What's the appeal of adventuring in a fantasy version of medieval Europe?

[Endarire]

Maybe this question has been answered before in an elegant way.  If so, point me to it.

I'm curious what makes the "Fantasy" genre so linked with medieval Europe?  There are plenty of fantasy and fantastic versions of every culture and mythos (at least collectively).

Why Europe?  Why dragons?  Why are things as they are?

[ImperatorK]

Is it linked with medieval Europe? 'Cause I read that it's more renaissance or baroque, than medieval. Might depend on the setting.

[dman11235]

I think you'll have to look at history, and the evolution of western culture.  Since the west "won" history, they applied their culture to the world.  And it has evolved from there.  From the high middle ages, the culture started being recorded more efficiently, and then the renaissance came.  I think that might be when the love affair with the "olden times" really began.  So throughout history literature evolved to include more fantasy around the times where there was little understanding of science, the most advanced of which would have been the middle ages, as represented in traditional fantasy settings.

@Imperator: yeah, it's middle ages.  Think 1300s, with maybe a bit of the 1400s.  Before the true Italian Renaissance.  Though it's hard to really pin down, as there's different settings and all, and a bunch of weapons exist when they shouldn't.

[linklord231]

Frank and K's Tomes make a pretty good case for D&D being set closer to the Iron Age than medieval Europe.  I can't explain it better than they can, so I'll quote.

When people are asked to name a historical point that D&D most closely represents, they'll usually say something like "The Middle Ages," or perhaps a date between 1000 AD and 1500 in Europe.  Truth be told, to find a historical period which has a social setup anything like D&D, you're going to have to go back. Way back. D&D represents a period in history that is most closely identifiable with the Iron Age: the landscape is dotted with tribes and aspiring empires, the wilderness is largely unexplored, and powerful individuals and small groups can take over an area without having a big geopolitical hubbub about it.
The source material for the social setting of D&D is not Hans Christian Andersen, it's Homer's The Iliad and Caesar's The Gallic Wars. In the backdrop of early historical empire building, crimes that modern humans shake their heads at the barbarity of are common place - even among the heroes. D&D at its core is about breaking into other peoples' homes, possibly killing the residents, and taking their stuff home with you in a sack. And in the context of the period, that is acceptable behavior for a hero.

[TenaciousJ]

I mostly play Eberron and my other preferred setting is Dark Sun, so they don't quite match up to the period you're talking about.

The common thread I can see is these types of worlds have large forgotten or unexplored areas.  The world is more of a blank slate to be molded through forceful means when the clock gets turned back, and personal power means a lot more in a world where modern military weapons aren't available.

[RedWarlock]

Because Tolkien did it.

His Elves and Dwarves and so on were largely borrowed from Celtic and Germanic/Norse mythology, and his cultures were either the prior, or references to other Euro-centric culture-groups, like Gondor being reference to the declining Byzantine Empire, with much the same era and region of impact/reference. (Don't debate me, I could be wrong about specifics, but anyway..)

Add in and contrast Conan stories, and the concept that both were posited as ancient counterparts/predecessors to Europe/surrounding regions, as a whole, and we have a range of cultural concepts stretching from 2000 BC to 1000-1500 AD, centered in european or pseudo-european cultures.

[oslecamo]

+1 to "Tolkien did it". Most fantasy nowadays was directly or indirectly based on LOTR.

Frank and K's Tomes make a pretty good case for D&D being set closer to the Iron Age than medieval Europe.  I can't explain it better than they can, so I'll quote.

D&D at its core is about breaking into other peoples' homes, possibly killing the residents, and taking their stuff home with you in a sack. And in the context of the period, that is acceptable behavior for a hero.

Just because frank and k believe that is acceptable behavior for a "hero", doesn't mean everybody else out there or D&D itself ever said it.

D&D heroes have always been about going into dungeons filled with traps and bloodthirsty monsters that at best kill you in sight and the only reason they aren't going out there is because they hate the light. And chances are that they've been raiding the nearby villages, kidnapping princesses and whatnot.

Assaulting a dungeon and killing whatever monsters lurk in it is infinitely closer to storming an enemy fortress and killing its guards (something considered heroic even nowadays) than pillaging and murdering defenceless innocents (frank and k tome's definition of "heroic", since their rules openly reward you for doing just that instead of going to an actual dungeon).

[RobbyPants]

I think it's a lot of things (many already stated):

• The game was created by a bunch of white dudes, who would likely know more about European myths than those of other cultures.
• Tolkien did it (which may be an echo of the previous point).
• Medieval Europe tends to invoke some very iconic images, like castles and knights (even if this isn't totally accurate).
• By going before the Renaissance, it's being deliberately set before an age of enlightenment, which would imply people being more superstitious and prone to believe in fantastic things (not that the Renaissance removed all superstition ;)).

[linklord231]

Frank and K's Tomes make a pretty good case for D&D being set closer to the Iron Age than medieval Europe.  I can't explain it better than they can, so I'll quote.

D&D at its core is about breaking into other peoples' homes, possibly killing the residents, and taking their stuff home with you in a sack. And in the context of the period, that is acceptable behavior for a hero.

Just because frank and k believe that is acceptable behavior for a "hero", doesn't mean everybody else out there or D&D itself ever said it.

D&D heroes have always been about going into dungeons filled with traps and bloodthirsty monsters that at best kill you in sight and the only reason they aren't going out there is because they hate the light. And chances are that they've been raiding the nearby villages, kidnapping princesses and whatnot.

Assaulting a dungeon and killing whatever monsters lurk in it is infinitely closer to storming an enemy fortress and killing its guards (something considered heroic even nowadays) than pillaging and murdering defenseless innocents (frank and k tome's definition of "heroic", since their rules openly reward you for doing just that instead of going to an actual dungeon).

Just replace "people" with "monsters" and their description matches yours pretty darn well.  Also, there are many, many monsters with Int scores high enough to make rational decisions and even speak languages, which in my mind at least qualifies them as "people". 

Let's imagine a situation:  A tribe of goblins and a clan of dwarves have been living next to each other for longer than even the dwarves can remember.  A long, long time ago, one of the groups attacked the other for some reason, but it was so long ago that neither group remembers who made the first attack or what it was even about.  Since then, they've been making raids on each others' camps, killing people, kidnapping/"taking prisoners", looting, the whole nine yards.  Finally, one side mounts an all-out invasion lead by the PC's.  The other side is wiped out completely, never to bother anyone again. 
In this situation, both the goblins and the dwarves consider the other side to be monsters, and both groups definitely live in what could be called "dungeons filled with traps and bloodthirsty monsters that at best kill you in sight."  Which side is "heroic"?  I may be wrong, but I get the impression that you would consider the dwarves to be the "heroic" side no matter what - whether they were "heroically" assaulting the enemy dungeon - killing all the inhabitants and gathering up everything of value they had in order to cart it back to their halls - or "heroically" defending their home from the goblin menace doing the same thing to them. 
In this situation, I would consider the side with the PC's on it - whether dwarven or goblin - to be heroic, simply because the PC's are the Heroes of the story.  As long as the PC's won the assault, they would return as triumphant heroes to whatever side they sponsored regardless of whatever deeds they did following the sack of the enemy town - even if they would be considered war criminals in today's time. 

[FatR]

Frank and K's Tomes make a pretty good case for D&D being set closer to the Iron Age than medieval Europe.  I can't explain it better than they can, so I'll quote.

     No, they don't make a good case for it. Only their own vague "setting" is set in the Iron Age. Ostensibly. Their assumptions have no relevance for other settings, like FR (much nicer version of late Renaissance with practically late 20th Century mentality in "good-aligned" parts of the setting), or Eberron (Industrial Age) or Greyhawk (early Renaissaince to high Middle Ages).

[FatR]

Sorry, double post

[FatR]

Let's imagine a situation:  A tribe of goblins and a clan of dwarves have been living next to each other for longer than even the dwarves can remember.  A long, long time ago, one of the groups attacked the other for some reason, but it was so long ago that neither group remembers who made the first attack or what it was even about.

       Here's the problem: your imagined situation has nothing to do with the realities of DnD. In DnD everyone knows perfectly well why goblins attack their neighbors - goblin society is dominated by worship of an evil god who keeps them in the state of savagery and teaches them to hate and attack other races, in some versions even their entire race is spawned by an evil god to be a blight on the world. And if you tell to me that "no race can be universally evil", I'll remind you, that while goblins indeed aren't universally evil (but culturally indoctrinated), free will in DnD is canonically easy to subvert, with the undead transformation being the prime example.

[oslecamo]

Just replace "people" with "monsters" and their description matches yours pretty darn well.  Also, there are many, many monsters with Int scores high enough to make rational decisions and even speak languages, which in my mind at least qualifies them as "people". 

In your mind indeed. But what really qualifies someone as a monster was never any lack of sentience, but the fact they'll use their abilities for evil acts. Smart monsters are the most dangerous of all, carefully ploting vile acts that will wreck much more destruction that any mindless rage could ever acomplish.

 After all, when an human commits atrocities, he's rightly labelled as  a monster by the people.

Let's imagine a situation:  A tribe of goblins and a clan of dwarves have been living next to each other for longer than even the dwarves can remember.  A long, long time ago, one of the groups attacked the other for some reason, but it was so long ago that neither group remembers who made the first attack or what it was even about.  Since then, they've been making raids on each others' camps, killing people, kidnapping/"taking prisoners", looting, the whole nine yards.  Finally, one side mounts an all-out invasion lead by the PC's.  The other side is wiped out completely, never to bother anyone again. 
In this situation, both the goblins and the dwarves consider the other side to be monsters, and both groups definitely live in what could be called "dungeons filled with traps and bloodthirsty monsters that at best kill you in sight."  Which side is "heroic"?  I may be wrong, but I get the impression that you would consider the dwarves to be the "heroic" side no matter what - whether they were "heroically" assaulting the enemy dungeon - killing all the inhabitants and gathering up everything of value they had in order to cart it back to their halls - or "heroically" defending their home from the goblin menace doing the same thing to them. 

If both sides are hellbent in destroying the other at all costs, there's simply no heroes. There may be warlords and chosen champions, but still no heroes.

That's why the heroes mission is usually simply slaying the evil warlord/chosen champion that is leading his own people into a genocidical campaign, not to kill everything that moves. For example in City of the Spider Queen campaign, drow civilians will not try to fight you neither do they grant any exp if killed.

In this situation, I would consider the side with the PC's on it - whether dwarven or goblin - to be heroic, simply because the PC's are the Heroes of the story.  As long as the PC's won the assault, they would return as triumphant heroes to whatever side they sponsored regardless of whatever deeds they did following the sack of the enemy town - even if they would be considered war criminals in today's time.

Maybe in your personal world. But again I point out to D&D's alignment where good guys are expected to acept enemy surrenders, say no to torture and dishonorable methods and other such stuff.  A paladin will indeed lose his grace if he decides that the end justifies the means.

[littha]

Because Tolkien did it.

His Elves and Dwarves and so on were largely borrowed from Celtic and Germanic/Norse mythology, and his cultures were either the prior, or references to other Euro-centric culture-groups, like Gondor being reference to the declining Byzantine Empire, with much the same era and region of impact/reference. (Don't debate me, I could be wrong about specifics, but anyway..)

Add in and contrast Conan stories, and the concept that both were posited as ancient counterparts/predecessors to Europe/surrounding regions, as a whole, and we have a range of cultural concepts stretching from 2000 BC to 1000-1500 AD, centered in european or pseudo-european cultures.

This, and any time anyone tries to set it in eastern fantasy there are outcries of it being too "anime". Even if you base it on china (Though I haven't seen a campaign setting based on India yet, they have some interesting stories)

[Agita]

Because Tolkien did it.

His Elves and Dwarves and so on were largely borrowed from Celtic and Germanic/Norse mythology, and his cultures were either the prior, or references to other Euro-centric culture-groups, like Gondor being reference to the declining Byzantine Empire, with much the same era and region of impact/reference. (Don't debate me, I could be wrong about specifics, but anyway..)

Add in and contrast Conan stories, and the concept that both were posited as ancient counterparts/predecessors to Europe/surrounding regions, as a whole, and we have a range of cultural concepts stretching from 2000 BC to 1000-1500 AD, centered in european or pseudo-european cultures.

This, and any time anyone tries to set it in eastern fantasy there are outcries of it being too "anime". Even if you base it on china (Though I haven't seen a campaign setting based on India yet, they have some interesting stories)

Hindu myths have some wonderfully epic material, but that just means the cries of it being too anime would redouble.

[linklord231]

       Here's the problem: your imagined situation has nothing to do with the realities of DnD. In DnD everyone knows perfectly well why goblins attack their neighbors - goblin society is dominated by worship of an evil god who keeps them in the state of savagery and teaches them to hate and attack other races, in some versions even their entire race is spawned by an evil god to be a blight on the world. And if you tell to me that "no race can be universally evil", I'll remind you, that while goblins indeed aren't universally evil (but culturally indoctrinated), free will in DnD is canonically easy to subvert, with the undead transformation being the prime example.

It doesn't actually matter who attacked whom first.  My point was that if the PC-lead goblins wiped out the dwarves, Olescamo would consider the PCs to be "monsters" regardless of how laudable the goblins would consider their actions.  But if the PC-lead dwarves wiped out the goblins, everything would be ok because the Good-aligned team won.  I'll concede that the most recent FR material presents a more enlightened view of things (the Kingdom of Many Arrows is evidence of this), but this is a relatively recent thing.  The fact is, any setting that encourages killing sentient beings, presents genocide as an acceptable solution, and mechanically rewards combat and pillaging cannot be based on the Renaissance ideals of Human(-oid)ism and Enlightenment. 

Just replace "people" with "monsters" and their description matches yours pretty darn well.  Also, there are many, many monsters with Int scores high enough to make rational decisions and even speak languages, which in my mind at least qualifies them as "people". 

In your mind indeed. But what really qualifies someone as a monster was never any lack of sentience, but the fact they'll use their abilities for evil acts. Smart monsters are the most dangerous of all, carefully plotting vile acts that will wreck much more destruction that any mindless rage could ever accomplish.

 After all, when an human commits atrocities, he's rightly labelled as  a monster by the people.

So you're saying any Evil-aligned creature is a "monster".  Where does that leave non-Intelligent Neutral creatures?  But my point with that quote was not "only non-intelligent creatures are monsters," but rather "being a monster does not preclude personhood."  I absolutely agree that the most dangerous monsters are the ones smart enough to give the PCs a real challenge, or better yet subvert their actions through trickery and deception 

Let's imagine a situation:  A tribe of goblins and a clan of dwarves have been living next to each other for longer than even the dwarves can remember.  A long, long time ago, one of the groups attacked the other for some reason, but it was so long ago that neither group remembers who made the first attack or what it was even about.  Since then, they've been making raids on each others' camps, killing people, kidnapping/"taking prisoners", looting, the whole nine yards.  Finally, one side mounts an all-out invasion lead by the PC's.  The other side is wiped out completely, never to bother anyone again. 
In this situation, both the goblins and the dwarves consider the other side to be monsters, and both groups definitely live in what could be called "dungeons filled with traps and bloodthirsty monsters that at best kill you in sight."  Which side is "heroic"?  I may be wrong, but I get the impression that you would consider the dwarves to be the "heroic" side no matter what - whether they were "heroically" assaulting the enemy dungeon - killing all the inhabitants and gathering up everything of value they had in order to cart it back to their halls - or "heroically" defending their home from the goblin menace doing the same thing to them. 

If both sides are hellbent in destroying the other at all costs, there's simply no heroes. There may be warlords and chosen champions, but still no heroes.

That's why the heroes mission is usually simply slaying the evil warlord/chosen champion that is leading his own people into a genocidical campaign, not to kill everything that moves. For example in City of the Spider Queen campaign, drow civilians will not try to fight you neither do they grant any exp if killed.

You seem to be judging what is/isn't heroic from a Good-aligned perspective.  From this viewpoint, I doubt you'd consider many of the characters from ancient Greek myths to be heroic, even though the Greeks doubtlessly did.  But because we judge heroism in totally different ways, I doubt we'll be able to see eye-to-eye on this one. 

In this situation, I would consider the side with the PC's on it - whether dwarven or goblin - to be heroic, simply because the PC's are the Heroes of the story.  As long as the PC's won the assault, they would return as triumphant heroes to whatever side they sponsored regardless of whatever deeds they did following the sack of the enemy town - even if they would be considered war criminals in today's time.

Maybe in your personal world. But again I point out to D&D's alignment where good guys are expected to accept enemy surrenders, say no to torture and dishonorable methods and other such stuff.  A paladin will indeed lose his grace if he decides that the end justifies the means.

When did this become an alignment debate?  Who said the heroes/PC's have to be good guys?  And where does it say that Good = Honorable?  I would love to debate you on whether or not a Paladin should or should not lose his Paladin-hood in any given situation, but I feel like this thread is not the place for that.  Nice strawman though. 


EDIT:  Endarire, sorry about derailing your thread.  If you want, I'd be happy to make a new one to continue this discussion further.

[FatR]

It doesn't actually matter who attacked whom first.

     Except... it does. Your position literally is "I don't want to admit that there is a wrong side in this conflict, even though there clearly IS a wrong side". As the biggest reason why discerning right from wrong - or less wrong from more wrong - in major real-world conflicts is often hard (incomplete or intentionally warped information) is abscent in DnDland, which we see through God's eyes, we can actually tell which side bears main responsibilty for an ongoing conflict. And in DnD's context it is generally not going to be dwarves.

My point was that if the PC-lead goblins wiped out the dwarves, Olescamo would consider the PCs to be "monsters" regardless of how laudable the goblins would consider their actions.

      And he will be correct.

But if the PC-lead dwarves wiped out the goblins, everything would be ok because the Good-aligned team won. 

     And here you are misinterpreting his position.

The fact is, any setting that encourages killing sentient beings, presents genocide as an acceptable solution, and mechanically rewards combat and pillaging cannot be based on the Renaissance ideals of Human(-oid)ism and Enlightenment. 

      Actual Renaissaince ideals (ones that people used to guide their lives) were "hatred, greed, superstition and intolerance". Not trolling here. "Renaissance" period = witch hunts and religious wars.

      That aside, I have three questions for you:
     1)Do you condemn the action genre in all of its forms on principle, because of its inherent violence?
     2)Do you have religious reasons to believe that sapience inherently bestows free will (and therefore DnD saying that it doesn't offends you)?
     3)Can you quote me a single actual DnD source where good-aligned PCs are encouraged to kill noncombatants?

[caelic]

Back on topic, I think the McDonald's Factor comes into play here.

Why does D&D currently default to a pseudo-medieval setting?   Because people are familiar with it.  Over the years, it's become the default "flavor" of fantasy.

Why did D&D originally reflect a pseudo-medieval setting?  Because the authors were familiar with and drew heavily on sources that were pseudo-medieval in character.  (Tolkien is one, but Fritz Lieber and Poul Anderson were two other big ones.  I'd say Three Hearts and Three Lions has more to do with the pseudo-medieval aesthetic than Lord of the Rings did.)

Why did those sources reflect a pseudo-medieval setting?  Because their authors were familiar with and drew heavily on medieval history.


McDonald's sells a lot of burgers because their restaurants are everywhere; they have restaurants everywhere because they sell a lot of burgers.  D&D has a pseudo-medieval flavor because that's what people are familiar and comfortable with; people are familiar and comfortable with it because it's what D&D served up in the first place.

[Endarire]

It's a feedback loop.  Thankee!

[linklord231]

FatR: 

(click to show/hide)

It doesn't actually matter who attacked whom first.

     Except... it does. Your position literally is "I don't want to admit that there is a wrong side in this conflict, even though there clearly IS a wrong side". As the biggest reason why discerning right from wrong - or less wrong from more wrong - in major real-world conflicts is often hard (incomplete or intentionally warped information) is absent in DnDland, which we see through God's eyes, we can actually tell which side bears main responsibilty for an ongoing conflict. And in DnD's context it is generally not going to be dwarves.

Objectively, yes, there is a Good side and an Evil side to the conflict.  My point, which you seem to still not understand, was that you and Olescamo seem to think that "hero" is an objective term in D&D, like Good and Evil are.  It is not.  Hero is an extremely subjective term.  The Evil goblin culture would consider the PCs to be heroes, even while the Dwarves considered them to be monsters.  A culture's heroes are exemplars of that culture's ideals. 

My point was that if the PC-lead goblins wiped out the dwarves, Olescamo would consider the PCs to be "monsters" regardless of how laudable the goblins would consider their actions.

      And he will be correct.

But as I explained above, being called a "monster" by one group does mean you can't be called a "hero" by another.  How do you suppose all those baby goblins feel about the mean old dwarves who killed their parents? 

But if the PC-lead dwarves wiped out the goblins, everything would be ok because the Good-aligned team won. 

     And here you are misinterpreting his position.

Then maybe you can explain his position better.  To me, it seems like he's saying that only Good-aligned creatures can be Heroes, and that doing Good acts makes a character Heroic.  Because killing Evil creatures is a Good act, the PCs are Heroic if they fight for the dwarves, but not Heroic if they fight for the goblins. 

The fact is, any setting that encourages killing sentient beings, presents genocide as an acceptable solution, and mechanically rewards combat and pillaging cannot be based on the Renaissance ideals of Human(-oid)ism and Enlightenment. 

      Actual Renaissaince ideals (ones that people used to guide their lives) were "hatred, greed, superstition and intolerance". Not trolling here. "Renaissance" period = witch hunts and religious wars.

Seriously, where did you find these "renaissance ideals"?  I'm no expert, but from what I remember about European History and a quick Google search, the Renaissance was about the pursuit of knowledge (not superstition, and actually ran as a counterpoint to the Church and the Sophists), the study of the Humanities, and finding Man's place in the Universe.  Hatred, greed, and intolerance are present in EVERY age, and therefore cannot be said to be the defining characteristics of any given period. 

      That aside, I have three questions for you:
     1)Do you condemn the action genre in all of its forms on principle, because of its inherent violence?
     2)Do you have religious reasons to believe that sapience inherently bestows free will (and therefore DnD saying that it doesn't offends you)?
     3)Can you quote me a single actual DnD source where good-aligned PCs are encouraged to kill noncombatants?

I'm not sure I understand the point of these question, but I'll answer them anyway. 
1)  Absolutely not, what gave you that idea? 
2)  I do, but no it does not offend me to say that it doesn't.  On that note however, why do you think D&D says it doesn't?
3)  Well, the Book of Exalted Deeds says this:

Most creatures described in the Monster Manual as “always evil” are either completely irredeemable or so intimately tied to evil that they are almost entirely hopeless. Certainly demons and devils are best slain...

But that doesn't necessarily apply to creatures described as "usually Neutral Evil."  Instead, this is my logic:
¹Good and Evil (and Law and Chaos) are objective values in D&D.
²Anything that registers as Evil under Detect Evil is, by definition, Evil.
³It is an objectively Good act to eliminate Evil - this is why things like Smite Evil exist.
Given that, if anything - even a noncombatant - registers as Evil under Detect Evil, it is an objectively Good act to eliminate it.  The Exalted character might want to take them all prisoners, talk to them for days about the error of their ways, and forcibly redeem them - but a Paladin would not lose his Paladinship for simplifying things.

On Topic:  The game is called 'Dungeons' and 'Dragons'.  When the 'average person' thinks about a time period with both Dungeons and Dragons, chances are they'll think of medieval Europe.  Complete with knights who live in castles (with dungeons) and slay Dragons.