle of the Well ORdered Kingdom is that the people of the Well Ordered Kingdom gather at regular intervals to renew the incantation/ritual that powers their protective barrier. The barriers are somewhat like a net, excluding Aberrations and Magical Beasts and Fiends and Dragons over a certain CR.

[Wardog]

I haven't read the entire thread, so this might already have been suggested, but I think the best way to solve the language issue would be this:

Countries, regions and races can have their own languages. There is also an international language (preferably with a better name than "Common", but that's not so important).

All PCs speak Common, plus a local language (choose one at character creation to fit your background).

All/most NPC merchants, rulers, bigwigs, etc, will also speak Common, along with their own local language.

Each nation/region/culture having its own language explains why place-names are based on their particular language. It also avoids the silliness of every backwater peasant having the same first/only langauge as every over peasant on every other continent. Conversely, we can assume that whatever regions the PCs are travelling between, enough other people also travel between to justify having a lingua france.

From a gameplay perspective, if the GM doesn't want to get bogged down in working out what language everyone you meet speaks, under this system, you can ignore it for everything except fluff, and have everyone conduct all their business in Common. However, if they wanted to, this system would also easily allow them to e.g. have people be more cooperative if you speak their own language; have an information source given only in a local language, thereby requiring you to find a translator; have snooty nobles only deal with you in their own language even if they could speak Common, etc.

[JoeJ]

Speaking of which: Settings in which the humanoid peoples were fully formed by the gods relatively recently are one thing that just never works for me. It's not a design flaw, but a stylistic choice. But one that simply makes a world feel completely fake to me.

I'm the opposite. I find fantasy much more compelling when it has a cosmology based on myth rather than science. In settings I design, I usually say either that the world was formed from the body of one of the original gods, or created from mud found by one of the god/animals at the bottom of the primordial ocean.

One common things that doesn't work for me, however, is having a separate pantheon for each race. The gods might go by different names in different places, and some of them might have personal preferences as to race, but they're all part of the same pantheon.

[jqavins]

Creationist worldbuilding is certainly quicker and easier. But I always find the result unsatisfying. I'd rather have the whole subject of creation not adressed at all. Which really isn't a problem unless you have personal immortal gods that directly reveal themselves to mortal people.
Creationism doesn't bother me in fantasy worlds where deities are patently real. (The real world is a wholly other matter.) My preference is for thousands of years of prehistory separating the "modern" era from a mythic era of creation; what happened between the two ends is unknowable and unimportant. If it is unsatisfying to have the immortal gods remaining silent on the subject, then have not-quite-immortal gods of the second or third generation. The current gods are removed from the original creators, arising somewhere near the end of the prehistoric era. The modern gods can be the creators of the modern era, but not of the world and the creatures in it. That also allows for, but does not require, separate deities for separate races or nations.

[Milo v3]

One common things that doesn't work for me, however, is having a separate pantheon for each race. The gods might go by different names in different places, and some of them might have personal preferences as to race, but they're all part of the same pantheon.

I think having different gods for different regions can work as long as gods aren't omnipotent.

[Bohandas]

I think having different gods for different regions can work as long as gods aren't omnipotent.

Well then the problem is reversed and the issue is now with the racial pantheons' universality

[Milo v3]

Well then the problem is reversed and the issue is now with the racial pantheons' universality

I don't understand what you mean by this, could you expand?

[AtlasSniperman]

I don't understand what you mean by this, could you expand?

He means that if the gods aren't omnipotent, why is the one racial pantheon universal for the race over a huge area.
My answer for this is that a gods power is drawn from its worshipers and from mortal dedication to their pantheon. So a racial pantheon can more easily spread to other mortals of said race, but aren't super powerful outside their race.

[Milo v3]

He means that if the gods aren't omnipotent, why is the one racial pantheon universal for the race over a huge area.

My answer for this is that a gods power is drawn from its worshipers and from mortal dedication to their pantheon. So a racial pantheon can more easily spread to other mortals of said race, but aren't super powerful outside their race.

I thought "racial" more referred to "culture" since they're equivalent more often than they should be in this type of discussion, so I was more referring to "huge area has one set of gods. But huge area across the sea might have a different pantheon."

I do have an issue with gods get power from worshipers... I mean, if that's true how did they become worthy of worship to begin with? How did they do godly feats before worshipers?

[AtlasSniperman]

I thought "racial" more referred to "culture" since they're equivalent more often than they should be in this type of discussion, so I was more referring to "huge area has one set of gods. But huge area across the sea might have a different pantheon."

I do have an issue with gods get power from worshipers... I mean, if that's true how did they become worthy of worship to begin with? How did they do godly feats before worshipers?

See Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler(not godwins law), Donald Trump, Shoko Ashara and Chuck Norris.
They don't have to perform miracles, just be famous enough and garner enough respect to get a platform to go further. In a system like what I use, gods were all mortals who gained divine power from fame(basically).

[Milo v3]

See Jim Jones, Adolf Hitler(not godwins law), Donald Trump, Shoko Ashara and Chuck Norris.
They don't have to perform miracles, just be famous enough and garner enough respect to get a platform to go further. In a system like what I use, gods were all mortals who gained divine power from fame(basically).

I don't think I've ever met someone who has prayed for Donald Trump to try and control the weather.

[AtlasSniperman]

People don't pray to any of the people I mentioned. What I meant was that these people were able to get a platform enough for their voices to be heard, they became forces in society(even just in their area, with the exception of Chuck Norris, being a meme), giving them power over people and they draw power from the people.
Mortal powered deities could work a similar way, people who have incited change or have become household names get power over people because of the power people give them, and this power becomes divine power etc etc.

This is just the way I do it, you're welcome to run it how you like.

[JoeJ]

I think having different gods for different regions can work as long as gods aren't omnipotent.

Even if they're not omnipotent, having multiple sets of gods creates consistency problems. Which of these deities created the world? And where did the others come from, if they're not associated with the original ones?

[AtlasSniperman]

Even if they're not omnipotent, having multiple sets of gods creates consistency problems. Which of these deities created the world? And where did the others come from, if they're not associated with the original ones?

Without wanting to sound aggressive, dismissive or conceited; this is making me want to post the history and mechanics of gods in my campaign setting. But it's soooo long and I don't feel like typing it out right now XD

Needless to say; Gods don't have to create the world, gods can be ascended mortals and pantheons can be so separated even the gods don't know about certain other pantheons.

[Milo v3]

Even if they're not omnipotent, having multiple sets of gods creates consistency problems. Which of these deities created the world? And where did the others come from, if they're not associated with the original ones?

They might have all created the world, or maybe none of them made the world or maybe some of them made the world, maybe there are different groups of gods that are completely distinct with no relation to one another (especially if the settings definition of god is just "a thing that's powerful enough to be considered a god without it sounding weird").

[JoeJ]

Without wanting to sound aggressive, dismissive or conceited; this is making me want to post the history and mechanics of gods in my campaign setting. But it's soooo long and I don't feel like typing it out right now XD

Needless to say; Gods don't have to create the world, gods can be ascended mortals and pantheons can be so separated even the gods don't know about certain other pantheons.

That's fine for your world, but as I mentioned upthread, I find fantasy worlds much more compelling with a cosmology based on myth. I don't like leaving the creation unexplained, and I like even less mixing science into my fantasy. So if I'm creating the setting, it's pretty much a given that the gods (or at least some of them) did create the world. There may be a few mortals who ascended and joined the pantheon too, but they are a very small minority.

[jqavins]

I did state above that, in a particular model of creation, racial pantheons make sense (or at least don't bother me.) What does bother me is when elves, dwarves, halflings, and so on each have their own racial pantheon world-wide, but there's no world wide human racial pantheon. If elves the world over worship the same gods, why do humans on the other side of the continent worship different ones? Or conversely, if humans worship pantheons that vary culturally, why do non-humans not do the same?

I guess it's because non-humans so often don't have the same sort of cultural variation from place to place, i.e. human countries or regions have different cultures, while non-humans are, in some settings, culturally uniform. And therein lies another problem (which has been discussed already.)

[Yora]

If you have nonhuman races in a setting, I think humans need to be just one group among many of roughly similar relevance and scale. 80% human, 20% others doesn't work for me. It works in The Lord of the Rings because that's a story about the dwarves having already exiled themselves from the rest of the world and the elves packing up their last things and loading their ships. And soon it will be 100% humans.
In settings that don't have that, having humans vastly outnumbering everyone else seems implausible and makes the other races seem unbelievable.

[nrg89]

In settings that don't have that, having humans vastly outnumbering everyone else seems implausible and makes the other races seem unbelievable.

This also bothers me a lot. Humans are somehow "adaptable" and this somehow make up for the fact that they live very short lives compared to elves (which means that they should lack a lot in experience, unless elves brains process information slower) and the cultural differences are very superfluous. They have very similar sex lives, very similar opinions towards violence, very similar attitudes toward sanitation (if anything, elves seem to put even more effort into sanitation, which would shield them from a lot of diseases), similar attitudes toward economic management and similar attitudes toward diet. Is there a great cataclysm or something that wiped most of them out?

When they're not as complicated or numerous as the humans they feel very unbelievable and could easily be replaced with another human culture instead.

In the only setting I had elves in elves appeared on another continent than the one where most of the setting was set in, and they migrated to the continent in a very small band with superior magic. After some divine intervention for the first time, a god blessed some humans with clerichood and a bloody war later elves are a minority who are judged by the sins of their ancestors to this day but kept around because of their magical aptitude.

[jqavins]

If you have nonhuman races in a setting, I think humans need to be just one group among many of roughly similar relevance and scale. 80% human, 20% others doesn't work for me. It works in The Lord of the Rings because that's a story about the dwarves having already exiled themselves from the rest of the world and the elves packing up their last things and loading their ships. And soon it will be 100% humans.
In settings that don't have that, having humans vastly outnumbering everyone else seems implausible and makes the other races seem unbelievable.
I mostly agree with that, but then my own setting contradicts it. I have mostly humans with some orcs and fewer goblins and maybe some ogres. There are a few but very few dwarves and so few elves that most people have never seen one and many believe they're just stories.

But I have a reason. Orcs and goblins are numerous but most of them don't like mixing with humans so are not part of the PC's society. (The same would go for ogres, but I haven't decided just how much to include ogres at all.) Dwarves are the dominant society in another, distant part of the world, and elves the same except their part of the world is more remote and over a Himalaya-type mountain range. If one goes to those places, humans are rare or virtually unknown. I don't expect the PCs to go there for a good while after (if) the setting launches, if ever.

[Yora]

Yeah, every piece of writing advice ever really has to end with "unless you have a really good reason". :smallwink:

[VoxRationis]

In my current setting, elves are rare compared with humans because they either have stringent population control laws (in the case of the high elves), because they descend from tiny founder populations and haven't done spectacularly since then (wood elves), or because they're suffering from infertility as a result of exposure to radiation, poorly managed magic, and chemical pollution (dark elves). Dwarves aren't rare at all, just rare above the surface. One of the largest and most populous empires in the setting is composed of dwarves; it's just that they tend to be overlooked, since they're underground and most mapmakers (including myself) focus on the surface.

Edit: Now that I think of it, one of my other settings subverted the "elves are few" trope as hard as it possibly could have: elves were immortal (and perennially fertile) in that setting, and as a consequence their population growth rate was spectacular unless checked with liberal amounts of violence or contraception, even though their birth rate was low.

[johnbragg]

Even if they're not omnipotent, having multiple sets of gods creates consistency problems. Which of these deities created the world? And where did the others come from, if they're not associated with the original ones?

Depends whose priest is casting the divinations. :tongue:

As long as the world is old enough that a living elves weren't witnesses to the immediate post-creation period, having creation be a mystery isn't a huge problem. The elven song-epic of creation and the the dwarven, goblinoid, Aquitanian, Midianite, Haraldian and Brythonic creation stories disagree wildly. Each one has gods that back their story. So nobody really knows. Let's go kill orcs/heal the sick/grow some crops.

[JoeJ]

Depends whose priest is casting the divinations. :tongue:

As long as the world is old enough that a living elves weren't witnesses to the immediate post-creation period, having creation be a mystery isn't a huge problem. The elven song-epic of creation and the the dwarven, goblinoid, Aquitanian, Midianite, Haraldian and Brythonic creation stories disagree wildly. Each one has gods that back their story. So nobody really knows. Let's go kill orcs/heal the sick/grow some crops.

The characters in the setting might not know the truth, but as the setting creator I need to know or I won't be able to get a good handle on what to create. There's nothing wrong with doing it differently, it's just not the way I'm able to work.

[raygun goth]

That's fine for your world, but as I mentioned upthread, I find fantasy worlds much more compelling with a cosmology based on myth. I don't like leaving the creation unexplained, and I like even less mixing science into my fantasy. So if I'm creating the setting, it's pretty much a given that the gods (or at least some of them) did create the world.

If there are wizards in your setting, there is science (even simpler - if there are people asking questions and trying out their own personal ideas in regards to those questions until something works, there is science - by definition, if anyone ever asks themselves "what if I ...?", they are doing science). Science is a method of discovering and describing the world as it exists around you. If Ntombi, God of the Rains and Jaguars physically created the sea (evidence: he says he did, and has demonstrated his ability to cry sea water in grat amounts from his eyes, and his priests can do the same), that is a scientific fact, whether or not Culture 1 believes it (for the purposes of these exercises, they do). If Asahmbé stirred the cosmic chaos to create eddies in which land was poured by the great heroes, and it is demonstrably true (perhaps due to multiple lines of evidence such as magical materials trapped in stones, a strange yet subtle whorl-pattern to the world at large, giant carvings in the rocks in Asahmbé's handwriting that say "OOPS I DID IT AGAIN"), then it's a scientific fact. You can't escape science.

Or myth, for that matter:

Mythology is the system by which a culture expresses its internal truths. A myth expresses what is true, regardless of fact. As an example, if we go over to Culture 2 and they say that no, Choluhm M!Bulu-buelu created the sea by sweeping his hands over the back of a dead turtle, and we present them with Ntombi's testimony (and perhaps even call him over to speak with Culture 2) it doesn't matter if they retain their belief or not, both what Culture 1 believes and what Culture 2 believes are myths, even though one is a physical truth. All that matters is its truth to the culture in which that myth is represented.


In settings that don't have that, having humans vastly outnumbering everyone else seems implausible and makes the other races seem unbelievable.

I made humans the magical elder race in mine; the two races they created are in smaller numbers.

I put a race in the sky (http://orig08.deviantart.net/24fc/f/2013/181/f/5/races___sky_people_by_mr_author-d6bft9d.jpg), who use clouds as the entrance to their world (http://orig12.deviantart.net/a4fa/f/2014/113/0/a/sky_people_map_by_mr_author-d7fpstc.jpg), who are as numerous as humans and have their own countries.

I also put a race in the water, who share the sea floor with human variants, but there, humans are the 10%.


http://orig08.deviantart.net/03f9/f/2015/083/b/d/tenraces_copy_by_mr_author-d8my6ab.jpg

[Bohandas]

If you have nonhuman races in a setting, I think humans need to be just one group among many of roughly similar relevance and scale. 80% human, 20% others doesn't work for me. It works in The Lord of the Rings because that's a story about the dwarves having already exiled themselves from the rest of the world and the elves packing up their last things and loading their ships. And soon it will be 100% humans.
In settings that don't have that, having humans vastly outnumbering everyone else seems implausible and makes the other races seem unbelievable.

I agree. It doesn't work.


Even if they're not omnipotent, having multiple sets of gods creates consistency problems. Which of these deities created the world? And where did the others come from, if they're not associated with the original ones?

Yeah. Same goes for sun gods, you can't reasonably have a bunch of wholly seperate sun gods for the same sun. If there are multiple sun gods they have to either work together or be in competition with each other or control a region of the sun like Iuz controls a region of Oreth.



EDIT:
Another thing that taxes versimilitude is the inclusion of halflings in D&D. In 2e and earlier they are basically the equivalent of if Toclafane were included as a canon subrace of humans; in 3e and later they're the equivalent of if toclafane were introduced as a subrace of humans but were later redacted to have most of their defining traits removed yet without any compelling material introduced to take their place.

[Frozen_Feet]

Absence of non-factual myths and belief systems.

A lot of time in fantasy, every silly thing from local folktales and superstitions is at least a reference to some actual supernatural phenomenom, if not perfectly accurate. People seem to think existence of real supernatural things either means all supernatural things must be real, or that people will stop coming up with complete fabrications because of it.

That's not how it works. If anything, real but rare supernatural occurrences would reinforce rumour mills and lend more credence to several types of charlatans. Majority of people should've faulty understanding of what's magic or not, just like majority of real people have faulty understanding of... well, everything!

[Bohandas]

I think in D&D if enough people believe in so ething it becomes real, somewhere on the outer planes

[jqavins]

Yeah. Same goes for sun gods, you can't reasonably have a bunch of wholly seperate sun gods for the same sun. If there are multiple sun gods they have to either work together or be in competition with each other or control a region of the sun like Iuz controls a region of Oreth.
Or the same god in different clothes. It's a common trope, and not a bad one in my humble opinion, that the gods, or at least some of the gods, appear in different forms and with different names in various places in order to fit in with the cultures to which they are presenting themselves.


Another thing that taxes versimilitude is the inclusion of halflings in D&D. In 2e and earlier they are basically the equivalent of if Toclafane were included as a canon subrace of humans; in 3e and later they're the equivalent of if toclafane were introduced as a subrace of humans but were later redacted to have most of their defining traits removed yet without any compelling material introduced to take their place.
Toclafane? You mean these guys (http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Toclafane)?

The Toclafane were the final form of the human race, cyborgs integrated into spherical, mechanical shells. The name "Toclafane" was given to them by the Master, after a fairy tale monster from Gallifrey, the local equivalent of Earth's "Boogeyman."
I (and everyone I know) have always taken halflings to be hobits without copyright problems.


Absence of non-factual myths and belief systems.

A lot of time in fantasy, every silly thing from local folktales and superstitions is at least a reference to some actual supernatural phenomenom, if not perfectly accurate. People seem to think existence of real supernatural things either means all supernatural things must be real, or that people will stop coming up with complete fabrications because of it.

That's not how it works. If anything, real but rare supernatural occurrences would reinforce rumour mills and lend more credence to several types of charlatans. Majority of people should've faulty understanding of what's magic or not, just like majority of real people have faulty understanding of... well, everything!
Basically I agree with you. But I read "That's not how it works" and simply must play devil's advocate. How do you know? We live in the real world, where there are no actual supernatural phenomena. If there were any, how can we be so sure that, having these on which to focus, people would still feel the need to make up fake ones? Why tell phony ghost stories when there are real ones to tell?

[JoeJ]

Absence of non-factual myths and belief systems.

A lot of time in fantasy, every silly thing from local folktales and superstitions is at least a reference to some actual supernatural phenomenom, if not perfectly accurate. People seem to think existence of real supernatural things either means all supernatural things must be real, or that people will stop coming up with complete fabrications because of it.

That's not how it works. If anything, real but rare supernatural occurrences would reinforce rumour mills and lend more credence to several types of charlatans. Majority of people should've faulty understanding of what's magic or not, just like majority of real people have faulty understanding of... well, everything!

In a somewhat related vein, some of the early D&D adventures included rumors about the adventure that the PCs could learn, only some of which were true.

[Milo v3]

Basically I agree with you. But I read "That's not how it works" and simply must play devil's advocate. How do you know? We live in the real world, where there are no actual supernatural phenomena. If there were any, how can we be so sure that, having these on which to focus, people would still feel the need to make up fake ones? Why tell phony ghost stories when there are real ones to tell?

Because in a fantasy world, those fanastic things are generally mundane. A ghost story in a D&D setting is the same as a crime story in real-life. We have things all around us that we can focus on to make stories, but we make up fake ones all the time.

[VoxRationis]

Absence of non-factual myths and belief systems.

A lot of time in fantasy, every silly thing from local folktales and superstitions is at least a reference to some actual supernatural phenomenom, if not perfectly accurate. People seem to think existence of real supernatural things either means all supernatural things must be real, or that people will stop coming up with complete fabrications because of it.

That's not how it works. If anything, real but rare supernatural occurrences would reinforce rumour mills and lend more credence to several types of charlatans. Majority of people should've faulty understanding of what's magic or not, just like majority of real people have faulty understanding of... well, everything!

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Strangely, the same sort of problem seems to show up in science fiction, albeit in a different way. Every belief of a local alien tribe in Star Trek or the like tends to be either quite true or a misinterpretation of a true phenomenon (say, by considering an old supercomputer to be some sort of god or oracle); they never have beliefs which are flat-out incorrect.

[Bohandas]

Toclafane? You mean these guys (http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Toclafane)?


The Toclafane were the final form of the human race, cyborgs integrated into spherical, mechanical shells. The name "Toclafane" was given to them by the Master, after a fairy tale monster from Gallifrey, the local equivalent of Earth's "Boogeyman."


Yeah. The intent of the analogy is that basically they've taken a very specific and distinctive concept intimately associated with a completely different intellectual property, awkwardly tried to shoehorn it in, and nonchalantly pretended it didn't happen.

If you don't like Dr.Who, another equivalent situation would be if they included Smurfs as a core player character race. or Trollans. or Hutts. Or Klingons. or Mooninites. or whatever the hell the Gonzo from the Muppets is.

EDIT:
or Zeetvahs...or Sergals.... or Chakats... or Munchkins... or Snorks... or Luxans... or Tau...

[Bohandas]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Strangely, the same sort of problem seems to show up in science fiction, albeit in a different way. Every belief of a local alien tribe in Star Trek or the like tends to be either quite true or a misinterpretation of a true phenomenon (say, by considering an old supercomputer to be some sort of god or oracle); they never have beliefs which are flat-out incorrect.

There were a couple that were flat out wrong, but all of those had been deliberately engineered by some sort of conspiracy (as was the case in "For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky")

[Roxxy]

I guess it's because non-humans so often don't have the same sort of cultural variation from place to place, i.e. human countries or regions have different cultures, while non-humans are, in some settings, culturally uniform. And therein lies another problem (which has been discussed already.)In my case, I just can't afford to split elves into a ton of different nationalities. Way too much time and effort. I'm already relying heavily on fantasy counterpart cultures to make up for the fact that I decided I really wanted to open the entire "British Empire" up to the PCs. Can't put in the time to fill every corner of that empire with unique elves, even though that would make sense realistically.

The way I've explained that is by having a now-dead divine world empire that dictated the roles of each race worldwide. The only sentient species is humanity, which can be divided into many subspecies/races (I'm not a taxonomist). All of these races were enslaved, as the divine empire was a slave heirarchy with the gods (actually very powerful divine spellcasters) at the top. At the bottom you had the tieflings, demonblooded humans lucky to even be allowed to live doing whatever unpleasant task the local magistrates could think up. Next lowest were dwarves, an enslaved race of manual laborers who did the most dirty and dangerous jobs.Then you had the paciens, the most numerous race, a very hardy race of farmers and hunter-gatherers. After that came the elves, a race of foresters, low level scholars, naturalists, and artisans with magic in their veins. Then you had orcs, a race of warriors trained from birth to defend the empire from threats (mostly internal). The, in the level below the gods, you had the aasimar, a regal race of scholars, magistrates, bureaucrats, and high ranking domestic servants who can take animalian forms (animal symbolism was a really big thing with the divine empire, I should mention). These roles extended worldwide, but played out differently in different ethnicities. A "Japanese" elf and an "Irish" elf came from the same basic roles in life, but grew up in two very different cultures, and live accordingly.

The divine slave empire is three centuries dead now and slavery abolished, but the roles perscribed to the races still exist within the "British Empire", just as strong social expectations instead of laws. Those social expectations been steadily cracking for a long time, however. The long inevitable breakage is one of the things that fuels the Sixties Counterculture of the setting. People have been tired of this proscriptivism for a long time, and are less and less willing to live by such rules.

[jqavins]

A "Japanese" elf and an "Irish" elf came from the same basic roles in life, but grew up in two very different cultures, and live accordingly.
Underneath the setting specifics, I see this as the core of a solution to the problem. Races have some general differences while most cultural variation is regional. A nation tropical, forest dwelling, hunter-gatherer people will be culturally different from a nation of farmers in verdant hills, which is different from nation of high plains nomads. Within each of these nations, if there are multiple races of people present then they are all culturally similar because they live together in the same culture. There would be a few differences based on their racial ability differences, and the sorts of differences seen are basically the same world-wide. That is, if half-orcs with their higher strength than humans are present in these various cultures, you would expect them to have the kinds of jobs in each culture for which that strength is most useful, but it's world-wide that half-orcs tend to do the strong man jobs and are otherwise culturally like the humans and the dwarves and the elves and the...

[Frozen_Feet]

Basically I agree with you. But I read "That's not how it works" and simply must play devil's advocate. How do you know? We live in the real world, where there are no actual supernatural phenomena. If there were any, how can we be so sure that, having these on which to focus, people would still feel the need to make up fake ones? Why tell phony ghost stories when there are real ones to tell?

Milo v3 already gave one possible answer, but consider the following: reality has a lot of highly interesting but also hard-to-comprehend phenomena. Yet people are confused about and reject these all the time, in favor of more intuitive but incorrect explanations. Consider gravity, or evolution, or even something relatively simple like platypuses or magnets.

And to build somewhat on what Milo said, just because a thing is real doesn't mean all stories about it are. Consider any number of urban myths which sound like they could've happened but didn't. Imagine a place where the local lunatic is claiming a missing child was kidnapped by invisible goblins - and then someone comes and shows invisible goblins are a thing which can happen. Suddenly, everyone is talking about the invisible goblins and attributing disjointed observations and events to them. You can replace "invisible gobling" with "wolf" or many other mundane causes of harm, and find example cases of this happening in reality.

[5a Violista]

Absence of non-factual myths and belief systems.

I've another one that's very related to this, that really breaks verisimilitude for me:
In general, the gods and religions of fantasy stories: frequently, there's only a single interpretation of a god or a pantheon, and only one formalized religion around that god. If someone believes in something else, they're worshiping a different god. There's hardly ever any conflict between two groups that believe in the same god, and many fantasy stories only have characters who worship a single god (in spite of there being an entire pantheon that watches over their culture). Racial deities are weird, and then there's this whole "portfolio" business that makes it nigh-impossible for two different groups to worship different gods that represent the same thing. There's hardly ever any ancestor worship or animists, there's no room for doubt, and so on. Everyone who preaches is always correct about what they preach, lines are clearly drawn, and everybody already knows everything.
I mean...in general, combined with the absence of non-factual myths and belief systems, it really does seem like the religions and beliefs aren't really that thought-out. They just seem like arbitrarily true things that exist with no basis in how the people and cultures would react, and poorly-thought-out belief systems is the biggest thing that breaks verisimilitude for me.

Edit:
Oh. Also, I just thought of something else that breaks verisimilitude for me:
When every character is 100% logical, perfect, or never makes mistakes. Or even if there's just a handful of characters where the narrative always makes them correct.

[Everyl]

Underneath the setting specifics, I see this as the core of a solution to the problem. Races have some general differences while most cultural variation is regional. A nation tropical, forest dwelling, hunter-gatherer people will be culturally different from a nation of farmers in verdant hills, which is different from nation of high plains nomads. Within each of these nations, if there are multiple races of people present then they are all culturally similar because they live together in the same culture. There would be a few differences based on their racial ability differences, and the sorts of differences seen are basically the same world-wide. That is, if half-orcs with their higher strength than humans are present in these various cultures, you would expect them to have the kinds of jobs in each culture for which that strength is most useful, but it's world-wide that half-orcs tend to do the strong man jobs and are otherwise culturally like the humans and the dwarves and the elves and the...

This solution actually triggers another verisimilitude issue for me... races capable of interbreeding living in close proximity for extended periods, yet somehow continuing to be distinct races. In the real world, groups of humans tend to mix with their neighbors. The resulting offspring are often raised as a member of only one parent's culture (or caste, or whatever), but the genetic mixing still happens. If humans, elves, and orcs all lived in a mixed society and were physically capable of interbreeding without any non-social obstacles, then over the generations, pure-blooded members of any given race would become increasingly scarce, and mutts with extremely mixed heritage would eventually become the norm.

There are ways around this, of course. Maybe inter-racial fertility is extremely low, or there are sharply increased risks for the mother and/or baby involved, reinforcing social stigma and providing a negative pressure on the mixed-race population. Maybe half-whatevers are outright infertile, like Dark Sun half-dwarves. I'm sure there are other options, as well; I wouldn't be surprised if someone more knowledgeable than me about the Elder Scrolls games could tell me how that setting manages its incredibly cosmopolitan empire without everyone being mutts a few thousand years in.

[LudicSavant]

Absence of non-factual myths and belief systems.

This! Something I always work to avoid.

[Yora]

The social function of mythology is to explain the world and the way things are. But it's really different from science in that it is not really aimed at explaining how things work, but to explain what the meaning and purpose is of phenomena and events that are really meaningless and have no purpose.
Facts and evidence don't matter much, as the important function is to tell a story that gives people guidance in how to feel about certain things. In premodern mythology that often took the form of giving feelings and will to phenomena by representing them as gods or monsters that behave and think similar to people. Christianity is notable in having a believe system in which there is only one god and therefore one will behind everything and especially since the Enlightenment modern western mythology is based around the idea of Great Men. George Washington and Napoleon were historic people, but by creating a narrative around them in which everything that happened in their time and place was by their design, they have become mythological heroes like Heracles and Archilles. Facts don't matter so much, the important thing is how we feel about ourselves now centuries later.

Most standard worldbuilding guides that are around have you either start with tectonic plates, or with the creator gods. Both are bad, but in the later case the problem is that it approaches mythology from th wrong side. Mythology becomes a substitute for geology and evolution and provides answers for questions that have not yet been asked.
I like it much more to first create the lands and populate them, and then start to ask what things in their environment the people are wondering about.

[LudicSavant]

I've another one that's very related to this, that really breaks verisimilitude for me:
In general, the gods and religions of fantasy stories: frequently, there's only a single interpretation of a god or a pantheon, and only one formalized religion around that god. If someone believes in something else, they're worshiping a different god. There's hardly ever any conflict between two groups that believe in the same god, and many fantasy stories only have characters who worship a single god (in spite of there being an entire pantheon that watches over their culture). Racial deities are weird, and then there's this whole "portfolio" business that makes it nigh-impossible for two different groups to worship different gods that represent the same thing. There's hardly ever any ancestor worship or animists, there's no room for doubt, and so on. Everyone who preaches is always correct about what they preach, lines are clearly drawn, and everybody already knows everything.
I mean...in general, combined with the absence of non-factual myths and belief systems, it really does seem like the religions and beliefs aren't really that thought-out. They just seem like arbitrarily true things that exist with no basis in how the people and cultures would react, and poorly-thought-out belief systems is the biggest thing that breaks verisimilitude for me.

Edit:
Oh. Also, I just thought of something else that breaks verisimilitude for me:
When every character is 100% logical, perfect, or never makes mistakes. Or even if there's just a handful of characters where the narrative always makes them correct.



Most standard worldbuilding guides that are around have you either start with tectonic plates, or with the creator gods. Both are bad, but in the later case the problem is that it approaches mythology from th wrong side. Mythology becomes a substitute for geology and evolution and provides answers for questions that have not yet been asked.

Seconding both of these.

- Generally, don't start with a creation myth. I haven't seen the guides to which Yora refers, but I have seen a number of worldbuilding posts that begin with dry, pointless creation myths that feel like they were just added out of a sense of arbitrary obligation.

Heck, you don't even have to include a creation myth or map at all when you first introduce your setting. Terry Pratchett didn't have a map of Discworld for an awfully long time, for instance.

- Humans believe in false things all the time; they should generally do so in a fantasy world too if you want to make your human characters and cultures feel human (and thus, verisimilar (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/verisimilar)). Even true events should have imperfect recollections.

Blow stories of heroes out of proportion. Make that same hero a villain in another culture. Change the details of stories depending on who you ask. Make a habit of noting who believes X instead of just saying X is true from an omniscient writer's perspective.

- Humans don't understand everything perfectly, and shouldn't in your world. This isn't just an issue of verisimilitude either; leaving a few questions unanswered means secrets to discover and horizons to explore. When building a setting, your job is not to tell a complete story; it's to create a highly fertile soil from which good stories can spring. (However, you also shouldn't give too little information. Don't just say "nobody knows!" Offer tantalizing hooks that make the audience want to explore that horizon)

- Cultures should not be monolithic. Not everyone in a culture shares the same beliefs, values, goals, or ethical character. This goes doubly for races.

[jqavins]

I've another one that's very related to this, that really breaks verisimilitude for me:
In general, the gods and religions of fantasy stories: frequently, there's only a single interpretation of a god or a pantheon
...
I mean...in general, combined with the absence of non-factual myths and belief systems, it really does seem like the religions and beliefs aren't really that thought-out. They just seem like arbitrarily true things that exist with no basis in how the people and cultures would react, and poorly-thought-out belief systems is the biggest thing that breaks verisimilitude for me.


The social function of mythology is to explain the world and the way things are.
...
Most standard worldbuilding guides that are around have you either start with tectonic plates, or with the creator gods. Both are bad, but in the later case the problem is that it approaches mythology from the wrong side. Mythology becomes a substitute for geology and evolution and provides answers for questions that have not yet been asked.
I like it much more to first create the lands and populate them, and then start to ask what things in their environment the people are wondering about.
There's a key question missed here: How realistic do you want your verisimilitude? All this about myths arising in a social context and different people worshiping gods in conflicting ways is realistic, but wouldn't things be different if the gods in question made a habit of manifesting in, in obvious and clearly identifiable ways, and correcting the mistakes? When things like divine creation of the world are facts then why should they not be be treated that way?

I was playing devil's advocate a few posts back when I wrote "Why should people tell phony ghost stories when there are real ones to tell?" Yes, people will always make up stories. But the point I was making is even more applicable here: why make up gods when the real gods are right there in front of you explaining the actual truth. For me, it breaks verisimilitude to try to have it both ways: real, tangible, verifiable gods and socially evolved mythology.

[LudicSavant]

All this about myths arising in a social context and different people worshiping gods in conflicting ways is realistic, but wouldn't things be different if the gods in question made a habit of manifesting in, in obvious and clearly identifiable ways, and correcting the mistakes? When things like divine creation of the world are facts then why should they not be be treated that way? It is a fallacy to believe that just because something that happens to be false in one context (such as, say, dragons existing in our world) happens to be true in another, people would suddenly create no myths or rumors or falsehoods. It will simply be a different set of false claims.

People will tell stories of fantastic creatures that don't exist even when there are fantastic creatures that do exist, just as amazing creatures to tell stories about exist in the real world.


"Why should people tell phony ghost stories when there are real ones to tell?" For the exact same reason people tell fictional ghost stories when there are true horror stories to tell in the real world.

[Mr.Moron]

It is a fallacy to believe that just because something that happens to be false in one context (such as, say, dragons existing in our world) happens to be true in another, people would suddenly create no myths or rumors or falsehoods. It will simply be a different set of false claims.

People will tell stories of fantastic creatures that don't exist even when there are fantastic creatures that do exist, just as amazing creatures to tell stories about exist in the real world.

For the exact same people tell fictional ghost stories when there are true horror stories to tell in the real world.

or the same reason they tell tall tales about historical figures, major news events, "Chemicals"(TM), animals and any number of other things.

Just because our lizards don’t fly and breathe fire, doesn’t stop of us from thinking about dragons. Just because they have dragons doesn't meant they won't have totally fictional accounts of dragons that can see the future, or dragon the size of a mountain in a setting where neither of those things exist or ever have existed.

Imagine a world that perhaps has fantastical creatures but no large carnivorous mammals, might in that case something like a Tiger or Bear appear in their most fanciful and outlandish tales? Human imagination will always extend beyond what exists no matter if what exists is Gorillas or Super-Intelligent Double-Headed Gorillas with psychic powers. To use another example: despite all our fantastic advances in technology we've hardly run out of ways to imagine advances beyond what we have already. As our horizons expand beyond what we could comprehend before, our imaginations continue to expand even further.

EDIT:
To address gods specifically. To whatever extent gods do or don't exist humans will fill the void of whatever is left unaccounted for with their own explanations. Even if you have a living breathing god who lives in that flying castle you can point to on the horizon every morning unless he's handing down dogma, or giving tours people will mythologise the inside of that castle. For however much the god(s) reveal themselves in explicit tangible ways, people will find things to develop mythology around what they cannot directly observe and know about them. This space is basically infinite no matter how transparent the god is because for whatever they reveal you can always be curious about yet more things. The questions "Why" and "How" go on forever both in depth of detail and breadth of scope. Short of the god(s) being literally of one mind with the people they're bound to create their own accounts of many things.

[Mechalich]

There's a difference between stories people will tell and things people will actually literally believe to be true. People will always tell stories, but the existence of verifiable facts about some supernatural force will mean that what people believe will shift to be in line with those facts - because those facts will produce results.

Take ghost hunting. We have all sorts of 'ghost hunters' running around America today, claiming to research into all sorts of supernatural events using all kinds of different methodologies. Except ghosts aren't real, so there's no way to verify whether any of these methods are true or not and as a result people continue to believe that ghosts literally exist - because their existence cannot be disproven. However, if Ghostbusters happens and we suddenly discover a studied, verifiable basis between how ghosts work (and how to blast them with nuclear energy) then immediate all those other beliefs are going to be swept away because how ghosts work has been codified.

This is a thing that happened in human history - such as through exploration. As the map was filled in, a whole bunch of unverifiable garbage that people believed about unknown parts of the world was replaced with actual knowledge and people stopped believing that supernatural claims in accounts such as Marco Polo's Description of the World were literally truth.

So, in your average fantasy setting, certain aspects of things like religious belief are verifiable, and that constrains the kind of belief people will have. No one would believe in a 'god' in D&D that couldn't grant spells, and that has vastly significant effects on the kind of religions that will emerge as a result.

[raygun goth]

There's a difference between stories people will tell and things people will actually literally believe to be true. People will always tell stories, but the existence of verifiable facts about some supernatural force will mean that what people believe will shift to be in line with those facts - because those facts will produce results.

This is absolutely not true. The existence of facts does not require belief in those facts.

My neighbor believes in a literal, physical devil. I am friends with a man who believes that aliens have visited him and told him the secrets to entering astral space in order to allow him the ability to do battle with the shadow people. About 6% of the United States doesn't believe we landed on the moon - despite the ability of anyone with a telescope, a lunar lens, and a laser pointer to prove it. More Americans believe in the presence of physical angels that appear to them and speak to them than Americans who believe in evolution.

The existence of verifiable facts does not prevent people from believing mutually exclusive things in regards to those facts. This isn't even getting into how the supernatural is basically taken for granted on reservations, in the Pacific, across Africa, even Russia - basically anywhere that isn't England or the United States, and even then there are places like Cassadaga (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassadaga,_Florida), where the devil still sits on chairs in the graveyard or ghosts take the form of animals and stalk humans.


Take ghost hunting. We have all sorts of 'ghost hunters' running around America today, claiming to research into all sorts of supernatural events using all kinds of different methodologies. Except ghosts aren't real, so there's no way to verify whether any of these methods are true or not and as a result people continue to believe that ghosts literally exist - because their existence cannot be disproven. However, if Ghostbusters happens and we suddenly discover a studied, verifiable basis between how ghosts work (and how to blast them with nuclear energy) then immediate all those other beliefs are going to be swept away because how ghosts work has been codified.

But the methodologies that ghost hunters use can be tested, and can be verified to not work, require outright chicanery, and demonstrated to require either lying or ignorance of the devices they claim to be using, and yet people still believe. In spite of evidence that is widely, easily accessible.


This is a thing that happened in human history - such as through exploration. As the map was filled in, a whole bunch of unverifiable garbage that people believed about unknown parts of the world was replaced with actual knowledge and people stopped believing that supernatural claims in accounts such as Marco Polo's Description of the World were literally truth.

When I was young, I was straight up told not to go into the swamp behind our house by my uncle because there was, in his words, "a giant poison snake" a hundred feet long that could breath swamp muck from its nose and had deer antlers and osprey talons living back there, and he told me this not to scare me, but because he believed it. He used to hunt hogs and leave their bodies in the swamp for the snake. This was only about four acres of land with no canopy.

The lack of terra incognita does not stop people from believing crazy things about their surroundings.


So, in your average fantasy setting, certain aspects of things like religious belief are verifiable, and that constrains the kind of belief people will have. No one would believe in a 'god' in D&D that couldn't grant spells, and that has vastly significant effects on the kind of religions that will emerge as a result.

The gods aren't verifiable, though. Clerics of philosophies can get spells just fine in almost every setting. Any of the spells that allow you to contact a power for answers to your problems are all personal. Everything else can potentially be done by either Aziraxis the Grand Servant of Pelor or Pythoros of the Unbroken Angle who believes that math is the language of creation, but refuses to believe in gods.

[Mr.Moron]

So, in your average fantasy setting, certain aspects of things like religious belief are verifiable, and that constrains the kind of belief people will have. No one would believe in a 'god' in D&D that couldn't grant spells, and that has vastly significant effects on the kind of religions that will emerge as a result.

"....And so Un'Dah, great one, our lord, true god does bid his us children make way on their own devices. Those lesser gods that do walk in his shadow, rashly interfere to grant their puppets low magic to the very peril of our world. Ever does this meddling risk to undue his grand works as all magics that do not stem from workings of the grand numbers. To begrudge their followers, nor the lesser gods themselves for each toils in their own ignorance untouched by his wisdom. In the same do not be blind to the peril...."

-From the great Alamuis, Book 3. Words of the sage prophet Melhone to the pilgrims on the bridge.

(one of many holy texts of the high god Un'Dah, above all others. His teachings state the meddling of petty gods will undo the world as their spells consumes the stuff of reality. The teachings of his religion of course point that only good magic flows from the wizardly ways, the gleaning the truth the world from mathematics. In his words while it may be fair to call those beings that interfere in the material realm "Gods", the fact they feel compelled to be so involved in such petty mortal affairs is clear enough evidence of their lack of true divinity. Those that deny them will be rewarded next life truly, and the faithful should not be tricked by the fevered illusions impressed upon imitation souls by magic that claims to return the dead to life)

It should be noted that for whatever we dismiss as mere myth now, was imminent and plain reality to those that held those beliefs at the time. To the same extent that D&D characters see their spells cast, so too did some ancients see the sun rise each day as a direct result of their rituals and the power of their gods. This was truth as apparent and verified as any natural law we hold up in our textbooks today.

[Tiktakkat]

This is a thing that happened in human history - such as through exploration. As the map was filled in, a whole bunch of unverifiable garbage that people believed about unknown parts of the world was replaced with actual knowledge and people stopped believing that supernatural claims in accounts such as Marco Polo's Description of the World were literally truth.

You mean "unverified garbage", not "unverifiable".
"Unverifiable" means "cannot be verified".
"Unverified" means "has not been verified"
The two are quite different.


So, in your average fantasy setting, certain aspects of things like religious belief are verifiable, and that constrains the kind of belief people will have. No one would believe in a 'god' in D&D that couldn't grant spells, and that has vastly significant effects on the kind of religions that will emerge as a result.

Not at all.
How do those people know that powers can grant spells?
How do they know the difference between divine and arcane spells and psionics?
With enough social control, it is quite possible to create a false cult.


The gods aren't verifiable, though.

Yes they are.
Not easily mind you, but they are.


Clerics of philosophies can get spells just fine in almost every setting.

"Almost every" is not "every", and thus you have just disproven your own point.


Any of the spells that allow you to contact a power for answers to your problems are all personal.

Which doesn't preclude placing them in use activated items, permitting anyone to gain the direct communications they provide.


Everything else can potentially be done by either Aziraxis the Grand Servant of Pelor or Pythoros of the Unbroken Angle who believes that math is the language of creation, but refuses to believe in gods.

Which neither proves Pythoros correct or disproves the existence of Pelor.


You are both engaging in logical fallacies relating to proof or lack thereof.
Failure of proof of one theory is not proof of an opposing theory.
Something that is unverifiable, or unfalsifiable, is inherently beyond the realm of fact.
Something may be unproven but still true.

[raygun goth]

Yes they are.
Not easily mind you, but they are.

No. You can't prove that's Pelor. We can't test Pelor because we get the same results when...



"Almost every" is not "every", and thus you have just disproven your own point.

I say "almost every" because nothing is a sure thing. That is my point, that there is no such thing as a sure thing. We can't debate a broad spectrum of "every setting" here, but we can go by game rules for D&D, if you want, and in those rules, two clerics can hold mutually exclusive beliefs and still get spells.

In one of my settings there's no such thing as "arcane magic" because every form of magic is impinging on the divine - even the wizard types, who are trying to decipher the laws by which the creators of the world made it so that they can complete the jobs that were left unfinished.

In Eberron, it's not clear that the gods even exist - commune spells sure do work, but everyone's commune spells work, and they're all contacting mutually exclusive philosophies.

In Forgotten Realms there's no such thing as divine magic that doesn't come from gods. Even if you think you're worshipping a philosophy, some god is behind it. In fact, gods have such control over who gets divine magic in that setting they can trick worshippers into thinking they're worshipping another god entirely.

We can't cover every setting. To say anything else would be disingenuous.


Which doesn't preclude placing them in use activated items, permitting anyone to gain the direct communications they provide.

Which can also be faked, by your own admission. Also, if two clerics from two mutually exclusive faiths put a direct communication spell in two magic items, and they both work, what then?

Like, okay, assume D&D standard rules.

U!buatu the Above-All is part of a pantheon of gods and rules over the sun and the mountains. He accepts that other gods exist, but that divine power can never stem from a mortal source.

Let's say Zarus, god of the sun and humanity, says that no other gods exist besides him, although humans can become, oh, I don't know, planetars.

The Patriates of Order say that no gods exist, and the truth of divinity can be found within.

A cleric of each of these faiths makes a scroll of commune or whatever. Then a bard or rogue happens into all three of them, casts the spell, and... what happens?

What happens when that bard or rogue uses the commune spells to ask which of these faiths is correct?

You see what I mean when I say it's muddy water even in a setting where the gods "exist?"


Which neither proves Pythoros correct or disproves the existence of Pelor.

It doesn't prove either of them correct, nor does it prove the existence of Pelor nor disproves Pythoros.

That's the point.


You are both engaging in logical fallacies relating to proof or lack thereof.
Failure of proof of one theory is not proof of an opposing theory.
Something that is unverifiable, or unfalsifiable, is inherently beyond the realm of fact.
Something may be unproven but still true.

No, I'm not.

In fact, this:


Something that is unverifiable, or unfalsifiable, is inherently beyond the realm of fact.

Is the entire point I am making.

Pelor is unfalsifiable by the very nature of how divine magic, by the book, works in D&D. But this discussion isn't directly about D&D, even though it keeps getting steered back that way.

[LudicSavant]

Failure of proof of one theory is not proof of an opposing theory.

Good thing that that's not what the text you quoted from Raygun Goth claims, then.

Instead, it looks like he's saying that since cleric with god and cleric without god produces the same result with regards to the test, the "can cast divine spells" test cannot be used to distinguish whether or not gods actually exist.

Edit: Ninja'd

[Bohandas]

Yeah, but you can go and meet him if you can afford to hire a wizard that knows Plane Shift

[Bohandas]

About 6% of the United States doesn't believe we landed on the moon - despite the ability of anyone with a telescope, a lunar lens, and a laser pointer to prove it.

To be fair, a retroreflector is the kind of thing that could easily be placed by an unmanned craft.

[Yora]

You also need a very big laser pointer and sophisticated photon detectors,

[raygun goth]

To be fair, a retroreflector is the kind of thing that could easily be placed by an unmanned craft.

This is true, but we have multiple 3rd parties who confirm that they can, indeed, see our stuff on the moon. Even China and Russia.

Should have added instead "the stuff I can buy from a hobby store."

[jqavins]

Why tell phony ghost stories when there are real ones to tell?
For the exact same reason people tell fictional ghost stories when there are true horror stories to tell in the real world.
OK, for the third time, that was in the spirit of devil's advocate, and was not about gods.


It is a fallacy to believe that just because something that happens to be false in one context (such as, say, dragons existing in our world) happens to be true in another, people would suddenly create no myths or rumors or falsehoods. It will simply be a different set of false claims.
Sure, when dragons exist, people will still tell of multi-headed dragons even if those don't. I never denied that. And yes, people today tell fantastical, even mythical stories about real historical figures. But George Washington does not show up on their doorsteps to say "No, I never cut down that cherry tree and I've told plenty of lies." When actual gods do that sort of thing, it may be that people continue making up their own stories about gods, but it is wildly fallacious to state with any certainty that they will. Because such a proposition has never been tested and never can be.

[Tiktakkat]

No. You can't prove that's Pelor. We can't test Pelor because we get the same results when...

No, we don't.
"Pelor" refers to a specific individual entity.
By your claim, by testing you we get the same results as when testing me, and individual identity becomes non-existent.


I say "almost every" because nothing is a sure thing. That is my point, that there is no such thing as a sure thing. We can't debate a broad spectrum of "every setting" here, but we can go by game rules for D&D, if you want, and in those rules, two clerics can hold mutually exclusive beliefs and still get spells.

Irrelevant conflation.
Just because two entities produce similar results does not make them identical. Once again, that is immediately disproven by the existence of distinct human beings.

On a game rules simulation you are simply wrong. Nothing requires a DM to allow clerics of philosophies or what not, and thus it is quite possible for people who "believe" in such things to be completely incapable of producing the same spells as a cleric.
Which . . . you immediately proceed to demonstrate.


We can't cover every setting. To say anything else would be disingenuous.

Then why are you trying to?


Which can also be faked, by your own admission. Also, if two clerics from two mutually exclusive faiths put a direct communication spell in two magic items, and they both work, what then?

Then it demonstrates the existence of multiple entities.
Now you are indulging in the excluded middle fallacy.


A cleric of each of these faiths makes a scroll of commune or whatever. Then a bard or rogue happens into all three of them, casts the spell, and... what happens?

What happens when that bard or rogue uses the commune spells to ask which of these faiths is correct?

That depends on who is contacted, combined with core facts of the setting.


You see what I mean when I say it's muddy water even in a setting where the gods "exist?"

Except it isn't muddy.
There are specific entities that exist and may be contacted.
Whether or not one or more them lies when contacted in no way alters the core facts of the setting.


It doesn't prove either of them correct, nor does it prove the existence of Pelor nor disproves Pythoros.

That's the point.

Maybe it does.
Maybe it doesn't.


No, I'm not.

Well yes, you are.
When you make a valid point, you proceed to completely destroy it by indulging in fallacies about that point.


Pelor is unfalsifiable by the very nature of how divine magic, by the book, works in D&D. But this discussion isn't directly about D&D, even though it keeps getting steered back that way.

Which is completely false.
You can contact Pelor, even meet Pelor directly, with the appropriate magic, and in a campaign that allows such direct interaction.
As such, the ability to meet Pelor is quite falsifiable via divine magic, by the book, in D&D.


And while the discussion isn't directly about D&D, it is very much about things within a game context.
That requires elements of the suspension of disbelief established by the setting in contrast to real world situations.

While ghosts are (at least at present) completely non-falsifiable in the real world, they are absolutely falsifiable in fantasy settings that include them as part of their bestiary.
Either the creature you are a fighting is a ghost or it isn't, period. It may look like a ghost, scare like a ghost, waft about like a ghost, but it could be a wraith or shadow or other bodiless monster, or just some illusions, or even "real world" tricks. Or . . . it is a ghost, as defined by the system. But that is a fact that is falsifiable within the rules system and the setting.
Declaring that because ghosts are not "real" in the real world, the inclusion of any such creatures in a fantasy setting breaks verisimilitude is breaking the fundamental principle of willing suspension of disbelief required for a fantasy setting to exist in the first place.

And that willing suspension of disbelief requires a core set of facts that are adhered to within the setting for the suspension of belief to be functional. Constant retcons and revisions, or casual inconsistencies destroys the suspension of disbelief, invalidating the effect of the setting. That does not however mandate a perfect omniscient reliable narrator. The facts can be obscured both to the characters within the setting as well as to the observers of the setting without destroying the willing suspension of disbelief required for function.

[Roxxy]

This solution actually triggers another verisimilitude issue for me... races capable of interbreeding living in close proximity for extended periods, yet somehow continuing to be distinct races. In the real world, groups of humans tend to mix with their neighbors. The resulting offspring are often raised as a member of only one parent's culture (or caste, or whatever), but the genetic mixing still happens. If humans, elves, and orcs all lived in a mixed society and were physically capable of interbreeding without any non-social obstacles, then over the generations, pure-blooded members of any given race would become increasingly scarce, and mutts with extremely mixed heritage would eventually become the norm.

There are ways around this, of course. Maybe inter-racial fertility is extremely low, or there are sharply increased risks for the mother and/or baby involved, reinforcing social stigma and providing a negative pressure on the mixed-race population. Maybe half-whatevers are outright infertile, like Dark Sun half-dwarves. I'm sure there are other options, as well; I wouldn't be surprised if someone more knowledgeable than me about the Elder Scrolls games could tell me how that setting manages its incredibly cosmopolitan empire without everyone being mutts a few thousand years in.I went with having my divine empire take a hard line stance against interracial relationships. Fits right in with their proscriptivism. It's only in the few centuries since the fall of the empire that interracial relationships have been tolerable, and even that has to overcome a lot of social inertia, which is why, while it's getting more and more common, the majority of people still marry a member of their own race.

[nrg89]

I went with having my divine empire take a hard line stance against interracial relationships. Fits right in with their proscriptivism. It's only in the few centuries since the fall of the empire that interracial relationships have been tolerable, and even that has to overcome a lot of social inertia, which is why, while it's getting more and more common, the majority of people still marry a member of their own race. A few centuries is a lot however. In South Africa, mixed race unions was illegal until 20 years ago but mixed race people are still around 10% of the population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured). In America, even though White Americans are two thirds of the population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans) the average Americans genome is only 25% European (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans) and legal, inter-racial marriage is also very young in a lot of the states. Laws are not that effective when it comes to love and just a few decades can do a lot.

Now, in a fantasy world genomes might not work in the messy and complicated way it does in real life, but if our own history is a rough estimate there is a lot of inter-racial relationships (even though the descendants might not know about it).

[Frozen_Feet]

However, if Ghostbusters happens and we suddenly discover a studied, verifiable basis between how ghosts work (and how to blast them with nuclear energy) then immediate all those other beliefs are going to be swept away because how ghosts work has been codified.

Immediately?

Sure. Like discovery of Earth being round immediately swept away beliefs of Earth being flat - wait, no it didn't. :smalltongue:

Codified belief systems, especially ones rooted in pitfalls of human intuition, can resist being disproven even in the face of concrete evidence. This becomes more and more true as the evidence grows in complexity, as a lot of people can't recognize what a thing proves or disproves despite seeing it with their own eyes - simply because they are not that smart.

[Corneel]

No, we don't.
Which is completely false.
You can contact Pelor, even meet Pelor directly, with the appropriate magic, and in a campaign that allows such direct interaction.
As such, the ability to meet Pelor is quite falsifiable via divine magic, by the book, in D&D.

There is no spell that definitely can exclude the hypothesis that what Pelor's followers believe to be Pelor is not another entity playing the role of Pelor, or at least to the satisfaction to those in whose interest it is to believe that Pelor is not what he seems.

Say a priest of Pelor uses "Commune" to ask whether Pelor exists. Apart from the affront that this might cause to a god ("How can my servant even doubt I exist?") and the fact that "The spell, at best, provides information to aid character decisions." rather than definite answers to philosophical questions (so any DM would be in his right to rule that questions that go beyond the remit of providing information to aid character decisions would not get an answer), the effect is personal and can be denied as lies.

Also the same entity might present as Pelor, with a Pelorite doctrine, to one culture, but as the Unconquered Sun with a slightly different doctrine to another culture. Or even as Pelor with a slightly different Pelorite doctrine (more palatable to that culture). And then who is to say what is the right doctrine?


After which one is the true Fanta Orange, this one with its more "natural" color close to the color of orange juice as it is sold in Europe:
http://dryckesservice.se/131-home_default/fanta-orange-50-cl.jpg
or this one in bright orange as it is sold in Africa:
http://www.groupe-star.com/sites/default/files/styles/produit/public/photo/produit/famille-fanta-orange-ac30.png?itok=47AZvG4P

And there's Royal Tru - the Unconquered Sun to Pelor Fanta:
http://afodltd.com/images/afodpic/10-210.gif

And they are all owned by the Coca Cola corporation.

So who's to say that the gods as seen by simple mortals can't be like soft drinks, while the true divine entities behind them are like the soft drink corporations. And the reason might be quite similar: adapt to local taste and custom to capture as large a share of the belief market as possible.

[Tiktakkat]

There is no spell that definitely can exclude the hypothesis that what Pelor's followers believe to be Pelor is not another entity playing the role of Pelor, or at least to the satisfaction to those in whose interest it is to believe that Pelor is not what he seems.

And you know what . . .

That is completely irrelevant.
Because there IS a totally mundane way to prove that Pelor exists.
It is called "walking over to the bookshelf, opening a book, and reading it printed in the text."

"Pelor" is a literary construct in a fantasy RPG.
"Pelor" exists because the rule book says he does.
Period.
Whether or not any individual literary construct within the fantasy setting believes he exists is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact that "Pelor" does exist as part of that fantasy setting.
All the variant hypotheses will not change that simple fact.
All the fiddling around with philosophical gobbledygook and semi-scientific name dropping will not change that.
Only playing in a different setting, with different rules, can change it.
And doing that merely establishes a different set of default facts.

Even playing around in Planescape, where the concept of "belief makes reality" does not change that there are certain core facts that are. The Athar can run around all they like denying that powers exist, and yet there are clerics who cast spell. The Believers of the Source and Sign of One can run around all they like expecting to think a power into existence or ascend themselves, and yet there are still other powers granting spells.
Why?
Because that is what the sourcebooks say.

We are not talking about the real world.
We are talking about a fantasy RPG setting.
It has rules.
It has a canon of background material.
Those sources can be checked.

If you are completely unwilling to agree to suspend disbelief to accept the rules of a fantasy setting in an RPG, then the problem is not that "verisimilitude" is being broken, but that you don't have the imagination required to play an RPG in the first place, particularly not one with a fantasy setting. If you have issues with a game that features mythological deities or ghosts because "they aren't real", then you have too many issues to play a game featuring magic, dragons, and such-like.
Seriously.
You are in the wrong hobby. Save yourself the angst and find a different one, as you will never be satisfied with this one.

[Roxxy]

A few centuries is a lot however. In South Africa, mixed race unions was illegal until 20 years ago but mixed race people are still around 10% of the population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured). In America, even though White Americans are two thirds of the population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans) the average Americans genome is only 25% European (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans) and legal, inter-racial marriage is also very young in a lot of the states. Laws are not that effective when it comes to love and just a few decades can do a lot.

Now, in a fantasy world genomes might not work in the messy and complicated way it does in real life, but if our own history is a rough estimate there is a lot of inter-racial relationships (even though the descendants might not know about it).
Here's the thing, though. Nobody in America, or even Europe, is purebred anything. Everybody has interbred with another race somewhere in their lineage. That does not, however, negate that we percieve most of those people as either white or black. One or two other ancestors doesn't overrule most of your bloodline. I have a Sioux ancestor back in the 19th century. I would never call myself Sioux. California has had interracial marriage since 1948, and most of us wouldn't call ourselves mixed race. Less than 10%. Same in my setting. Yea, your average elf probably has some paciens or orc or something in their ancestry, but not near enough to make them a half-elf.

[VoxRationis]

I'm sure there are other options, as well; I wouldn't be surprised if someone more knowledgeable than me about the Elder Scrolls games could tell me how that setting manages its incredibly cosmopolitan empire without everyone being mutts a few thousand years in.

It's incredibly cosmopolitan in Cyrodiil and in pro-Imperial cities in the rest of the provinces, but from what I've seen, there's a pretty strong strain of xenophobia, in one form or another (from "Skyrim belongs to the Nords" to Altmer ideals of "Mer over Man" to the dark elves calling you "Outlander" constantly to the fact that Bosmeri ideas regarding cannibalism horrify visitors), in most of the provinces. The less xenophobic types travel to the cosmopolitan areas, refreshing their stocks of purebred individuals, but contribute to mixed-heritage bloodlines in those areas. But in the provinces themselves, there's probably very little interbreeding going on.

[Sam113097]

Can Mer interbreed with Men in Elder Scrolls? I always just assumed that they were separate species. There aren't any half elves, right? Within Mer and Men, appearances are varied enough that interracial relationships are believable.

[Milo v3]

Can Mer interbreed with Men in Elder Scrolls? I always just assumed that they were separate species. There aren't any half elves, right? Within Mer and Men, appearances are varied enough that interracial relationships are believable.
Breton are half-elves in Elder Scrolls. There is even a book in Oblivion that talks about the topic of cross-breeding which starts with saying that elves and men can breed.

[TripleD]

Can Mer interbreed with Men in Elder Scrolls? I always just assumed that they were separate species. There aren't any half elves, right? Within Mer and Men, appearances are varied enough that interracial relationships are believable.

Elder Scrolls nut here.

Men and mer can definitely 100% have children. It's a bit unclear whether "beast races" can also produce kids, but there are some hints that it may be possible.

Every living thing in the Arubis (the universe of The Elder Scrolls) is decended from the Et'Ada, the original ancestor spirits. Of the greatest of the Et'Ada, some were tricked into creating the world (the Aedra) and ended up "dying" in order to form the physical laws of the Mundus (mortal plane), others (the Daedra) decided they didn't want any part of it and instead became the rulers of Oblivion. Some lesser Et'Ada (called the Ehlnofey) who followed the Aedra became the sentient races of Nirn. So men and mer are really just different manifestations of the same spirits. Their immediate common ancestor makes them much more like modern races than separate species.

As for half elves, as "Notes on Racial Phylogeny" (an in game book that should be taken with a grain of salt due to bias) puts it:

"After much analysis of living specimens, the council long ago determined that all "races" of men and elves may mate with each other and produce fertile offspring"

One nation, High Rock, is decended from mixed human-Elven populations, hence the rarely used but still existent title "Man-Mer" to describe Bretons.

Heck, human-elf pairings are so common there are even stereotypes about them. When Tiber Septim (allegedly) gets Barenziah pregnant, he freaks a bit because he didn't think Dunmer could get pregnant at 18.

As for the earlier post asking why the populations aren't more mixed. The short answer is game mechanics; too much effort to make so many new models. The longer answer is that Tamriel in lore is much bigger and more complicated than in game. For example: the "Imperials" in game are the natives of Cyrodil. In lore, they are a mix of two different peoples: the Colovians and the Nibenay, with the Colovians being divided into different "estates" and the Nibenay being previously hundreds of different tribes.

[jqavins]

I went with having my divine empire take a hard line stance against interracial relationships. Fits right in with their proscriptivism. It's only in the few centuries since the fall of the empire that interracial relationships have been tolerable, and even that has to overcome a lot of social inertia, which is why, while it's getting more and more common, the majority of people still marry a member of their own race.
This has got me thinking, and I've come up with a solution for the world percolating in my head.

I'd already decided that elves and dwarves, and others yet to be decided, are "fey-touched." They had hominid pre-historic ancestors and were modified by magic that is associated with an element or a natural force. And that orcs, goblins, and maybe ogres (I keep going back and forth on ogres) are hominids, closer to homo sapiens than chimps, gorillas, and orangutans, almost but not quite as close as neanderthal.

The fey-touched can't interbreed with with any other race without magical intervention, and the offspring are basically infertile. (They might have offspring with even more esoteric magical intervention.) Also, social mixing of these races is rare due to geography; each is dominant in a different area but separated by difficult mountains. So half breeds are rare but possible, and virtually never propagate.

The hominids (including humans) are totally inter-fertile, but their offspring have less than a 50:50 chance of being fertile (without magical intervention.) And they are largely though not overwhelmingly separated by a variety of social factors; basically, they mostly don't get along and don't like to mix, though there are a decent number of exceptions. So, while half-breeds are not too uncommon, mutt lineage tends to die out.

I think that works. Comments? No, wait, that would be thread hijacking. Please leave comments here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?481829-Why-the-Sentient-Species-Don-t-Make-Mutts&p=20551541#post20551541).

[Bohandas]

And you know what . . .

That is completely irrelevant.
Because there IS a totally mundane way to prove that Pelor exists.
It is called "walking over to the bookshelf, opening a book, and reading it printed in the text."

"Pelor" is a literary construct in a fantasy RPG.
"Pelor" exists because the rule book says he does.
Period.
Whether or not any individual literary construct within the fantasy setting believes he exists is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact that "Pelor" does exist as part of that fantasy setting.
All the variant hypotheses will not change that simple fact.
All the fiddling around with philosophical gobbledygook and semi-scientific name dropping will not change that.
Only playing in a different setting, with different rules, can change it.
And doing that merely establishes a different set of default facts.

Even playing around in Planescape, where the concept of "belief makes reality" does not change that there are certain core facts that are. The Athar can run around all they like denying that powers exist, and yet there are clerics who cast spell. The Believers of the Source and Sign of One can run around all they like expecting to think a power into existence or ascend themselves, and yet there are still other powers granting spells.
Why?
Because that is what the sourcebooks say.

We are not talking about the real world.
We are talking about a fantasy RPG setting.
It has rules.
It has a canon of background material.
Those sources can be checked.

If you are completely unwilling to agree to suspend disbelief to accept the rules of a fantasy setting in an RPG, then the problem is not that "verisimilitude" is being broken, but that you don't have the imagination required to play an RPG in the first place, particularly not one with a fantasy setting. If you have issues with a game that features mythological deities or ghosts because "they aren't real", then you have too many issues to play a game featuring magic, dragons, and such-like.
Seriously.
You are in the wrong hobby. Save yourself the angst and find a different one, as you will never be satisfied with this one.

It's perhaps then worth noting that the official stats in Deities & Demigods differ significantly from the powers stated and implied by official fluff text

[Tiktakkat]

It's perhaps then worth noting that the official stats in Deities & Demigods differ significantly from the powers stated and implied by official fluff text

Orthodox faith versus Reformed faith

:smallbiggrin:

[kardillamo]

Not sure if this has been said yet, but my biggest issue is when there is a blatant disregard for physics. Even with magic and all that, Newtons laws at the very least have to be followed for me to take any magic setting seriously.