You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Right. We've more or less decided on alternate history as a basic setting and we need to move along with a bit more cohesive scenario suggestions. I know some of you have ideas that you've posted about already, but let's make a list of framed and defined suggestions. I have a couple of them in mind, but I need to get a bit of historical background before I post them.
The microphone is open, folks. Sell your ideas. 
I just want to know if we are going to use factions?
I had an idea of having a ruling class of people born with magical skills who deny anyone of being able to study it. Their philosphy is that the art of magic is for those that are deemed worthy to wield and hence are born with it. A group of people who have been studying it secretly and there fore have aquired certain skills through training and research rise up against this.
It's an alternative twist and mix to what happened somewhere after the middle-ages where people began to reject the absolute power impossed on them through the Catholic Church and resulted in various break-offs such as protestantism and with a bit of Enlighting (research and trainin vs dogmatism) mixed in with it.
The ruling class could be called the Magistratrum (Magi...you get it *winks*) and factions of the "rebels" could be named af their leaders (for example The Midragarians) or their newly invented name for their philosophy ( for example The Codexists, who mostly promote studying of books and reject the simple teachings through experience).
Classes that aren't magic wielders or just down right not interested in it can either join one of the factions or create their own anti-magic movement (like those who reject religion in all it forms on the basis that it can't be proven through science).
It's just a rough idea that might work with the DnD setting but feels somewhat close to the real world roughly around the middle-ages.
Last edited by Midragar (2006-11-12 22:04:41)
Concept description: The Saga of Vinland
This is a variation of the New World concept. It's about the Vikings, who around year 1000 visited the shores of North America. The campaign is about exploring the lush new world, building settlements and encountering the natives. (The real Vikings didn't really get a foothold in the new land, but who knows, maybe the stories and history books are wrong. Maybe they, in fact, had a settlement that lasted for decades forgotten in the mists of history.)
Pros of this concept:
1) Unlike the Great Voyages era and colonisation of Australia, the Viking technology was medieval (they didn't need a compass because they were foolhardy madmen - very often their ships got forever lost at the sea, but some got real lucky). Thus, no modification to real history would be needed simply because of the medieval models and items.
2) New characters would logically be settlers from Greenland, Norway etc. Characters whose players quit could simply be assumed to have been killed by wilderbeasts, Indians etc.
3) Ability to start small and expand the world as the story progresses.
4) Logical source of conflict between Vikings and Indians, as well as possible other Viking colonies.
Cons:
1) The traffic between the old and new world wasn't too common, so if new characters keep popping up one at a time, now and then, the "I came with the latest ship" explanation becomes stretchy.
2) The land contained nothing much more than woods and Indians (or "skrälings" as the Vikings called them), so it might be difficult to come up with interesting findings for the explorers.
3) Female characters. Even though Viking women were somewhat more free than those in Central Europe, warfare and adventuring as well as most of the exciting things, was considered men's job. But this is a problem with any alternate history setting.
4 -> N) You tell me.
4) Seems unlikely we'll be able to play races besides humans. (tiefling and elves fan)
Female characters will be a problem for any setting based on history. We will inevitably be sacrificing some degree of accuracy in order to make female PCs playable. I can live with this, and anyone who is enough of a historical purist for this to be a problem is never going to be happy with using the D&D set that is NWN2's default material anyway.
4) Seems unlikely we'll be able to play races besides humans. (tiefling and elves fan)
This would be a problem in most of alternate history settings. Bringing default D&D creatures into a world based on real history just seems wrong.
Female characters will be a problem for any setting based on history. We will inevitably be sacrificing some degree of accuracy in order to make female PCs playable. I can live with this, and anyone who is enough of a historical purist for this to be a problem is never going to be happy with using the D&D set that is NWN2's default material anyway.
True. Though I wonder if it could be worked in such a way that it doesn't get totally 20th century. And a feasible explanation (like some sort of bizarre female warrior cult or something less clichéd) is always a bonus.
Last edited by Kryigerof (2006-11-13 21:15:51)
I've always thought that, from a sociological point of view, the method used in the Empire of the Petal Throne setting was the best for emancipated female PCs. The women in Tsolyanu can, after they reach adulthood, declare themselves "Aridani" and become, legally, the equals of men. The drawback is that they have to BE the equals of men- they receive no consideration based on gender, and give up any ideas of settling down and having a family like good little clan-women. Aridani women are common, but not the norm by any means.
Whilst at first glance this represents a degree of emancipation that is out of character for a low-tech society which puts men in the superior role, it actually serves to ensure the long-term social stability of the society. Most women (90%+) live out their lives as second class citizens, and the exceptions- the brighter, motivated women who would be the leaders of any push to gain equality between sexes- can simply join the other side without any effort and gain all the respect and independence they want just for asking. By giving the potential rebels and nonconformists a clearly defined and socially acceptable role in society, their potential to cause trouble is much reduced.
Well, if we're going for a semi-medieval alternate history, we don't have to keep to the historic accuracy of women's roles at all, nor would we have to use some cliche or whatever to explain equality.
I've always thought that, from a sociological point of view, the method used in the Empire of the Petal Throne setting was the best for emancipated female PCs. The women in Tsolyanu can, after they reach adulthood, declare themselves "Aridani" and become, legally, the equals of men. The drawback is that they have to BE the equals of men- they receive no consideration based on gender, and give up any ideas of settling down and having a family like good little clan-women. Aridani women are common, but not the norm by any means.
Why don't we turn situations like this around for a change? 
Even in BG2 it was always 'females of the realms are just as good as the men! they can do anything men can do!' Like it's something that has to be emphasised, is special somehow.
And in scenarios like the above, it's that they declare themselves equal and can't have a family (while the men can have a family and still be equal) or if they don't, they're subservient and second class citizens. Why does equality have to come at some price that men don't have to pay for said equality?
Last edited by Norah (2006-11-13 22:17:45)
Well, we'd probably en up with way more than 10% of the female population being these Aridani, but that's feasible, I suppose. And to keep from messing up with known historical facts, it could be described as a custom used by some remote Greenlanders at some period of time when they needed more hunters, fishers and protectors than nurses and housewives. A fact simply missed by historians, as we don't know so much about the Greenlanders, I think. (Give it another name, of course.)
Well, we'd probably en up with way more than 10% of the female population being these Aridani, but that's feasible, I suppose. And to keep from messing up with known historical facts, it could be described as a custom used by some remote Greenlanders at some period of time when they needed more hunters, fishers and protectors than nurses and housewives. A fact simply missed by historians, as we don't know so much about the Greenlanders, I think. (Give it another name, of course.)
I'd say sc**w historic accuracy. Why rely on far-fetched explanations for equality, just to keep some pretense of preserving historic accuracy? Just
Last edited by Norah (2006-11-13 22:20:47)
And in scenarios like the above, it's that they declare themselves equal and can't have a family (while the men can have a family and still be equal) or if they don't, they're subservient and second class citizens. Why does equality have to come at some price that men don't have to pay for said equality?
Aridani women could marry and have children- in fact, being the legal equals of men, they could even marry multiple husbands, just as Tsolyani men could take more than one wife. It was simply the case that a lot of men would prefer a clan-women as wives. There was no legal restriction, simply the fact that a lot of Aridani would either end up settling down and giving up a lot of their freedoms anyway, or being a highly accomplished old maid. Of course, if the Aridani is willing to simply have the children and leave her clan-cousins to raise them, that would be possible.
I wasn't too clear on that point in the above post.
which leaves: why do women have to declare themselves so, when it comes as a natural thing for the men?
As I said, I'd like to see the whole idea/scenario reversed, for a change. It's alternate history.
Last edited by Norah (2006-11-13 22:30:39)
Well, if we're going for a semi-medieval alternate history, we don't have to keep to the historic accuracy of women's roles at all, nor would we have to use some cliche or whatever to explain equality.
True, we don't have to do anything, but I'd like to. The reason is not so much me being a male chauvinist pig, as it's my personal aestetic opinion that this kind of alternate history scenarios should be close to the real history. If not, then why not just make it fantasy to begin with?
Inequality of all kinds (male/female, lord/peasant, roman/barbarian) is such an integral part of our history that changing it in the scope of the entire Europe, for instance, would radically reduce the feel of authenticity we're supposed to be seeking. And to be consistent with it, you'd have to make many changes - such as rename half of the historical rulers to be female.
I've always thought that, from a sociological point of view, the method used in the Empire of the Petal Throne setting was the best for emancipated female PCs. The women in Tsolyanu can, after they reach adulthood, declare themselves "Aridani" and become, legally, the equals of men. The drawback is that they have to BE the equals of men- they receive no consideration based on gender, and give up any ideas of settling down and having a family like good little clan-women. Aridani women are common, but not the norm by any means.
Why don't we turn situations like this around for a change?
Let's do that. Create a matriarch fantasy society (or find a real historical one), and if you manage to make it interesting I'll be happy to play a man in it. I even promise not to become a male rights activist (would that be a "masculist"?). 
Even in BG2 it was always 'females of the realms are just as good as the men! they can do anything men can do!' Like it's something that has to be emphasised, is special somehow.
And in scenarios like the above, it's that they declare themselves equal and can't have a family (while the men can have a family and still be equal) or if they don't, they're subservient and second class citizens. Why does equality have to come at some price that men don't have to pay for said equality?
No one is claiming the Aridani system would be fair somehow, only that it's interesting and fits into traditional medieval society without too drastic changes in attitudes. Though I'm wondering, are those women allowed to form a family with another woman, and, say, adopt kids? It'd make sense if she were truly considered male for all intents and purposes.
EDIT: Seems my question was already answered to some extent.
Last edited by Kryigerof (2006-11-13 22:56:44)
Alternate history could have developed very different from our own. There could be lost of explanations for equality of the sexes besides amazon colonies or the Aridani system.
We can keep it close to our own history, yet have them develop a semi-equality like we have here now, much earlier (or even better, a far more real equality).
Playing a medieval alt-history doesn't mean there has to be gender inequality, especially when it would ruin the game for a large part of the group. The concept is just f-ing stupid when you try to put it into a multiplayer game, and we can justify gender equality any number of ways with the story. Instead of discussing it into oblivion, I think we need to get back to what the build team really needs and that's setting. If you do want to keep discussing it though, you could create a new thread, but that's really not what this one was supposed to be about, and we've wound up really far off-topic.
Well, to have a society where the sexes are treated as equal, you'd have to alter a few of the basics of how a society functions. Let's look at the reasons why male-dominated societies have dominated the real world. The differences between men and women are, at the most basic level, that men are physiaclly stronger and women bear the children. This leads to men dominating society because:-
Brute Force. A lot of interaction, both on a personal and a political level, can be settled by resorting to violence or threatening to do so, especially in a less complex society. Men, being stronger, have the advantage when this happens. Forget Xena fantasies about sword-swinging warrior women, which are as likely as real world magic. Men have more weight, reach and upper body strength and anyone who doesn't think that's a deciding factor has never been in a real fight.
High Mortality. Until good medicine is developed, the majority of women have to stay preggnant most of their lives just to keep the population growth in posistive figures. Plus, until the development of effective contraception, women have to completely abstain from sex or start planning for a family.
Division of labour. Men go out to work and women stay at home- this has been the norm across the whole world up until the last few decades, and it didn't happen by accident. Men, being stronger, are more effective at heavy labour. By the time a society gets to the point where some types of work don't involve brute strength, the pattern has already been set. And housekeeping is a full time job prior to the invention of domestic appliances- somebody has to spend all day cooking, cleaning and looking after the kids, and for the previously mentioned reason, the men are employed elsewhere.
In order for a society to have both equality of the sexes and long-term social stability, it must have access to two things. A way of rendering the difference in physical strength meaningless, and reliable medicine which includes contraception. In the real world, science provided these things. In this alternative world, some other method must be found- possibly magic, though several have said they'd prefer this to be rarer than in the default D&D settings.
And on the Matriarchy point Norah seems to be arguing for... Firstly, this thread assumes the Alternate History setting that many have expressed an interest in, which rules out matriarchy- this has, as far as we can tell, never existed in the real world. There are some who argue otherwise, but in every case their arguments seem to me to be a collection of circumstantial evidence strung together with a passionately argued case based more on their personal convictions than any facts. Secondly, as you may gather from this post, I like to have solid reasons why societies are the way they are. Come up with a solid reason why a society would become a matriarchy, and I'll consider that background. But any matriarchal settings I've come across in books fail to achieve this.
Well, that took so long to write that Sandling got his "let's drop the subject" post in while I was typing. Sorry about that... Perhaps a different thread if people want to discuss it further?
Last edited by Tantavalist (2006-11-14 01:44:06)
It's just that this thread was intended for organized setting submissions, not more discussion about the PW's minutiae.
Alternative history is in my experience (mostly from Turtledove-books) similar to our history, society and technology but on many peculiar or important points totaly different.
Equality of women doesn't have to be debated endlessly, for we know there is a possibility that in our created world men and woman don't differentiate much in strength, intellect or interest. It just happens that women are the one bringing children into the world and men have to make sure that during these moment of vulnerability (to my knowledge women who are into their 9th month aren't as agile as they were 9 months before) they are protected properly.
On the point of saying if you do magic we might aswell do fantasy. Just read "Toxic Spell Dump" of Harry Turtledove. This books describes a world were technology never came along and everything is ran through some form of magic (from phones to coffee-machines). Yet nothing in the whole story feels asif yer reading fantasy.
Although fantasy and alernative history do like to brush shoulders, but you can only speak of AH if you have differences but still plenty of exact similarities. Fantasy usually creates complete realities from scratch.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.