When creating cultures and/or belief systems for fantasy campaign settings, is it better to base each one on a single example from history/mythology, or create new ones by merging several together?

Although the latter would result in a more original background, I'm concerned about a possible lack of consistency and the amount of additional work involved.

If it makes any difference, there are likely to be at least 3 different races/cultures in the setting I have in mind, although I intended this to be a generic question.

That's not really answerable, I'm afraid, without knowing what you're up to.

For example, although RPGs have traditionally blurred this line, race and culture aren't the same thing. You could very well have two different races (and do you mean species, incidentally?) that are part of the same culture, and one race that has several different cultures.

It also depends on why and how you choose the human historical material you draw from, and how much of it really matters.

For example, is this the sort of game that might have a "warrior culture" or "warrior race," like NextGen Star Trek had with the Klingons? In that case, the easiest thing is to take an actual human culture and strip away almost all the complexity and depth in order to create a kind of stereotype useful for vaguely allegorical purposes. (This can work, of course, but I should state up front that I really, really hate this.)

If on the other hand you want cultures that are more complicated, more like actual culture in human history, I'd suggest taking at least two utterly unrelated and vastly different cultures and stirring the pot. As you say, this means more work, but I think you'll get better results.

One thing that you should NOT do, if you want complex and rich cultures, is make them coherent. Cultures are not, as a rule, particularly cohesive. There's lots of splits, divisions, hatred, clan-lines, feuds, barriers, and whatnot. And very often the people in the culture don't see it that way; it seems obvious to them that this is the normal and natural way to do things.

To take a weird example, suppose we took feudal Japan and mixed it with the Bororo of Brazil, just for the hell of it. (Note that feudal Japan is a popular source for "warrior cultures," which is one reason I can't stand such things.) Okay, so we have at least two major classes (samurai and peasants), and two major moieties (Tewa and Cera), which are not the same thing, and we have a number of different clans, ruled by daimyo, each associated with a totemic animal, bird, plant, or whatever. Certain clans can intermarry, but certain ones can't, and this has nothing to do with the class and moiety lines which may also affect marriages. Each village is laid out on a circular plan, with a line down the middle separating the moieties, and in the middle is the feudal government's residence-hall in which, in theory, the daimyo would stay when he passes through (if ever). Only men of the daimyo's moiety are allowed to enter this hall when there is no governmental representative at home, and so women and people of the other moiety have to seek the Imperial representative who lives in a long, skinny house just outside town set crosswise to the center-axis of town; he lives in the half of the house that refers to the moiety of which the daimyo is not a member, and moves when the daimyos change.

Already we're starting to set up something really hideously complicated, just by spinning out some weirdness from Japan and the Bororo. But the trick is that if you change the names and terms to something locally fantasy-relevant, nobody in his right mind will ever identify where you got it all from. And because you spun this out yourself, you have a sense of how you are interweaving the elements, so when something comes up that you haven't thought of, you can invent it on the fly and keep it reasonable consistent.

Note also that this system won't appear at all coherent to someone who doesn't live with it. For example, suppose someone asks, "Okay, so that means that if the daimyo is of the Tewa moiety, the Emperor is of the Cera?" The native gawps. "What? Are you some kind of freak? Obviously the Emperor is Tewa. What's wrong with you?" The point being that the native simply cannot understand how something he's known since he was four isn't obvious to the least intelligence.

To be more extreme about it, suppose the visitor is having a nice chat with a samurai of the Heron clan. The samurai's wife enters and sets down some food and liquor. The visitor notices that the wife's kimono has a big heron on the back, so he says, "Oh, so you are a Heron as well?" The woman leaps back in horror and the samurai is on his feet, sword drawn. "Are you saying I would marry my sister? This insult cannot be borne with honor!" Eh? Well, see, because if they're both herons, they're essentially siblings; the heron on the kimono actually isn't a heron because it has black feet, you see, which is a special thing about the creation myth where the two creator-gods (Iwanami and Izanagi) had to beg forgiveness from a black-foot heron, a magical bird that isn't called a heron any more because of this one myth, even though to anyone outside the culture it's obviously a heron that happens to have black feet.

I have no idea if this helps, but there you go.

The reason I used the terms "race" and "culture" interchangeably in my last sentence was that I meant there would be at least 3 of each of them. I didn't use the term "species", because at this point I'm not sure how different each group will be. If we included wood elves, dark elves and humans (for example), would that be two species or three?

The basic premise is that a group of humans have travelled to another world which is inhabited by non-humans. The cultures of the non-human groups will differ from each other, and from that of the humans. The humans may also be divided into two slightly different cultural groups, though they both have the same roots (in real Earth history).

Centuries have passed without serious conflict, but then (unsurprisingly) something bad happens.

I'm not yet sure how we would decide which historical material to use for the non-human races, but the reasons behind doing so would be to introduce variety, conflict and common ground. Each will also reveal a different aspect of the "something bad" via their literature and circulating rumours.

As some players are likely to derive enjoyment from research, it is important to have a reasonably high level of detail and accuracy. It wouldn't be necessary for them to be overly complicated though.


I'm not sure if that clears or muddies the waters.

The genre is rife with slightly-altered versions of Arthurian Britain, Imperial Rome, Tokugawa Japan, etc. -- sometimes referred to as "X with the serial numbers filed off". That's because it makes a convenient shorthand for GM's and players, while the highly detailed Japanese/Bororo culture would make a fascinating setting for a game, but the learning curve is much steeper.

As some players are likely to derive enjoyment from research, it is important to have a reasonably high level of detail and accuracy. It wouldn't be necessary for them to be overly complicated though.

I think you mean the Riftwar Saga.

The characters would interact with the other cultures mainly because each would have unique talents, skills or knowledge that the other lacks. I know it's a cliche, but dwarves really would be more efficient miners if they were at least as strong as humans but only needed to dig access shafts half as high.

Outside of problem solving, I see the main interests of the players as being exploration, discovery, interaction and of course seeking some sort of personal gain (fame, fortune, knowledge or power).

It would be an alternate history or "what if" scenario (details are still quite sketchy though).

The Celts of Britain have been forced to flee invaders from across the sea (could be Romans, Vikings or Saxons) by travelling to another realm (a Celtic "otherworld") using magic. This new land is already occupied by races previously known to them, even if they are not all friendly.

Centuries pass, and then another invasion starts, with the enemies using the same magical means used by the Celts (portals). Unless action is taken to prevent it, more enemies will arrive on a regular basis.

The player will be encouraged to attempt to block these entries into the land which is now their home. Stealth, magic and/or guile will be valid alternatives to fighting the enemy directly to get to these entry points.

As none of the races created these portals (although all have some knowledge of their use) the player will need to search old records to find the means to accomplish this, and may investigate the cause and/or identify those responsible.

The humans would be based on the Celts from history, with the escape to another realm allowing us to include other races and creatures from their mythology, without straining the player's suspension of disbelief too much.

Having them develop independently of Earth would give us a little more creative freedom, particularly as they would have had no contact with Christianity.

The fact that the Celts believed they could travel to these otherworlds and their mythology includes many of the fantasy creatures we are most familiar with ties everything together fairly neatly. That's the main reason the place of origin has to be Earth (and why it must be the Celts).

The non-human races do not need to have cultures based on Earth history, but it would help to have some sort of reference material to work from.

Did my more detailed description make it seem less interesting than you previously thought?

There is more to it than this, but we're still working out the details of some parts and others are still in my head (where it's dark and scary).

Wysardry wrote: Did my more detailed description make it seem less interesting than you previously thought?

There is more to it than this, but we're still working out the details of some parts and others are still in my head (where it's dark and scary).

Well, cultural studies is my thing, so I can't not respond to this. Though I should warn you that much of modern cultural studies work is mostly a bunch of lefties trying to argue about who's more oppressed/victimized than thou, especially in response to Western cultural expansion, subjugation, and appropriation (both historic colonialism and present day cultural imperialism). But nevermind.

I'm with Chris on the "don't copy real historical cultures" thing for a bunch of reasons, but mostly because I don't think it works with your premise. These Celts are hanging out with elves and other creatures that supposedly existed in their mythology, right? And I don't really see any reason why creatures from Celtic mythos would have anything resembling an earth culture, especially a non-Celtic earth culture. Would part of the idea be that elvish (or whatever) culture influenced Celtic culture a bunch, even before the Celts ended up on the other side of the magic portal? So, surely the elvish culture would start with some things that "originated" among elves but ended up being passed onto the Celts. My knowledge of Celtic cultures is very limited, so I'm not going to be much help in this regard. Here's my advice on developing a dynamic set of cultures for your world though:

1. Start with some basic premises that are inherantly in conflict. A good one for most cultures is: "why do bad things happen?" or "why does life suck so much?" You can answer this question in a billion different ways and the way you answer it tells you a bunch about a culture. For example:

a. ...because humans are not pure and perfect like the elves.
b. ...because evil spirits plague us.
c. ...because the gods are testing our valor.
d. ...because society is not properly ordered.

2. Complicate things. Monolithic answers are boring, so you continue this down a step and introduce a bunch of competing explainations for the answers you just provided.

a. ...because humans are not pure and perfect like the elves.

-- humans have an overwhelming ambition and hubris.
-- humans are more complex and unique, with personality.
-- humans are the plague of creation.
-- humans exist to destroy what the elves have created.
-- etc.

b. ...because evil spirits plague us.

-- that is just their nature.
-- they compete with us for certain spiritual resources.
-- they feed off our suffering.
-- they are extracting vengeance for past wrongs.
-- they are trying to restore balance.
-- etc.

c. ...because the gods are testing our valor.

-- they think we are weak.
-- they want to weed out the unfit.
-- they are searching for an invincible champion.
-- they are punishing us.
-- they are cruel and enjoy our suffering.
-- etc.

d. ...because society is not properly ordered.

-- young people do not respect their elders.
-- our leaders are weak and live debaucherous lives.
-- we have lost the way of our ancestors.
-- we never should have let women be in charge.
-- the old ways are corrupt and wrong, but they persist.
-- etc.

Now, in answering these questions, you can definitely base your answers on your impressions of real earth cultures. I mean, you're ultimately basing all this on your knowledge and experiences of culture, so you have no where else to turn to. But, if you want to lean things one way or another, you can choose to limit yourself to certain kinds of answers, based on a particular worldview. However, I would encourage you to always choose a few answers that don't seem to fit with the rest, kind of like "one of these things is not like the other." Because people disagree all the time, often drastically, and there are always threads of revolutionary thought in most vibrant cultures.

Finally, when you're creating your cultures, pick a bunch of your answers from various groups and mix them all together. These tell you what most people in a culture or subculture view as the "major problems," and will let you develop other aspects of culture that stem from those views. People who think evil spirits hate them for their failings will probably try to appease the spirits or rectify the wrongs that they have done. Likewise, the other scraps of worldviews lead to similar logical cultural extensions. The most fun, of course, are the non-intuitive answers. Why do people lie? Because our ancestors were crows and it is part of the crow's nature to lie. When people lie, they are exhibiting part of their crow-nature, which still survives beneath the surface.

In any case, just one suggestion of one way you might go about it. Remember too that many people in a single culture will have competing answers to the same questions, which is why it's good to map things out in several different directions.

One more thing: once you have your cultures, stick them all together and have them influence each other a bit. Have one culture adopt certain aspects of another culture, but change them somewhat to fit their own circumstances. Develop a few seperate subcultures that exist in a cultural space between the major groups (hybrids or syncretic cultures). In other words, make things more interesting and less divided (and, dare I say it, more realistic). It'll give you points of contact and points of conflict, both of which can make for interesting story potential (as Vincent says: raw, bloody story meat).

Heya,

It might just be helpful to create a list of facets for cultures that can be found in ones here on Earth. Here is a brief list of different aspects of culture that we looked at in creating EmberWorld:

Government
Religion
Gender Roles
Technology
Economy
Trade
Intra-national Relations
Inter-national Relations
Superstitions
Tools/utensils
Holidays and Customs
Race Makeup
Language
Geography

That ought to get you started. The idea of copying vs. not copying is mute IMO. It doesnt matter if you do or don't, what matters is the way it all fits together. Jonathan gave you an excellent piece of advice when he said to have them influence each other. That makes a huge difference in believablity and continuity. Hope that helps :)

Peace,

-Troy

Wysardry wrote: The Celts of Britain have been forced to flee invaders from across the sea (could be Romans, Vikings or Saxons) by travelling to another realm (a Celtic "otherworld") using magic. This new land is already occupied by races previously known to them, even if they are not all friendly.

Jonathan Walton: Yes, many of the creatures from the Celtic mythos would have influenced Celtic culture, as they travelled from their world to Earth. There are also Celtic tales describing humans travelling to otherworld realms.

There were many types of "faerie creatures" though, each with unique traits and behaviours, so the Celts would have been influenced by several different cultures. I agree that similarities would have developed though, particularly after the relocation.

The Celts seem to have respected many of those creatures, and to a certain extent were inspired to emulate them. Of course, you could also explain this by saying that these creatures were idealised or exaggerated representations of aspects of the Celts themselves.

Conflict between the elves and the humans would most likely be based upon the differences in the lifespans. The elves wouldhave a more philosophical and long term outlook on life, and may be viewed as uncaring or aloof by humans. The elves may well view the humans as impulsive children, or a lower form of life.

We're also considering including dwarves in this land, and basing their culture on that of Vikings/Norsemen as they are more common in Norse mythology. The absence of dwarves in Cletic myth could be explained by the various portals leading to different locations on Earth and elsewhere. In other words, the Celts would not have encountered them in Britain.

I see the dwarves being more "down to earth" than elves, and more suspicious of magic. I can also see the humans being caught in the middle of conflicts between dwarves and elves.

Fortunately, the dwarves would be most at home in the mountains, whilst the elves would prefer forests and woodland, so territorial disputes between them would not be common. Disputes with the humans may well be another matter.


Troy_Costisick: I think I have a handle on most of those aspects as far as the Celts are concerned, but I will definitely need to come up with similar guidelines for the other races.


Sydney Freedberg: I recently saw that series of novels mentioned in the back of a Celtic mythology book, and I ordered the first one from Amazon a few days ago hoping it might give me additional inspiration.

The basic concept is one I've mulled over on and off for a few years now, so it will be interesting to see what similarities exist between Katherine Kerr's ideas and my own.

I think I understand what you mean about having to switch from a cause and effect method to working backwards from the effect to the cause, as I did this to some extent when adding dwarves to the mix.

It's the huge chains of effects that concern me the most, which is why I'm wary of mixing cultures together. I'm worried I'll omit a cause or an effect somewhere along the line, and won't notice until it's too late to fix it without breaking something (or everything) else.

One thing to take note of, you aren't just creating cultures for a fantasy game. You're creating cultures for various races in a fantasy game. Having just one culture each for elves and dwarves and orcs and what have you in a fantasy game is pretty standard fare, but it's never felt realistic to me.

If you want to emphasize the otherness of the non-human races, you need multiple cultures per race with some common thread that ties them all together. Pick one or two things that all elven cultures will have, and one or two that no elven culture will have. If you pick things that are fairly universal in human cultures the result will definitely feel alien. Leave out human cultural quirks like marriage and names. Add in group dynamics based on social animals like lions, horses or naked mole rats. The result is guaranteed not to feel like humans in funny suits. It might feel like naked mole rats in funny suits, but...

Which adds up to an endorsement of mix-and-match. Even if you don't go into too much effort to hide your sources, the results will feel unique. Feeling unique is more than half the battle.

Currently, I'm only concerned with an area of approximately 25,000 square miles (64,750 sq. km) on one or more islands, so there wouldn't be a huge amount of variation within each race's culture.

They will vary more in other areas, of course, so your suggestions will be helpful when we start working on creating background information for them.

Wysardry wrote: Currently, I'm only concerned with an area of approximately 25,000 square miles (64,750 sq. km) on one or more islands, so there wouldn't be a huge amount of variation within each race's culture.

And the other thing, of course, is that if you're concerned with cultural authenticity you need to pick what time period your originating British culture is, because things are going to be very different depending on when the migration happens. Britons fleeing the Romans in the 70s AD will be pagan, for example; Britons fleeing the Saxons in 450 AD will be Christian, and Britons fleeing the Vikings in 750 AD will be ... uh ... from Ireland.

I suspect that whether your culture is Christian is going to make a *huge* difference to how they interact with creatures from folklore.

Yes, there would be minor variations in customs at each town, depending upon differences in the landscape etc. but there would still be a common core. Each settlement would have some unique feature that affected behaviour patterns, but it would have to be something very unusual to cause major changes.


I'm not sure I agree with you that Britons fleeing the Saxons in 450 AD would necessarily be Christian. Although Christianity became tolerated by the Romans around 260 AD, it wasn't until 325 AD that they officially made Christianity the only acceptable religion in the Roman world and 391 AD before it was decreed that all pagan temples be closed and all forms of pagan worship and ritual be outlawed.

There were still pockets of Celtic resistance in Wales, Scotland and Ireland when the Romans abandoned Britain in 410 AD.

I think the most likely time for the exodus would be between 40 and 70 AD, as it was during this time that a large number of druids were slaughtered and sacred sites destroyed.

Yeah but there's paganism and there's paganism. Roman state religion is not the same as Celtic religious praxis, regardless of Christian conceit to that effect.

Wysardry wrote:
There were still pockets of Celtic resistance in Wales, Scotland and Ireland when the Romans abandoned Britain in 410 AD.

Yes, even the Normans had trouble advancing very far into Wales, which goes some way to explain why their language has survived.

The terms "Celt" and "Saxon" may be little more than a convenient way to describe a wide range of people, but each group was obviously different even to the most casual observer (assuming (s)he was observing from a safe vantage point and therefore didn't need to constantly watch for stray arrows and spears).

At the time the game is set, the Celtic tribal regions of Wales had all unified into a single group, so there is no reason why our smaller group would not also have done the same, especially considering they are the only humans on the new planet.

After all, they did cooperate long enough to escape together.

Clans/tribes would likely still be a feature, but they would be more like guilds/factions.

I think that there is something that has been left out here. In reality, there are at least two visions of any culture: there is the historical culture and there is the mythic past. Both of these things are real in that both shape how cultures function in the present.

Most people who have represented the "Celtic" past for the past thousand year have been uninterested in representing an historical past; they have been in the business of representing a mythic past. This becomes explicit with Geoffery of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain in the 13th century.

While creating a sense of verisimilitude for a world, there are very different challenges depending on whether one is representing a mythic or historical past. I think this should be clarified before proceeding.

Also, the historical past is only partially reachable; any interpretation of it is refracted through ourselves. So I have no problem with using our best guess at historical cultures in game -- it never gets old because the angle of refraction in this society is constantly in flux.

Stuart Parker wrote:
Also, the historical past is only partially reachable; any interpretation of it is refracted through ourselves. So I have no problem with using our best guess at historical cultures in game -- it never gets old because the angle of refraction in this society is constantly in flux.

James Holloway wrote: As an archaeologist, this is a huge hurdle for me. I often begin to design historical games and then punk out on them because I feel like I don't know what X would be like.

The mythic past would have more of an emphasis than the historical past, mainly because the latter would not support the existence of magic, portals to other worlds or fabulous creatures.

Basically, the assumption is that the mythological tales are more accurate than historical documents, with the latter being distorted by subsequent invaders of the British Isles, and evidence being deliberately hidden or destroyed (as well as deteriorating naturally).

There is a certain amount of flexibility built into the storyline (such as it is) due to the amount of time which will have passed since the exodus (1000 years or so), and the fact that the Ancient Celts were not in the habit of writing things down.

GB Steve wrote:

James Holloway wrote: As an archaeologist, this is a huge hurdle for me. I often begin to design historical games and then punk out on them because I feel like I don't know what X would be like.

This also happens when an archaeologist plays in your game!

*snip*

I found the RQ3 pamphlets, "what my father told me" were very useful in setting the cultural background, and plan at some point to do the same for Cthulhu Dark Ages.