Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff
-
This may be an unpopular opinion; but if you want a historical MU* focused on a more romanticized depiction of history then how about doing something in the vein of Assassin's Creed? They take 'idealist fantasy history' to a whole new level. Only problem is needing to deal with the whole 'genetic memory' storyline - which I guess is easy since there is no machine to access these memories, just ancient factions warring against each other.
I feel like without a solid thing to point at and go 'this is how we're doing it' it's going to be harder to have a uniform agreement on what is allowed and what isn't, or which point is considered 'breaking point' when it comes to suspension of disbelief.
-
@deadculture said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@Lotherio Trust me, Lions of al-Rassan is everything you need, bundled in a setting. It's a great read, too. Has all the romantic parts you want to put in a MU loosely based on upon the Reconquista.
Seconding this. This book holds a special place in my heart for many reasons. It was the first of Kay's books I read, and any time something is 'the first of', you know it had to be good.
(The other bit is such a wild and crazy tangent it'd scramble brains, so I'll refrain. <snerk>) -
@Cadi said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
This may be an unpopular opinion; but if you want a historical MU* focused on a more romanticized depiction of history then how about doing something in the vein of Assassin's Creed?
I feel like without a solid thing to point at and go 'this is how we're doing it' it's going to be harder to have a uniform agreement on what is allowed and what isn't, or which point is considered 'breaking point' when it comes to suspension of disbelief.
I don't think its unpopular opinion at all, by the by.
I do feel that if most historical places focused on actual history, it would play out as @deadculture pointed out up above. There was misgivings and mistreatments by the Umayyad conquerors and saying it (murder, rape genocide) just like that, it paints the Muslims of the time in a bad light; it points out the very arguments that will come up on pub as pointed out in this thread as well.
Truthfully most conquerors have committed such atrocities, its not a cause of being Muslim by any stretch of the means (ie, it had little to do with, we're Muslim, they're Christian, lets go rape and murder them ... as Mitch says in Paranorman: All you want to do is burn and murder stuff, burn and murders stuff0. It was more a reconquest on both sides, both populations had some history of being in the area and both saw it as retaking what was theirs. Its a mix of conquering aggressive force and training of the forces to the right mindset to do this very thing by superiors, to want to go in and defeat enemy by painting anyone 'enemy' as less than human. This is more from aggression/aggressor than specific to roots and causes; Atilla was a barbarian because most people have misconceptions of what barbarian means of the specific aggressors and is arguable well cultured for the time during his dealings with Byzantium. Take any invading force of this time and before, from Visigoths and Goths to Normans and Romans, any occupying force that has transplanted itself to another area, and those very things - murder, rape, genocide - happened, everywhere else such a force existed.
No one wants to play that. That is why the romanticized version of history. Like any western game, no one is actually playing aggressive land acquisition, they want Hollywood version. Any time period where authority viewed domestic violence as not in their perview, no one is playing the levels of domestic violence that occurred in that time period (ie, the 50's were 'golden', but domestic violence against women wasn't recorded, nor was violence against certain races always recorded, thus criminal records showing less crime in the time period are skewed and inaccurate).
Umayyad texts and doctrine points towards tolerance, there were Christian and Jewish administrators throughout the dynasty, and in positions of power. Members of the Caliph's family married Christians. Up until recently this was held as popular view, its more of late that the atrocities of the conquering force are coming to light and most sources aren't picking up on it right out of that gate.
Even from Realms there was camps on historically accurate vs romanticized, the game system was focused more on romanticized (literary romanticized by the 15th century authors). The biggest religious dispute was Pagans, the game system had them as cutting off heads of their enemies and dealing in human sacrifice, historically the pagans of England are an uncertainty. This may have really happened to a lesser extent if at all, and may well have been propaganda by the occupying force to paint them as less then human, thus making it easier for occupiers to mistreat them or conquer them. We were open to pagan groups existing both as neo-paganism (more a modern take), and the traditional view, but the debating never ended even after Madoc worked with both sides at length to try to come to some terms.
My plan with the current place is to have that 'solid' point in the theme pages, define religious interactions, define tactics of the occupying force that isn't murder/genocide. Define more theme and, as needed, policy, whereby we address potential areas of such disagreement or misgivings or misunderstands by players and what we're shooting for in theme.
I'm never much of a fan of basing theme on a book or game or movie; even then, everyone still seems to have disagreements on what is actual cannon when using books and others sources for fantasy. Easier for me to just look at history (romanticized vs actual as it may be in wanting to play it), or go all original theme.
I'm just a surge protector doing my job, sir.
-
@Lotherio The book would provide a backdrop; the ending was more or less open, it's not definitive and GGK certainly didn't explore it beyond that. HOWEVER, other books are connected to that one. I suspect A Song for Arbonne (another great, unforgettable book, by the way, right up there with Tigana after I gave it a more thorough read) and the one set on the viking raids, etc. are probably the same world.
You'll always have people griping about this or that when it comes to a lords and ladies game set on an actual historical startpoint. We've both seen that. I think Lions of al-Rassan completely sidesteps that by showing a romanticized version of Christians (Jeddites), Muslims (I forgot the actual name of theirs, but they're the rulers of al-Rassan) and Jews; it's easy enough to transplant the information into one concise page, if necessary.
Further, he provides maps in the book itself, which is incredibly helpful for running a MUSH.
As for the Umayyads, I should probably note that there are respected historical books depicting them as sort of arbitrary in their decisions of tolerances. Some Umayyad rulers were as you described, others preferred to intentionally single out those of religious minorities and execute them. You might call it a cyclical thing, which it was, really.
BUT, if you really want to abstract it away, make it an Arabian Nights thing, and have it set on the Hashashin mountainside stronghold during the Mongol invasions. That would be sort of cool. No religious conflict then, merely ethnic.
-
@deadculture said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@Lotherio ...
As for the Umayyads, I should probably note that there are respected historical books depicting them as sort of arbitrary in their decisions of tolerances. Some Umayyad rulers were as you described, others preferred to intentionally single out those of religious minorities and execute them. You might call it a cyclical thing, which it was, really.
Absolutely have the book downloaded and am definitely giving it a read, only through chapter 1 right now, but I'm reading it.
As for the Umayyads, I agree with that completely, it changed from Caliph to Caliph. And I do believe at the current time, it is one of intolerance. This is the time the cathedral/church of St. John was destroyed in Syria I believe, and the church group advocated to the next Caliph for recompense as an earlier treaty was signed to allow the established churches to remain. There is question on whether they were recompensed or note.
Playing such out though sounds boring. Much as playing out a plan for genocide. Mix them together with more real world and its a complete turn off for the majority of people, as pointed out in the other historical mu* thread; its the point of pedantic and people turning away from even trying it; historical folks will argue its not accurate depiction, the other end of spectrum is they want Hollywood (and since its Spain, Hollywood would have romantic horse riding Spanish nobles, riding through dusty plains with a derecho tailing them with a Spanish guitar playing). I'm aiming for the middle of that. Its an interesting time period due to the politics at play, from the treaty to give the visigoths anonymity, and what they do with it once 'sons' return from being hostage in Cordoba.
The forming of Asturias has an appeal for a semi-historical (fantasy/alternative history) game due to the politics that most people would be after and familiar with in taking to an L&L gmae (alliances and diplomacy, personal agendas, all from nobles who have reign to act as they will to further their own gains) without delving into religious persecution or the atrocities of actual medieval warfare. Not following history leaves a lot open for what they could do, from converting to support the local qadi and the wali in Cordoba for some gains, to helping form Asturias, to starting their own realm in opposition to all sides.
The book has an appeal, I'm just less a fan of using a book theme. If people are unfamiliar, some will be turned away at the thought of having to learn a new theme. Same with original theme fantasy, even with tons of theme on a wiki somewhere, the daunting task of catching up even to start making a char could be daunting.
Edit for some corrections, words left out and such
I'm just a surge protector doing my job, sir.
-
@Lotherio Right, I don't really mean that I imagine you'll make the game about the Evil Muslims, but I think it can be really awkward to RP a topic where PC bigotry might well be highly encouraged by the setting. People will inevitably take it too far, causing some cringy OOC-ness for the people around them as they wonder how much of it is IC. For others it might be uncomfortable for any number of RL reasons (Iraq/Afghanistan vets, people impacted by 9/11 - I qualify for this one just as a demonstration of how common the demographics are, even if it isn't really going to bother me- or any number of other incidents, etc).
So yeah, I actually say you'd be better off doing an alt-earth and playing around with it a little more. Establish a specific cultural/tech level (not just 'movies') and give examples. They don't need to be hyper realistic but if you let people go with 'whatever fits cinematically' you'll still get people picking vastly different periods and friction over it (this happened on RA).
Regardless I'm sure I'll show up to play and I'd probably help out if you wanted it, but I think the alt-earth thing is almost certainly the best way to go.
-
@bored I don't think people 'possibly being discomforted' is a great reason to avoid a subject.
Of course, as @Lotherio said, what the Muslims did in their conquests across the remains of the former Roman Empire wasn't pretty. But it wasn't any worse than what the Romans themselves did, or the Visigoths did when they rampaged their way down across the provinces of Hispania. The only real difference is that they brought a new religion along with their rape, plunder, murder and enslavement.
Or what the Christians did during and after the Reconquista.
As long as the Muslims aren't portrayed as any more or less inherently evil, well, I still find it an incredibly interesting piece of history I'd still love to dip my toes into.
-
@Lotherio The theme is easy enough, though. I really wasn't lying, as you can tell in the book, when I said that it's essentially the same, but set on an alternate-Earth scenario kind of deal. Both 'sides' are depicted fairly, with equal amounts of shitty and glorious people in the book.
-
@lordbelh I think it rises above 'possibly being discomforted' to nearly baiting people to get into fights on pub about religion/politics and I really don't think that's something any game really needs. And I say this being far from the sort to worry about offending/triggering/etc as a general matter of policy. I don't think these topics should be off limits (and I presume an alt-earth version would still have religious violence, all the horrors implied by war, etc), but from a pure 'I want my game to succeed' level I think it's probably a landmine @Lotherio would be better off not setting for himself to step on.
-
@bored said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@lordbelh I think it rises above 'possibly being discomforted' to nearly baiting people to get into fights on pub about religion/politics and I really don't think that's something any game really needs. And I say this being far from the sort to worry about offending/triggering/etc as a general matter of policy. I don't think these topics should be off limits (and I presume an alt-earth version would still have religious violence, all the horrors implied by war, etc), but from a pure 'I want my game to succeed' level I think it's probably a landmine @Lotherio would be better off not setting for himself to step on.
This. Exactly this.
-
@bored said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
@lordbelh I think it rises above 'possibly being discomforted' to nearly baiting people to get into fights on pub about religion/politics and I really don't think that's something any game really needs. And I say this being far from the sort to worry about offending/triggering/etc as a general matter of policy. I don't think these topics should be off limits (and I presume an alt-earth version would still have religious violence, all the horrors implied by war, etc), but from a pure 'I want my game to succeed' level I think it's probably a landmine @Lotherio would be better off not setting for himself to step on.
I respectfully disagree. An alt-earth setting makes the game more bland and takes part of the historical aspect away, if people want to bait others into religious and historical discussions, they could do it in a specific channel, with a clear rule stating they couldn't do it on <pub> or anywhere else. That way, those people who might get triggered wouldn't join this channel.
The Eternal Crusade had that quasi-War of the Roses/Hundred Years War setting, but the game itself didn't felt like it, you had just another L&L game with no differential whatsoever. However, The Realms Adventurous did have a British/Celtic feeling to it, which made the game much more interesting, in my opnion.
-
@bored I'd be willing to risk it. If you're going to avoid every possible cultural/religious/ethnic minefield, you'll be stuck playing suburban white people all the time.
-
@sthanheykel Have you read Lions of al-Rassan? The conflict is there. It's not bland at all. That's the 'alt-earth' setting we're talking about.
@lordbelh I agree with that on principle, but my interest in seeing a Lions of al-Rassan game supercedes that a bit.
-
@deadculture Not yet, though it's on my list
-
Maybe I'm unduly cynical, but I can't help thinking that any setting close enough to actual history to make a recognizable substitute will not be far enough away to defuse the potential ethno-religio-cultural minefields. It might escape some of the people who'd be offended by the real world, but would probably almost make up the difference from people offended by ways in which they think the alt-world portrays a particular group unfairly.
-
Interesting enough, this is a good conversation on religion and inclusion/exclusion and would make a great topic in general for the boards. That said, I agree with @Autumn, if there is a recognizable substitute it won't be heard for those looking to make argument to argue. Regardless, people will be offended. Even on space games, once someone can make the reference to something real world, arguments can be had. No different than some conversations on early Dune games.
Oddly, I don't see this much on WoD games (pub debates) that do take various religions and play 'bad' entities or monsters associated with them (and are usually nipped in the but with staff warnings when I do see them). Thus, I am guessing it comes down to history and the perception of wars mostly being religious in nature, despite most evidence pointing towards resources (namely land, or resource rich land) as the main factor for warfare. I don't want to get into misperceptions of modern warfare at all (and I am a veteran of the first gulf war, I have lifer friends who have spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan on the 'close to home'/first hand/second hand front to avoid that being a discussion).
This all being said and having discussed it with current staff on the game, we're still following the alternative history approach. It can be viewed as alt earth in that we are only taking the idealistic approach to the main religions and their aims at well being of the people over any human misinterpretation (that leads to the murder/rape/genocide).
We will be following the nip in the butt plan. We have initially set up a warn/ban policy for the game from the get go (one warning, repeated behavior is ban); we do this on Coral Springs and have banned, peace is being maintained (though smaller player base) with no tears spilled over any bannings to date. We are strongly agreeing that most people have learned in kindergarten or early learning development centers about respecting each other and sharing toys and playing nice, no excuse in not being civil.
We are setting up a policy to cover religion, limiting any talk on religion to a religion channel, with the caveat that should discussion on this chan become heated staff can shut it down. Along with a policy of gagging anyone who may push religion on other chans such as pub, leading to warns/bans for repeated offenses (buffers will be on, if staff misses it, others can report it certainly). We are including in the policy that IC portrayal should not be one of intolerance or hatred and it will be not be allowed (warn/ban) with an inclusion that should anyone say they are uncomfortable with a portrayal of any minor intolerance, the RP should be stopped. And repeated offense of the same nature will lead to following our warn/ban. As of now, this is the largest section of said policy.
Another thing we are working on is to establish the religion pages before we are ready for CG (one mistake with Realms). This is to define the teachings/ideals of the religion (love your neighbors/the five pillars/tolerance). Doesn't mean a certain disliked character may skirt these a little, but this is outside the norm and will be monitored, applications towards religious will be scrutinized (not discouraged).
We feel the time period offers enough potential by way of politics and conflict without evoking religion, along with the potential birth of a nation in the face of conquest or the assimilation into another culture that one views as better than say the feudal ways of the old kingdoms, that it is good. If we redefine or reface by calling it alt earth, it doesn't remove the potential for said debates as have been outlined.
And yes, religion became a debacle on Realms, despite staff adhering to the idea that Christians and pagans alike practiced tolerance in the face of numerous enemies at the gates so to speak. And as has been pointed out, people still pushed the topic, making some extreme comments on religion. Mostly not serious, the context was lost many times on pub channel comments. The worst being pagan debates, despite Madoc and myself saying both views were welcome and without a hierarchy, both could conceivably exist.
This may nip me in the but at some point (Cirno insisting I am racist with the no-foreigner policy), but we are really after alternative history at this point and have a strong liking of the period in question.
Sidenote: yes, we are clearly defining styles of dress, styles of homes, and other cultural aspects more clearly up front to avoid debate in deviation between centuries of time.
-
Okay, I admit after reading all your rules about how to handle it (quick bans, specific channels, enforcing OOC behavior beyond the typical 'no harassment') why specifically do you want this time in history? Current time is heavily charged with the same debate your characters may be having IC, which allows for a lot of easy OOC/IC mixing.
So is there a specific reason you picked this era or is it just your own interest of this time?
Admittedly, I probably won't join the game since I can just imagine the shit fest that can explode. Now I am not saying no one can handle this, I am just saying that you will only need one or two people to set others off.
Eh, it doesn't matter what I say, you do what you want to have fun. If it doesn't work out, no harm no foul, right? Its just a game. Have fun and I wish you the best of luck!
-
@Cadi said in Historical Mu* - Looking for interested Staff:
Okay, I admit after reading all your rules about how to handle it (quick bans, specific channels, enforcing OOC behavior beyond the typical 'no harassment') why specifically do you want this time in history? Current time is heavily charged with the same debate your characters may be having IC, which allows for a lot of easy OOC/IC mixing.
So is there a specific reason you picked this era or is it just your own interest of this time?
Admittedly, I probably won't join the game since I am Arab from a Muslim family and I can just imagine the shit fest that can explode. Now I am not saying no one can handle this, I am just saying that you will only need one or two people to set people off.
Eh, it doesn't matter what I say, you do what you want to have fun. If it doesn't work out, no harm no foul, right? Its just a game. Have fun and I wish you the best of luck!
I've stated my interest. The start of the Kingdom of Asturias is rife with politics and political games, no one is going forward without politics, without alliances, the bread and butter of an L&L game. And it hasn't been done to death. Do we need another war of the roses or the hundred years war? How many fantasy/alt settings have been based on this? Game of Thrones; though I am of the belief the basis of the story is inverse Arthurian tale with hundred years war used to add depth, ... the king (potential king) is the cheater this time and takes a mistress, a bastard is born of this (John Snow) - opposite of Geun and Lance, its Rheagar and Lyanna (no spoilers, HBO confirmed it, but so many fans already believed it anyways, its not shocker of a spoiler).
I respect your decision not to play. I would also value your input as an Arab Muslim in all honesty, but yes one or two people can easily make a shit storm out of an ant hill and wouldn't want to be responsible for making you feel uncomfortable.
-
Alright, fair enough, I just thought most games would have the same political intrigue if done right. I was thinking less War of the Roses, and more Italian Renaissance with the whole Borgias, Medici, Catholicism, etc. Where even the Pope openly has a kid despite the celibacy rule (I think established in 1130s or something.)
But yea, if it fascinates you go for it! You seem to have a firm grasp of what you want to do and I have faith that you can go through with it.
-
This was actually suggested by another poster in another thread.
@sthanheykel said in Historical MU*s:
- Firenze during the Italian Wars - Political Strife during Renaissance, families battle for the control of the Repubic of Firenze whilst Italy itself is engulfed in a war for the control of the peninsula, with foreign powers like the growing militaristic France or even the Germans from some of the HRE states prey for more land and vassals. PCs could be literally anyone from commonfolk, who would be experiencing the Renaissance and they still would have something to do as Savonarola would eventually come in play, changing the life of the common people or trying to rise through the ranks of society; richer/more influential people would be able to fight directly for control of the city or just enjoy the good life that their money can buy.
I do not want to leap on or steal this ideal, but I would absolutely play this game, time permitting.
I'm just a surge protector doing my job, sir.
