| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, there were examples before, just like there were examples of Elves and Dwarves before, but he made both much more the focus of the fantasy genre than they had been. I don't think you can point at one as a bad thing without accepting the other.
Two claims were made:
(1) Tolkien was the first to put Elves, Dwarves, Humans, etc. together. That was refuted by referencing Norse mythology, which already included all of those elements together.(2) You claimed that Tolkien "pretty much brought in nonhuman protagonists." That's easily refuted by referencing Orion, Chuchulainn, early Comics, et al.. Even if we specifically look at nonhuman protagonists in an "adventuring party" format, Tolkien-as-originator is easily refuted by referencing Oz, Doc Smith, ERB, etc.
Your new claim, that JRRT made them "more the focus of fantasy," seems a bit too vague to address, unless it can be expanded upon. (Also note that "good" and "bad" are subjective value judgments that I'm not discussing here. I'm trying to look at factual claims, and whether they're supported by evidence.)
No, seriously, I read the "30 Int = genius" thing somewhere. Maybe it was a 3.5 splatbook? The DMG? It could have also been "30 Int = superhuman".Mayhaps it was from D&D (Deities and Demigods) where they discuss the stats with 30 being more in the line of deific stats?
Interestingly enough, I believe old time AD&D had IQ with each point = 10 pts.
So a 3 INT = 30 IQ and a 16 INT would = 160 IQ.
ON a similar note I think they had it where your STR stat was related to how much you could military press above your head..where a 10 STR = 100 lbs military press and 15 STR would = 150 lbs military press. This of course went out of wack onto a different scale once you hit percentile STR...but unique idea.
Yeah, it did. 18 in AD&D was a 180 IQ or basically the smartest the world has ever seen. I forgot about age boosts in PF. The smartest possible level 5 human in pathfinder is 24 without magic. Which makes it weird to compare with IQ because IQ is supposed to remain stable with age.
Either way, a 20 stat puts you among the top 1% of people who have ever lived. You are the exception, not the rule.
IQ is supposed to remain stable with age.
no it isn't it specifically is in relation to your age. it's based upon answering questions compared to your age group.
IQ is supposed to remain stable with age.no it isn't it specifically is in relation to your age. it's based upon answering questions compared to your age group.
Exactly. So the average 10 year old has an IQ of 100. The average 50 year old still has an IQ of 100. Assuming you haven't changed massively relative to the other people around you your IQ should remain stable as you age.
Exactly. So the average 10 year old has an IQ of 100. The average 50 year old still has an IQ of 100. Assuming you haven't changed massively relative to the other people around you your IQ should remain stable as you age.IQ is supposed to remain stable with age.no it isn't it specifically is in relation to your age. it's based upon answering questions compared to your age group.
hm I guess I see your point. which shows the fundamental difference between int scores and IQ, IQ is relative while int is simply a flat acquired amount.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, there were examples before, just like there were examples of Elves and Dwarves before, but he made both much more the focus of the fantasy genre than they had been. I don't think you can point at one as a bad thing without accepting the other.
Two claims were made:
(1) Tolkien was the first to put Elves, Dwarves, Humans, etc. together. That was refuted by referencing Norse mythology, which already included all of those elements together.(2) You claimed that Tolkien "pretty much brought in nonhuman protagonists." That's easily refuted by referencing Orion, Chuchulainn, early Comics, et al.. Even if we specifically look at nonhuman protagonists in an "adventuring party" format, Tolkien-as-originator is easily refuted by referencing Oz, Doc Smith, ERB, etc.
Your new claim, that JRRT made them "more the focus of fantasy," seems a bit too vague to address, unless it can be expanded upon. (Also note that "good" and "bad" are subjective value judgments that I'm not discussing here. I'm trying to look at factual claims, and whether they're supported by evidence.)
If I were to try and sum up what exactly Tolkein contributed to the fantasy genre, it would be that while he wasn't the first to write about Dwarves, Elves, and such, he was the guy who really codified what became the iconic versions of them. Especially for relative outsiders to the fantasy genre.
Pre-Tolkein Elves tended to have a lot more variation in appearance, often being depicted as three feet tall or even smaller. Not to mention things having classic fae traits such as an aversion to cold iron and never speaking a direct lie.
I'm pretty sure the Brits used them as well. After all, like most Americans, they had rejected the Catholic Church centuries before when King Henry VIII had made his famous act of separation... so he could put aside his first wife in his search for an heir. So I really doubt the Pope's edict had any effect. (Trivia fact: the reigning British monarch is also the Head of the Church of England, or the Anglican Church as it's known now.)Eh, no, Human Int stops around the 24 area, and that's for maxed out geniuses with a Nat 20 who have reached level 4 with an age bonus of +3.
That's still ungodly smart compared to normal folks. Consider they can answer questions about any field of endeavor equal to a 3rd level expert with 12 Int and full ranks + class skill bonuses.
That's unreal.
==========
Rifling was invented in the 1600's. It was outlawed by the Church. There was a famous competition where lead bullets were used by the rifle, and compared to sacred, blessed, cross-carved bullets from the same weapon. Naturally, the ungouged, heavier bullets were more accurate, and on that basis, rifles were declared a weapon of the devil and were suppressed for over 100 years. Same thing as xbows...a common weapon with great power and aim couldn't be trusted in the hands of a common man.Of course, a large number of Americans didn't give crap about the Catholic Church's rulings, and rifles proliferated here. They were immensely useful against the British during the Rebellion, as they outranged the British and Hessian muskets and were far more accurate.
==Aelryinth
Nope.
British used Muskets.
Brown Bess Musket[edit]
The Brown Bess musket was the gun used by the British military from 1722 until about 1838. It was used throughout the Revolutionary War and the Napoleonic Wars. It was capable of firing approximately three to four shots per minute. The Brown Bess Musket was a flint-lock musket, meaning it would use flint in order to spark the gunpowder loaded into the gun to eventually cause the metal ball/bullet to leave the barrel. The Musket weighed in at about 10.5 pounds with a total length of 43.31 inches.[8] Its accurate range was approximately 50 yards, with the total range being approximately 175 yards.[8] The Brown Bess Musket was considerably less accurate than the Ferguson Rifle, and the Pattern 1776 rifle, but was more widely used due to its cheaper and more readily available parts.[8]
Americans used Rifles because german gunsmiths settled in Pennsylvania, and were largely Protestant. The Anglican Church was basically the Catholic Church with a different head, and kept many of the same by-laws in place, and customs weren't all that different.
So, Americans opened up the Squirrel guns and really gave 'em, well...
===Aelryinth
:) JH FTW!
==Aelryinth
I used to know a guy who would sometimes complain when even fairly reasonable looking armor and costumes in a fantasy movie didn't match any historical examples from the real world. I thought that was going too far though I can sympathize a bit when people aren't satisfied with artwork which features extremely impractical looking armor and weapons. Of course other people really like such stuff and might find criticisms of it oppressive.
I'd imagine that some DMs might be concerned that a player (perhaps me) might want to play a certain character concept in a way that some folks would find silly, offensive, or at least disruptive. I guess Neal's article implies that it would be OK for the DM to ban the character concept with a statement like, "That character concept doesn't fit the setting and adventure I have planned. I accept responsibility for denying you the ability to play that concept. It is my decision just like making Game of Thrones a rape-a-thon is George Martin's. In fact, you can play the PC if you want, but he'll be raped to death by monkey demons." (maybe leaving out the part about the monkey demons) so long as the DM didn't resort to "blaming history" by saying something more like, "There weren't any African-American pimps in medieval Europe, and they didn't wear Stetson hats or carry Colt 45's"
Referencing some source outside of your own personal preferences can be a way to lend an air of authority to your statements while simultaneously absolving yourself of blame. Sometimes people find, "It isn't my fault that you can't play Mr. Furikake the Ninja chef, craft magic musubi, and have a racoon dog familiar who beats people to death with his giant scrotum. There simply wasn't anybody like that in medieval Europe." easier than, "Dude, your character concepts are always silly and offensive. Why don't you chill out and just make a Fighter named Vern who stands around being Fascinated all night?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tolkien POPULARIZED fantasy. Before him, it was a very niche area with niche authors unknown to the general public.
He exploded it into the mainstream, and so his contribution to the standard was to take over and become the standard in many people's minds.
That's it. That's all.
I personally prefer John Carter and Conan, but hey! I love Anime, too.
==Aelryinth
Some of my PCs who rely on consumable items are really glad that J.K. Rowling came up with magic wands. As most gamers know, Gary Gygax popularized Dwarves and Elves shortly after he invented Halflings, fried mozzarella sticks, and the chicken nugget. I seem to recall he put Tolkien's works in the second tier of the list of literature recommended to inspire AD&D DMs though, so this Tolkien fellow obviously must have been pretty cool too.
If you don't think he's responsible for modern Fantasy's use of Elves and Dwarves, then it makes sense to not think he's responsible for the nonhuman protagonists. But it's hard for me to see how it makes sense that he shaped one but not the other.
What I'll very readily concede is that Tolkien, for whatever reason, inspired a lot more intense fan-worship -- and certainly a longer-lived fanbase -- than any of his predecessors. When the "John Carter" movie came out, some people were pretty excited, but there was none of the screaming and foaming at the mouth when the story was slightly altered or one character removed, for example. And I daresay very, very few people would have sat through three John Carter movies (say, one for each of A Princess of Mars, Gods of Mars, and Warlord of Mars) that were each 3 hours long! But people did exactly that for Peter Jackson's LotR movies.
This fact suggests to me that the reason we have so many games that slavishly adhere to human/dwarf/elf/hobbit parties (and not human/dragon/alien parties, a la "Doc" Smith) is not Tolkien's originality, but rather his popularity. The only thing groundbreaking about his work was the extent to which people came to idolize him (I obviously don't share this feeling, but I equally obviously can't help but be cognizant of it). His success in that regard was so great that it clearly inspired generations of copycats, both novelists (*cough* Terry Brooks *cough*), and in popular RPGs.
The only thing groundbreaking about his work was the extent to which people came to idolize him (I obviously don't share this feeling, but I equally obviously can't help but be cognizant of it). His success in that regard was so great that it clearly inspired generations of copycats, both novelists (*cough* Terry Brooks *cough*), and in popular RPGs.
I would say that the world building he did for LotR was rather ground breaking. He invented fictional languages, had a creation story roughed out, lots of legends roughed out.
On the topic of the original blog, I really think more consideration was required.
In the case of technology, history shows how various technologies were developed. A fictional world that has guns but no cannons, bombards, petards, etc. really isn't doing a very good job of world building. You also want better smithing processes or materials.
In the case of Golarion, you've got exotic materials (adamantine, mithral) along with technological items from Numeria that could be studied. You've got the bombards and such in Ultimate Combat, but aren't seeing the move away from castles that you should see. Once cannons come in, you want different defenses.
Looking at history can also help you do better world building in other ways. Ancient Greece had messenger birds. The pony express and telegraph caused large shifts in how governments ruled. Travel time and communication time dictated how soon others could react to something that happened. If fantasy is going to have scrying via crystal ball or spells, you may want to build a communication systems based on such methods.
History should be used as a guide when building a fantasy world.
isn't adamantine from Numeria?
Adamantine is a star metal, its from meteors.
Numeria is one of the places you can find it, and forge it.
==Aelryinth
On the topic of the original blog, I really think more consideration was required.
In the case of technology, history shows how various technologies were developed. A fictional world that has guns but no cannons, bombards, petards, etc. really isn't doing a very good job of world building. You also want better smithing processes or materials.
In the case of Golarion, you've got exotic materials (adamantine, mithral) along with technological items from Numeria that could be studied. You've got the bombards and such in Ultimate Combat, but aren't seeing the move away from castles that you should see. Once cannons come in, you want different defenses.
Looking at history can also help you do better world building in other ways. Ancient Greece had messenger birds. The pony express and telegraph caused large shifts in how governments ruled. Travel time and communication time dictated how soon others could react to something that happened. If fantasy is going to have scrying via crystal ball or spells, you may want to build a communication systems based on such methods.
History should be used as a guide when building a fantasy world.
On the flip side, magic can easily counteract some of that, so all of that sort of history should be taken with a grain of salt.
Yes, cannons changed the way you built defensive structures. It didn't replace them outright for a very long time; into the 1800s
More like late XVI/early XVII century. Thirty Year war was all about artillery, muskets, and fortifications suitable to that kind of warfare. Of course a lot of older fortifications were still standing at that time, suffering varying degree of damage, but there was a lot rebuilding at that time, and lots of military engineering development. Still, it took over 200 years of development with canons being quite popular for the second century of that development. Where cannons were less readily available (or at least wars involving them were rare) the higher castle with straight walls kept much longer (example would be Tokugawa Japan).
Cannons are less popular in Golarion because you need a whole troop of people to operate one, but you only need one person to cast Fireball.
Bolding mine.More like late XVI/early XVII century. Thirty Year war was all about artillery, muskets, and fortifications suitable to that kind of warfare. Of course a lot of older fortifications were still standing at that time, suffering varying degree of damage, but there was a lot rebuilding at that time, and lots of military engineering development.On the flip side, magic can easily counteract some of that, so all of that sort of history should be taken with a grain of salt.
Yes, cannons changed the way you built defensive structures. It didn't replace them outright for a very long time; into the 1800s
The point is, it wasn't immediate change, and took about 200 years of proliferation.
On Golarion such weapons are much less available. The primary (and possibly the sole source) are Gunworks in Alkenstar existing for 95 years now, and with deliberately limited production and they keep most of weapons for themselves. Technology that isn't widely available has much less influence over development of other technologies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fortifications against magic should have developed hand in hand with magic. That's natural.
It boggles the mind that magic that prevents phasing, flying, dimensional travel, earthgliding, shapechanging, divination and the like is harder to use then magic that allows such things to happen.
==Aelryinth
On the flip side, magic can easily counteract some of that, so all of that sort of history should be taken with a grain of salt.
Some of it changes, so all of it should be taken with a grain of salt?
I fully agree that magic can (and really should) change things. The thing is quite often it doesn't change things in a logical fashion.
Yes, cannons changed the way you built defensive structures. It didn't replace them outright for a very long time; into the 1800s, but honestly? Even if I'm running a Pathfinder game with the sort of tech that renders big, heavy walls obsolete, I might still want them, because I want to be able to break a Wizard's Line of Effect.
In Golarion this is very true, since casters who can use (relatively) long-range evocation magic are probably more common than cannons.
Costs can also do that. The scrying-based communications system is cool. But I wouldn't expect it to be ubiquitous, because it's either going to have drawbacks in the form of daily limits or it's going to be very expensive.
History can inform...
In Golarion, there should be apprentice mages using Floating Disc and/or Levitate to help move artillery. A Floating Disc spell would be an excellent way to place a petard, then use Spark to light it before running.
Spark should have a higher level version that ignites flammable items within an area. Give it long range and suddenly those barrels of gunpowder are extremely dangerous to transport. On the other hand, it seems that as long as someone is carrying that gunpowder or alchemist fire there is no danger of ignition -- even by fireball.
History shows that people adapt to new circumstances. That doesn't appear to happen on Golarion.
Cannons are less popular in Golarion because you need a whole troop of people to operate one, but you only need one person to cast Fireball.
yeah but you're paying that troop of people soldiers wage, allowing many more cannonballs per round due to higher numbers.
Well my Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) was designed to emphasize authenticity of culture and technology based on feudal Japan, but its not feudal Japan - so there's no real claim of historical accuracy, as Kaidan never existed in history. The setting generally sits between 1185 and 1600 in comparitive history of Japan - the end of the Genpei War (April 1185) was the start of the Minomoto Shogunate up to the start of the Tokugawa Shogunate, which is preceded by the Sengoku Period (century of war).
Kaidan actually borrows from literal Japanese history, incorporating the events of the last battle of the Genpei War 1180-1185. The losers in the Genpei War was the Taira clan who supported a different emperor than the Minomoto. In the last battle of Dan-no-ura, the entire imperial house of Taira committed suicide by jumping into the sea.
Kaidan picks up following that leap to death - the entire imperial house is dead, but a cursed wish was uttered upon the mass suicide, and Emma-O, the lord of Jigoku (hell) grants the wish. The imperial house gets rescued out of the water, but they are all undead and now rule the empire and shogunate of Kaidan, and have done so for 714 years.
Because the setting fits up to 1600, this means that like Japan, Europeans (or someone similar) brought arquebus guns and gunpowder to Kaidan, and arquebus technology exists there, but also like Japan, Kaidan will never advance past the arquebus stage. Kaidan forcibly stopped the advancement of culture and technology to remain as status quo.
Kaidan is a police state, with metsuki inquisitors enforcing the law with bands of samurai and onmyoji wizards to maintain order. The creation of magic items, as well as the practice of magic outside the Ministry of Onmyodo is against the law. While there are witches and sorcerers in Kaidan, they practice illegally and will be executed if caught by the imperial authorities.
Kaidan is not Golarian, nor like any Japan analog previously created.
Well my Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) was designed to emphasize authenticity of culture and technology based on feudal Japan, but its not feudal Japan - so there's no real claim of historical accuracy, as Kaidan never existed in history. The setting generally sits between 1185 and 1600 in comparitive history of Japan - the end of the Genpei War (April 1185) was the start of the Minomoto Shogunate up to the start of the Tokugawa Shogunate, which is preceded by the Sengoku Period (century of war).
Kaidan actually borrows from literal Japanese history, incorporating the events of the last battle of the Genpei War 1180-1185. The losers in the Genpei War was the Taira clan who supported a different emperor than the Minomoto. In the last battle of Dan-no-ura, the entire imperial house of Taira committed suicide by jumping into the sea.
Kaidan picks up following that leap to death - the entire imperial house is dead, but a cursed wish was uttered upon the mass suicide, and Emma-O, the lord of Jigoku (hell) grants the wish. The imperial house gets rescued out of the water, but they are all undead and now rule the empire and shogunate of Kaidan, and have done so for 714 years.
Because the setting fits up to 1600, this means that like Japan, Europeans (or someone similar) brought arquebus guns and gunpowder to Kaidan, and arquebus technology exists there, but also like Japan, Kaidan will never advance past the arquebus stage. Kaidan forcibly stopped the advancement of culture and technology to remain as status quo.
Kaidan is a police state, with metsuki inquisitors enforcing the law with bands of samurai and onmyoji wizards to maintain order. The creation of magic items, as well as the practice of magic outside the Ministry of Onmyodo is against the law. While there are witches and sorcerers in Kaidan, they practice illegally and will be executed if caught by the imperial authorities.
Kaidan is not Golarian, nor like any Japan analog previously created.
You've just reminded me of the first time I saw The Last Samurai, when Tom Cruise delivered the line, "You have no idea what their weapons can do!" That movie purported to be historical, but I was all, "Actually, in that era, I'm pretty sure the Japanese were very familiar with the various uses of gunpowder."
Historical accuracy vs fantasy plausibility is always an interesting proposition, but here in the land of RPGs, I think we should put more value on plausibility than accuracy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Last Samurai is based on an actual event - a shogunate rebellion against the emperor that allowed American ships to open the gates of Japan. This occurred in the 1870's, and the rebellious forces did rely on samurai technology, rather than rifles. However no Americans were injured or involved in that short lived rebellion, thus no Tom Cruise figure was involved.
Prior to the Portuguese bringing arquebus technology and gunpowder to Japan in the mid 1500's, Japan did know and possess gunpowder, but for the sole purpose of noise-making fireworks. Japan did not weaponize gunpowder until the Portuguese showed them how. China had been using gunpowder as weapons for much longer, but did not share that technology with Japan.
At the start of the Tokugawa Era (1600), Tokugawa Ieyasu ordered the borders of Japan to be closed, which it remained closed until Perry's Black Ships arrival in 1868. The Japanese essentially halted all technology and cultural advancement in an attempt to freeze the status quo. So arquebus technology was still in use in 1868. Until America brought modern weapons like rifles and cannons, Japan never had it available. Of course the events of the cinematic rebellion was just after Japan had access to rifles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dimensional hijinks are available as early as level 1 with the conjuror school benefit.
Blink comes online at level 3.
Dimension Door at level 7. Passwall at 4 or 5 (going off memory). etherealness and wraithform whenever.
There's no fortification that can hold against that kind of instant infiltration that bypasses defenses. Using one scroll of teleport to get you and your 3 comrades to the position to take the enemy gates and explode open static defenses is waaay cheaper then having to siege the place, its the heart of special operations. You'd have to be dirt stupid NOT to take advantage of it.
yes, a castle is better then pitching a tent in a field.
No, it won't protect at all against aerial or magical assault. Your best option for that is inside a mountain, and that still won't protect against dimensional hijinks or ethereal/incorporeality. If you can't make defenses against this kind of stuff, then your only defense is mobility and illusion...not letting the enemy find you, and when they do, not letting them know what they are dealing with.
which is an impossible way to develop a civilization.
==Aelryinth
|
Historical accuracy is all well and good but if it comes near my pathfinder game it'll meet my wizards fireball. If I want to play larger than life magic that can transform, teleport and create out of my imagination I'll play pathfinder. If I want a historically accurate game I"ll hunt down an RPG that doesn't have magic.
I have to admit its a bit of a shame there was no Tom Cruise style character in the real events. Be interesting to see how much effect having a westerner praising Japanese culture would have had even on a domestic level of politics rather than the whole "we are better than you in every way, give us your goods" attitude usually prevalent. Frankly I'd love to find a proper analysis of the effects of magic on real world history but I doubt I'd want to play in that world.
Prominent figures who died from battle injuries who were saved, massive curses affecting the develop of nations, boons given by elves (of the fae kind not the pointy eared tokien kind) that can be used 3 times by a royal family, scrying magic and its counter. Armies of men meet as angels and demons clash overhead summoned by the casters of each side. Witch trials waiting for the catholic mage/priests and their holy magic to come and truly assess if someone has magic or is just odd. Give me pathfinder level magic with say a shadowrun twist (spellcasting, summoning and ritual magic for the bigger effects) and an alternate dimension to play with and find out how having magic affects things on a global scale.
It is a bit of a shame that defensive magics are so hard to use in Golarion. I remember in the feist magician saga magic was put as "Magician A casts spell, magician B counters it then magician A counters the counter and so on." Basically two mage's cancel each other out but a mage without an opponent devestates an army.
Gunpowder changes things.
Not as much as (actual effective) magic. Unless it was limited to an extremely small group of people, magic would replace manual labour (particularly construction, excavation and crafting), irrigation, transportation, energy generation, medicine, and use of mortals in warfare (to name but a few).
Guns or no, the technology of the world would stagnate because it, being bound by the laws of physics, could never do what magic can.
Gunpowder changes things.Not as much as (actual effective) magic. Unless it was limited to an extremely small group of people, magic would replace manual labour (particularly construction, excavation and crafting), irrigation, transportation, energy generation, medicine, and use of mortals in warfare (to name but a few).
Guns or no, the technology of the world would stagnate because it, being bound by the laws of physics, could never do what magic can.
Unless you go full Arcanum of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I posit a few new fallacies to walk hand-in-hand with this one?
Namely the "Rules Support Fallacy", wherein if there is a codified rule for something, it must therefore be allowed in any game.
Or the "Fantastical Realm Fallacy", which says that because this is a fantasy game, any off-the-wall nonsense you like is okay because dragons.
How about the " You got chocolate in my peanut butter Fallacy" where we convince ourselves that everything we add must just make things better.
Or maybe none of these, including the OP are actual fallacies... Just because you don't like someone's reasons doesn't make it fallacious.
Can I posit a few new fallacies to walk hand-in-hand with this one?
Namely the "Rules Support Fallacy", wherein if there is a codified rule for something, it must therefore be allowed in any game.
Or the "Fantastical Realm Fallacy", which says that because this is a fantasy game, any off-the-wall nonsense you like is okay because dragons.
How about the " You got chocolate in my peanut butter Fallacy" where we convince ourselves that everything we add must just make things better.
Or maybe none of these, including the OP are actual fallacies... Just because you don't like someone's reasons doesn't make it fallacious.
Fallacy:
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.
"historical accuracy" argument when discussing a fictional world without proving that the circumstances regarding the discussed event, custom, technology, plot, or story is sufficiently analogous to historical event is a misleading or unsound argument thus qualifying it as fallacy.
Additionally, some of the "historical accuracy" arguments used are not historical facts but mistaken beliefs of the person using them about history.
Example:
There is an often repeated argument that one can't play black character in fantasy game because there were no non-Europeans in Medieval Europe. This is fallacy in two aspects:
1) if the game is not set in actual Medieval Europe then the argument is irrelevant to the setting. Clearly unsound argument.
2) historically a very small number of dark skinned people had visited Europe at Medieval times, making that argument factually incorrect, and thus being fallacy according to first definition - the speaker's mistaken belief based on unsound reasoning of "no significant populace of certain type present in a specific area equates complete lack of individuals of the specific type in a specific area".
Unless you go full Arcanum of course.Gunpowder changes things.Not as much as (actual effective) magic. Unless it was limited to an extremely small group of people, magic would replace manual labour (particularly construction, excavation and crafting), irrigation, transportation, energy generation, medicine, and use of mortals in warfare (to name but a few).
Guns or no, the technology of the world would stagnate because it, being bound by the laws of physics, could never do what magic can.
In many settings Magic is restricted to a small number of people.
In some settings, you have mages trying to hold back technology because anyone can use that. It is seen as a threat to the magicians power and the mages have formed a secret society to deal with the threat.
In most settings, the people who create the settings never deal with it in any way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, you've successfully proven that "no blacks in medieval Europe" is a fallacious argument. Shall I point out the fallacy in making that the basis of "All historical accuracy claims are a fallacy" arguments?
"Historical Accuracy" might be better termed "Setting Integrity". But, that still doesn't make it a fallacy in and of itself.
Gunpowder changes things.Not as much as (actual effective) magic. Unless it was limited to an extremely small group of people, magic would replace manual labour (particularly construction, excavation and crafting), irrigation, transportation, energy generation, medicine, and use of mortals in warfare (to name but a few).
Guns or no, the technology of the world would stagnate because it, being bound by the laws of physics, could never do what magic can.
or you could you know... just considered magic part of that culture/universes technology. like today's magnets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I posit a few new fallacies to walk hand-in-hand with this one?
Namely the "Rules Support Fallacy", wherein if there is a codified rule for something, it must therefore be allowed in any game.
Or the "Fantastical Realm Fallacy", which says that because this is a fantasy game, any off-the-wall nonsense you like is okay because dragons.
How about the " You got chocolate in my peanut butter Fallacy" where we convince ourselves that everything we add must just make things better.
Or maybe none of these, including the OP are actual fallacies... Just because you don't like someone's reasons doesn't make it fallacious.
Fallacy:
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.
"historical accuracy" argument when discussing a fictional world without proving that the circumstances regarding the discussed event, custom, technology, plot, or story is sufficiently analogous to historical event is a misleading or unsound argument thus qualifying it as fallacy.
Additionally, some of the "historical accuracy" arguments used are not historical facts but mistaken beliefs of the person using them about history.
Example:
There is an often repeated argument that one can't play black character in fantasy game because there were no non-Europeans in Medieval Europe. This is fallacy in two aspects:
1) if the game is not set in actual Medieval Europe then the argument is irrelevant to the setting. Clearly unsound argument.2) historically a very small number of dark skinned people had visited Europe at Medieval times, making that argument factually incorrect, and thus being fallacy according to first definition - the speaker's mistaken belief based on unsound reasoning of "no significant populace of certain type present in a specific area equates complete lack of individuals of the specific type in a specific area".
This. Were most people in Renaissance Europe white? Yes. Were there people of African descent there? Yes. And some of them were generals, nobles, etc.
Same thing goes for gender roles. Women in military/government leadership roles were less common, but they were there, and in large enough numbers that many of their contemporaries who were writing about them didn't consider it extraordinary. And if you get outside the nobility, which tended to have more constrained gender roles, women were doing most of the same things men did, largely because their families couldn't afford for them not to.
Actual history was a lot more diverse than most screen or page portrayals of it.
*snip*
I'm still failing to equate this with banning gunslingers, non-core races (by which, of course, I mean things like kitsune, not human ethnicities), or naginatas.
...snip...
And historians are constantly rewriting history, so not only do we know that we mostly still don't know, but for much of it, we will never know.
*snip*I'm still failing to equate this with banning gunslingers, non-core races (by which, of course, I mean things like kitsune, not human ethnicities), or naginatas.
I'm unclear as to your point. The "historical accuracy" argument gets used to limit many things in-game. I was addressing one vector of things that get limited.
Can I posit a few new fallacies to walk hand-in-hand with this one?
Namely the "Rules Support Fallacy", wherein if there is a codified rule for something, it must therefore be allowed in any game.
Or the "Fantastical Realm Fallacy", which says that because this is a fantasy game, any off-the-wall nonsense you like is okay because dragons.
How about the "You got chocolate in my peanut butter Fallacy" where we convince ourselves that everything we add must just make things better.
Or maybe none of these, including the OP are actual fallacies... Just because you don't like someone's reasons doesn't make it fallacious.
This was my only point.
Why this has been quoted twice as the counterpoint to allowing black or female characters is quite beyond me...
... except that these arguments are frequently and unfairly lumped together.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, that makes sense.
Frankly, it's all kind of absurd to me. Bring in history where it enhances, where it makes things more colorful, more exciting, more fun, and leave it out where it makes the story any less of those things.
It's a fantasy world. It has a middling amount to do with imagined history, but very little to do with actual history, so you absolutely should pick and choose the historical elements you like for your game and dump the rest.
What you shouldn't do is try to draft history as your ally in setting up your game in an exclusionary or punitive form (unless, of course, everyone who's playing wants that form), because at that point you're both unfun and most likely inaccurate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, you've successfully proven that "no blacks in medieval Europe" is a fallacious argument. Shall I point out the fallacy in making that the basis of "All historical accuracy claims are a fallacy" arguments?
When you have a fantasy setting that does not share Earth's history, then any "historical accuracy" claim without sufficiently proving that the context is analogous enough is invalid because they do not share "history" or more widely context.
I think that false analogy would be the closest of the common informal fallacies.
"Historical Accuracy" might be better termed "Setting Integrity".
No it does not, because those are two separate arguments. "Setting integrity" is a matter of internal consistency of elements of the setting. "Historical accuracy" is using arguments from one setting (our own) in different setting with its own history and different relations between the elements building that setting.