Cultures and Worldviews

The differences and similarities between our real-world viewpoint and that of our characters

As a general rule, the campaign is set in a feudal, vaguely-European, fantasy environment, rife with magic, monsters, and adventure. This "default" milieu borrows heavily from European myth and folklore as well as Tolkien, Lieber, Howard, LeGuinn, Moorcock, Zelazny, Cunningham, Brust, and other fantasy writers. There are some differences, however, between the historical feudal era of Earth and the conditions found on Oerth.

As much as possible, I've tried to tailor the cultures, values, and mores of Oerth to match those of modern Earth without damaging the culture's distinct flavor. Many "truths" of the medieval mind are both untenable in the light of reason and repulsive to the worldview of the players. Thus, while women were often little better than chattel during the Dark Ages, Oerth enjoys a more enlightened viewpoint of (near) gender-equality, much as found in the office buildings and homes of 21st Century America. Likewise, while slavery and racism were constants of medieval life, they are largely marginalized institutions on Oerth. Children enjoy the same benefits and idle time found in today's Western democracies, thanks to the synergy of hard work, divine providence, and magical spells. Technology is lacking, but magic takes its place. Germs may be undiscovered, but sanitation is the product of divine inspiration and the successful hygiene-practices of previous civilizations. Priests and mages gain insight into what we moderns would call science, although this science is understood in the context of a fantasy world with dozens of gods, spell-slinging mortals, and epic heroes.

While I will discuss individual cultural assumptions later, there are a few universal "givens". Everything not covered should be treated as "like modern America".

Gods are real. They have INCREDIBLE powers. They grant miracles (usually spells) to their worshipers, based on faith, but the gods are NEITHER omniscient NOR omnipotent. That said, the gods have power and insight beyond mortal imagination. Many gods "jockey" for position and, although wise and enlightened, have very human motivations. Monotheism is a self-delusion for the blind; how can one god claim to represent such divergent goals and ethics as goodness, nobility, light, and truth (Mitra) and still also represent evil, destruction, decay, and horror (Incabulous)?
Magic is real. The term "science" applies to the body of knowledge and lore associated with the mystic arts. Aris Tradewind, for instance, is a master of the "science" of fire -- he can cast fire shuriken, fire rain, fire breath, fiery eyes and various other fire-based spells. Technologically (using the 21st Century understanding of the term), humanity's crowning achievements are crop rotation, the crossbow, and plate armor (in the West ONLY), the spyglass and magnetic compass (in Zakhara ONLY), the printing press (in Asia ONLY), and most other pre-Renaissance discoveries. Gun-powder, steam-engines, electricity, germ theory, genetics, and the like are all unknown. Wizardry is expensive and mages are rare, but magical spells and clerical prayers perform many of the same tasks which technological innovations and advancements do for 21st Century humans. Very few have even heard the term "psionic much less believe it is something other than magic.
Non-human sentient life is abundant, both as allies and enemies. Humans are the dominant life form, but their abilities pale before the magic of elves, the might of dragons, or the armies of orcs. Humans share their world with a plethora of other sentient species. Intra-species racism (judging a fellow human by her skin color or ethnicity) is a short-sighted endeavor practiced by only the most judgmental and puritanical of fools. There are cultural biases, conceits, and egotism, but biologically, a human is a human is a human.

Unfortunately, there are also a few issues which are NOT really tangible to our modern minds. One of the very strengths of the 21st Century, Western worldview is its flexibility, especially in light of accepting a diverse array of belief systems and attitudes. Unfortunately, this can be a slight disadvantage in a cosmos where Evil is a palpable force, bent on world domination and destruction. Among the myths and legends of our Earth, certain acts now construed as "another religious tradition" were clearly evil or wrong. Included amongst these beliefs are witchcraft, lycanthropy, and necromancy, to name a few. Moderns, who usually aren't too solid on the concept of a soul, afterlife, moral imperative, earning value in this life, spiritual taint/sin, etc, don't grok this well. But in a fantasy universe where there is good and bad magic, spiritual repercussions for wicked acts, divine beings, and absolute morality, such a distinction is huge. What follows is a list of traits believed to be reprehensible to characters on Oerth, sorted from least to most heinous. To make it easier for players to grasp, I've drawn some parallels and made some very ROUGH analogies to modern social issues.

Witchcraft encompasses the magic, knowledge, and rewards bestowed on unworthy humans by tainted or forbidden supernatural entities. On Oerth, where wizards arduously and painstakingly study the "science" of dweomercaft in order to use their hard-won insights to facilitate everyday life and, on Oerth, where priests receive spells from their gods in return for true and fervent faith, on Oerth, witches are those magic workers who neither study magic nor devoutly follow deities, but instead "cheat" and are given insight into magic from marginal or inappropriate supernatural beings in exchange for services and/or worship. Witches subvert the natural order of the cosmos by claiming power and knowledge which they have not earned. Their relationship with their patron is often quid pro quo; a grab for power without belief in the ethical strengths or divine attributes of the witch's patron. Indeed, often only the most marginal, anarchistic, dangerous, and/or evil of spiritual entities will serve as a witch's patron, although there are (not commonly acknowledged) exceptions. Most cultures believe, in fact, that a witch offers her soul (and therefore her moral compass as well as spiritual future) to her patron in exchange for his support.

This, then, closely parallels the cultural issues held by the educated, pre-modern, Western aristocracy with regard to wise women as seen in Europe. Wizards (and doctors) studied long and hard, while witches (and midwives) performed much the same work without the arduous labors. Likewise clerics (and Catholic priests) represented a moral authority and religious devotion, while witches (and pagans) were not so tightly bound to a single, monolithic belief system. Thus the established social power-structure vilified witches as pretenders and cheaters, venerating an illegitimate and/or evil religion and engaging in inappropriate and potentially harmful activities. Clearly there is a sub-context of jealousy here; the wise women had the same respect and occupation as "physicians" and "holy men" but without the time-consuming study and behavioral restrictions.

Just as not all religions are equally dogmatic about adherence and belief, so too not all characters in Dnd are equally offended by witches. As a general rule, any member of the clergy should take affront to witches, with most wizards looking down on witches as inferior "cheaters". Since gods are real and have decreed witches inappropriate, most PCs should likewise take a dim view of witchcraft and its practitioners. And yet, not all character hold their religious views in equally high esteem. Moreover, there are some religions with great tolerance for witches in general (the Greeks) or for witches who hold compatible ethical views (the Egyptians, followers of Freya, etc). Meanwhile, more orthodox deities demand punishment for witches (mostly very lawful gods or those which shaped the universe, such as Angellus, Pholtus, St Cuthbert, etc). Finally, while there are many evil witches, there are also heroic witches of good and benign deities working for the common weal.

With such a diverse spectrum of beliefs, players may find themselves lost. Thus, a good analogy to draw to witchcraft from our modern world is homosexuality. Some faiths feel it is a horrible aberration while others are indifferent or even tolerant. In any event, however, no faith will actively support this behavior (religions need future generation [RE: homosexuality] as well as current believers [RE: conversion to witch patrons]). Likewise, a given individual may follow a religion with strict teachings on the subject, but yet judge each individual on her own merit. Such individuals tend to be rare and require some justification for their (very 21st Century seeming) attitudes, perhaps a skill in philosophy, experience with noble, good, and heroic witches, or diverse experiences in various other cultures as well as appropriate role-play. Using these guidelines, witches can be seen to possess a taint which is unredeemable to some (most clerics and paladins, the very devout, particularly orthodox faiths), but a non-issue to others (the marginally religious, free-thinkers, particularly accepting faiths or individuals).

Lycanthropy is the horrible condition where a human involuntarily transforms into a bestial monster. On Oerth, there is no such thing as a cuddly were-creature. The vast majority are blood-thirsty monster bent on destroying anything that the human-consciousness once cherished. The transformation from rational being to mindless beast is horrible and terrifying to behold. Although a handful of lycanthropes are able to converse and a fraction of these can sometimes be reasoned with, were-creatures in general are the scourge of society. Of course, no sane being would ever wish to be a lycanthrope -- thus werelords are unheard of.

It is true that although the vast majority of were-beasts are evil and actively seek to do harm (werewolves, wererats, werebats, werejaguars, weresharks, werejackals, werelions, etc), there are a few which hold the same ethics as natural animals (weretigers and wereboars). Although sentient, these creature are still wild animals. They will therefore not hesitate to harm, maim, or kill anything which threatens them, just as a tiger or boar would. Finally, there are a handful of lycanthropes who are ethically compatible and potentially trustworthy to humans (CG werebears), but despite this, such creatures still have a terrible, fearsome, bestial aspect to them. As a general rule, lycanthropes cannot be trusted.

As with witches, culture shapes an individual's views toward lycanthropes. Among the Greeks and Egyptians, they're all bad. To the Norse and Celts, the non-evil were-creatures can be trusted, under the right conditions. To non-humans, who rarely survive their first transformation into a were-beast, all lycanthropes are agents of death, disease, anarchy, and chaos.

A good way for moderns to look on lycanthropy is to draw a parallel with a hypothetical disease that combines the worst aspects of AIDS, ebola, and homicidal mania. Lycanthropy is a true-breeding, (largely) incurable condition that leads to the horrible death of the infected, either at the hands of his former friends and lovers or at the hands of their avengers, after the beast has killed everyone the human-consciousness ever cared for. The disease is easily spread, fast-acting, and (especially for non-humans) almost invariably deadly. Moreover, the precise mechanism of the contagion is not fully understood. Imagine a mysterious form of HIV that appeared to spread as easily as ebola, had been around since before recorded history, always infects all offspring, and which caused the infected to go on a killing spree. Unless you knew EXACTLY how such a disease spread, I would imagine you'd stay WELL away from anyone suspected of being infected. And if such an individual cannot be effectively quarantined? There's a reason that suspected lycanthropes are often rounded up and summarily executed -- for the good of the many! Again, certain lycanthropes may indeed establish bonds of trust with open-minded individuals through education and heroic acts -- but it better be well-earned!

Necromancy includes the use of magic purely to do harm to another. In this definition, that of using spells to directly harm or snuff out the life-force of another, necromancy fits the modern concept of the "Dark Arts" or "black magic". In a cosmos of tangible goodness and evil, the use of such spells is an anathema to those holding non-evil ethics. Naturally, certain spells are more repugnant than others, but all bear a certain taint. Spells which animate or summon evil undead, drain away the soul (life force), or have very vile manifestations are the most abhorrent of all necromancies. These include summon shadow, ghoul gauntlet, energy drain, lich touch, and rain of blood. Less obscene spells are those which animate mindless non-evil undead, snuff out the life force of another, temporarily drain life energy, or cause pain and suffering through the manipulation of bodily functions. Spells in this category include animate dead, conflagration, dead man's eyes, death shroud, death spell, death ward, enervate, exterminate, finger of death, trap the soul, wail of the banshee, bone blight, brainkill, choke, contagion, mummy rot, pain touch, and throbbing bones. Only marginally disgusting and repulsive necromancies are those which duplicate the effects of the undead, cause harm without tapping directly into the soul or Negative Material Plane, or invest an object with fell power. Among these are control undead, corpse visage, ghoul touch, mummy touch, shadow form, blackmantle, chill touch, defoliate, vampiric touch, bone club and skull trap. Spells which do not directly harm another living creature are ethically-neutral (also known as "grey magic") and bear little or no social stigma (other than cultural); examples include death link, death recall, and spectral hand. You may note that this list is a bit more "open-minded" than that presented in the Complete Necromancer's handbook -- I believe it is possible to play a lawful good necromancer, but her every action must be undertaken with great scrutiny.

Unlike clerics, whose spells are limited by their gods based on ethical concerns, mages are under no such restriction. The morality associated with the use of such magics, however, remain. Thus, the siren song of power that necromancy offers is available to all who would study it; many wizards have dabbled in the Dark Arts with the best of intentions only to be led to corruption and wickedness. All these magics take their toll after a while. The concept of losing one's soul to evil is a VERY REAL threat in the Dnd cosmos.

Again, culture gives some further shape to a characters views, although here there is far more uniformity. Greek, Norse, Celt, Oerdian, Touv, Chinese, and Animistic cultures all view necromancy as absolutely abhorrent, while Egyptian, Babylonian, and Aztec individuals are more ambivalent and/or accepting of CERTAIN applications of the Dark Arts.

The modern analogy here is probably (for good reason) also the most offensive: it ranges from liberal sexual mores to pornography to child-molestation.

Gray magics, those spells which are ethically-neutral (hold undead, feign death, and reincarnation), may draw an askance glance or cause muttering in the general public, but are unlikely to engender anything stronger than pity and/or frustration for potentially unhealthy interests. Fellow spell casters recognize the importance of "gray" necromancy and will rarely give such a mage any grief. This is similar to the modern attitude with regard to dabbling in unusual sexual practices (BSDM, fetishes, and other "kinky stuff"); the more educated and/or experienced recognize it's part of the human condition and therefore accept it even if they do not practice it themselves, while the more puritanical might be offended, but not unduly. This, however, is the boundary of acceptability.

Wielders of black magic, even of the most mild type (control undead, corpse visage, chill touch, and skull trap), are pretty universally viewed as tainted and potentially corrupted by these spells. There is no heroism here and such spell casters are usually treated with disdain and/or disgust. Conventional wisdom states that such wizards have willfully stepped onto a road which can easily corrupt them and lead to their destruction. The mage may FEEL she can maintain her ethics, but she is treading upon the most dangerous of ground with her soul, sanity, and afterlife at stake. Upon publicly using such spells, the necromancer will likely be socially stigmatized and distrusted. The modern analogy here would be habitual dependency on unusual sexual practices. For some, this might be tolerable, but for many, it is a terrible taint which cannot be cleansed. Better to die than willingly subject oneself to such perversion. And yet, there is often justification for the mage, depending upon the individual, culture, circumstances, and ends.

More foul necromancies, such as animate dead, death spell, enervate, finger of death, trap the soul, and pain touch, are far less easily accepted or forgiven. Certainly it would be better to die than to risk one's soul? Perhaps the ends justify the means, but not to many and not very often. In the ethical tangles of a Dnd universe, it's perfectly justifiable to hack an enemy to pieces; trial-by-combat, an age-old belief that the good shall prevail in mortal combat through moral superiority and divine aid. Likewise, using positive magics to blast a foe to cinders is still (to most cultures) a form of trial-by-combat. But a death spell, however, attacks a victim's life force, going far beyond a test of ethics and fairness and will likely result in a range of responses from questions about the ethics and character of the mage (at least) to persecution and banishment (or worse), depending upon the specifics of the situation. Without justification, the casting of any of these spells is considered an evil act with all the appropriate repercussions. The social stigma for these spells is akin to what moderns hold for kiddy-porn; not only is this fetish disgusting, but also risks leading to the predation of the innocent and the perversion and corruption of all. These people need help and/or to be restrained, so as not to hurt others. It would take pretty extreme circumstances to justify the use of these spells.

The most wicked of the Dark Arts, those which destroy the soul of another, are universally considered evil. There is no excuse; these spells are only for the most wicked. Those that cast such spells will be hated and feared, engendering a true revulsion in their fellow beings. These necromancers are stepping into the domain of the gods and meddling with force no human should. In our world, such acts should illicit the most extreme of responses, similar to how child-molesters are viewed. These people haven't just pondered doing evil, they have embraced the act. These spells should generally be viewed as "off-limits". How many characters could really justify taking part in molestation "for the greater good"? Hopefully, I've made my point...and established that necromancy is NEVER something to be taken lightly.

Here is a quick, multicultural cheat-sheet for getting an idea how different cultures look at various issues.

Questions? Comments? Funny stories? Lemme know...