Roleplaying in an "Ancient Fantasy" campaign

[Ravens_cry]

Have you read Hard Boiled Shaman? It's the story of a shaman in that kind of tribe, using a lot of the tropes of classic noir. I was lucky enough to read the whole thing once, though even the first chapter is pretty inspiring. Some of it may be NSFW, it's being a while since I read it.

[oudeis]

I'd opened this thread in a background tab some months ago and never got around to going through it. Now that I've finally read it beginning to end, I'm dying to find out where the OP is with all this.

[oudeis]

@Yora:

Do you have any updates on this? I'd love to learn what you've come up with so far.

[Sol]

(even though there is well over a 1000 years between mediterranean Antiquity and the American nations first encountered by Europeans)

Or so the history books would like you to believe, regardless of the compelling evidence to the contrary.

I think Mesoamerica is a great place to look towards. Between the Olmec, Aztec, Maya, and Inca, you can get a sense of everything from available equipment, to the importance of religion, to a properly polytheistic society, to bizarre and brutal rituals that sound barbaric to a modern sensibility, but which weren't being performed by an oppressive dictatorship, but were merely part of life. On top of that, they had impressive, out-of-place technological feats, including a calendar system more accurate than our own, lighthouses which used two beams of light cast by proto-candles converging on gaps in the reefs surrounding their seaside settlements. Temples cut with mind-boggling precision, such that they cast incredibly specific shadows on specific days of the year.

There's enough really intense, interesting information to create a unique campaign around, while our incomplete records (thanks, catholic church) leave enough holes to insert d&d mechanics.

[Sartharina]

It's still telling that the Mesoamericans seemed to be at the same place in 1500 AD that that the Mesopotamians were in the 1500s BC. (Okay, so I'm probably exaggerating.)

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't move to the other side of the world before Colonizing your first city in Civilization.

[jedipotter]

But what I am mostly wondering about is how things are changing for PCs as they are exploring and traveling through such a world. What things they would be dealing with in a medieval style world would likely be absent and what would they find instead? Would the situations that need the help of brave heroes be different ones?

I think there are two primary differences.

For one thing, it seems to me that in an ancient world, much larger parts of the world would be unknown and unexplored.

The other thing would be, that at least the civilized places seem a lot more modern in the way society is made up and things are run.

Well, it took about till the 19th century for the world to be mapped. Before then, lots of maps just had blank spots that said things like 'wilderness' on them.

But a big thing about fantasy worlds is they have lots of races, and they don't always share. Take the human kingdom of Dorn. They know the dwarf kingdom of Zon is in the north mountains, but no human has gone there. So the north mountains, and the lands around them are unknown. The same way if a dragon or other monster lived in an area people would avoid it and hence not have a map of it.

And if your world does not have a printing press, or writing or map making....then even the known lands are only know to a few handfulls of people.

Then add in ''evil places''(or ''good ones'') and ''magical places'' and ''strange places'' and you get lots of unknown places.

Society is much more tricky...as what is modern? They beheaded people in public....in what century, the 21st or the 12th? If you worshiped Thor you were made fun of and not treated like a real faith in the 21st century or the 14th? A long time ago many wives was fine, but modern times says just one...except that is not true everywhere all the time.

[Yora]

@Yora:

Do you have any updates on this? I'd love to learn what you've come up with so far.

I am not doing anything specific with it, I just like this style of fantasy.

[Honest Tiefling]

Oddly enough, I think one of the biggest hurdles of this is the concept of justice. I have only poked at Wikipedia, but I doubt that the one floating around nowadays would make an ancient fantasy culture seem alive. Apparently, some cultures were fine and dandy with criminals just up and leaving because that meant they'll be someone else's problem.

As for the wife thing, you forgot concubines (which is not sexist, because many societies had male AND female ones, so ha!) which figure into a lot of different cultures. More if you count temporary wives as being something similar.

[Kiero]

Oddly enough, I think one of the biggest hurdles of this is the concept of justice. I have only poked at Wikipedia, but I doubt that the one floating around nowadays would make an ancient fantasy culture seem alive. Apparently, some cultures were fine and dandy with criminals just up and leaving because that meant they'll be someone else's problem.

Well, there was little public expenditure and no prisons. Generally there were three punishments for crimes: execution, exile or a fine.

[Jeff the Green]

Well, there was little public expenditure and no prisons. Generally there were three punishments for crimes: execution, exile or a fine.

Also mutilation. That's the whole point of the lex talionis: if someone pokes your eye out, you don't get to kill him but instead he gets his eye removed. Similarly a thief may have his hand cut off or a rapist castrated. "An eye for an eye" was designed to be merciful and prevent feuds, and it actually worked. It's actually a foundational point of law in Europe and the Near East, that punishments must reflect the severity of the crime and not be disproportionately punitive.

[Yora]

Exile also isn't "just walking away". Because where would they go to? And a persons wealth would often be measured not in money that could be carried, but in cattle, land, and slaves, which would have to be left behind. Also, it usually meant you were outlawed, in which case you had no protection but your own weapon. With nobody to come to your aid or avenge your death, things get very dangerous.
And I think even people who don't want to rob or enslave you probably wouldn't show hospitality to an outcast. He was exiled for a reason, and after all, which tribe or clan will be offended if you chase him away and not be a generous host.
The entire tribal system of law and justice is based on having lots of friends who have the combined military and economic power to be a real problem for anyone who gets on their bad side. Even if you have good friends outside your own group, they probably won't risk offending an ally by taking in one of their exiles, therefore negating the punishment.
Best thing you could probably hope for was to live as a hunter in the hills. Joining a group of bandits might be an option, but I am not sure what life expectancy those had in real life.

[Kiero]

Exile also isn't "just walking away". Because where would they go to? And a persons wealth would often be measured not in money that could be carried, but in cattle, land, and slaves, which would have to be left behind. Also, it usually meant you were outlawed, in which case you had no protection but your own weapon. With nobody to come to your aid or avenge your death, things get very dangerous.
And I think even people who don't want to rob or enslave you probably wouldn't show hospitality to an outcast. He was exiled for a reason, and after all, which tribe or clan will be offended if you chase him away and not be a generous host.
The entire tribal system of law and justice is based on having lots of friends who have the combined military and economic power to be a real problem for anyone who gets on their bad side. Even if you have good friends outside your own group, they probably won't risk offending an ally by taking in one of their exiles, therefore negating the punishment.
Best thing you could probably hope for was to live as a hunter in the hills. Joining a group of bandits might be an option, but I am not sure what life expectancy those had in real life.

It's more than that. Citizenship was a very important concept in antiquity, all rights (public in particular, but also some private) flowed from your status as either citizen or foreigner. Usually someone had citizenship in only one place, getting it elsewhere could range from costly/difficult to impossible. Exile often removed the only citizenship someone had, making them a foreigner in whatever place they took refuge.

[Ravens_cry]

It's more than that. Citizenship was a very important concept in antiquity, all rights (public in particular, but also some private) flowed from your status as either citizen or foreigner. Usually someone had citizenship in only one place, getting it elsewhere could range from costly/difficult to impossible. Exile often removed the only citizenship someone had, making them a foreigner in whatever place they took refuge.

There is a commonly available source that can show just how screwed a foreigner was compared to members of the Ancient societies, male members especially.
I recently started reading Between the Rivers by Harry Turtledove, and it really delves into the mindset of the time. The hero even does things that, today, are considered completely objectionable and wrong, but were how society worked back then.

[Yora]

Assuming a tribal society with no central state and codified law: If someone invites a guest into his house and it turns out the guest is hunted for a crime by another group, what options would the host have to deal with the situation?
If he believes the guest to be innocent, he would probably be obliged to protect him and send the pursuers away, even if that will mean trouble for himself later. But what if it seems quite possible that the guest did actually commit such a crime, or even admits that he did? Would the host be permitted to hand him over to the people he wronged without violating hospitality?

In Germanic tribal culture, one solution might be to keep the guest until the next assembly of local community leaders and then have a trial in which his guilt is determined, and the wronged party would be oblidged to accept that judgement and they no longer have a claim to avenge the crime.
But did such institutions exist in other parts of the world as well? What if there wasn't anything comparable and the host would be forced to come to a solution with the pursuers by himself?

[Ravian]

Assuming a tribal society with no central state and codified law: If someone invites a guest into his house and it turns out the guest is hunted for a crime by another group, what options would the host have to deal with the situation?
If he believes the guest to be innocent, he would probably be obliged to protect him and send the pursuers away, even if that will mean trouble for himself later. But what if it seems quite possible that the guest did actually commit such a crime, or even admits that he did? Would the host be permitted to hand him over to the people he wronged without violating hospitality?

In Germanic tribal culture, one solution might be to keep the guest until the next assembly of local community leaders and then have a trial in which his guilt is determined, and the wronged party would be oblidged to accept that judgement and they no longer have a claim to avenge the crime.
But did such institutions exist in other parts of the world as well? What if there wasn't anything comparable and the host would be forced to come to a solution with the pursuers by himself?

I believe the celts had this sort of hospitality issue. They ultimately ranked hospitality higher than feuding, so a host was fairly obligated to keep a guest in their home from coming to harm regardless of what those outside wanted. (the degree that they valued this actually goes to some ridiculous extents. A few myths involve the sidhe tricking a king by arriving at their home, then using a magic sack that can never be filled to take all his food, since no king who wanted to be respected would ever let a guest leave without filling their pack for the journey ahead.) Of course ultimately this would eventually come to the attention of a druid, who had enough respect knowledge and authority to resolve the issue.

[Honest Tiefling]

It might also depend on the type of crime. You could have it that certain crimes are crimes against the gods (Murder in particular instances, stealing from temples, entering holy ground without permission, assault against a priest/priestess) supersede certain other laws. However, you would need an agent of the gods to extract said person. Might be that the host has to entertain the guest, but oaths to law and lord might mean he cannot raise a hand against those who remove him from his hall as well.

I also would not be surprised if there were some limits on the hospitality. In Ancient Greece, for instance, you weren't supposed to be a burden to your host, unlike certain sidhe. I think this is one reason Ulysses is able to kill all of the suitors camping out in his hall without fear of punishment. There were also a lot of expectations of reciprocation down the line in a few cultures.

I also believe that in the myth of Lleu Llaw Gyffes, his mother was forced/encouraged by custom to take in some wandering bards. However, when her castle was under attack, she could also call upon said bards to defend it. But given that the version I read was in a children's book, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some errors, but I think the idea of guests having to defend their host would be pretty common, nonetheless.

[Ravens_cry]

Hospitality is sacred, and turning over someone who committed a crime would almost certainly be breaking that trust. Often, there is a certain time limit involved, and if they leave, they are fair game, but, during that time, they are under your protection and vise verse.

[Knaight]

Hospitality is sacred, and turning over someone who committed a crime would almost certainly be breaking that trust. Often, there is a certain time limit involved, and if they leave, they are fair game, but, during that time, they are under your protection and vise verse.

This was pretty variable. The big thing about hospitality standards is that they tend to come with inhospitable environments. For instance, Norse and Bedouin cultures both had substantial hospitality rites (though they're a bit out of the time range to some extent). They are also characterized by absolutely brutal environments. Mesopotamia also had notable hospitality rites compared to other civilizations, e.g. Egypt. It also had more unpredictable rivers regarding flooding, frequently inhospitable weather conditions, etc, so they emerged. Egypt didn't see the emergence of a really major hospitality culture until later, when there was heavy cultural exchange with the Arabian peninsula. Egypt also has an incredibly reliable river (the Nile), generally sunny conditions absent much in the way of major storms, etc. The heat was pretty bad, but besides that it was generally a pretty hospitable place, and a hospitality culture didn't emerge to anywhere near the extent it did in less nice places.

[Ravens_cry]

It's probably why they have faded of late in modern culture, that and centralized authority. Egypt also had a very centralized system as well.
All was the Pharaoh's, basically,

[Yora]

If you can call some kind of police or magistrate to deal with the situation, things are relatively easy. With the exception of medieval churches, I don't think a hosts protection of his guests could apply against the official authorities. (There have been a few cases in Germany just a few years ago, where churches did offer protection to refugees whose request for asylum were denied. Since they hadn't done any crime other than being illegal aliens, no police wanted to get into the news for storming church property, though there isn't any law that would grant any such previlege to a church these days.)

Assuming the guest knows that he is hunted, but keeps this information from his hosts until he already had been invited. Couldn't the host claim an abuse of hospitality, having being tricked to make his entire household into a human shield for the fugitive? In that case, the granting of hospitality would be void, and he would have the right to expell the visitor.
Of course, he could still retroactively give permission anyway, if he believes the fugitives actions had been just, or he simply thinks he's strong enough to not be afraid of any consequences for himself. If he would send the fugitive away, other people would probably accept that, but if he can show how far he will go to protect his guests, even beyond what is demanded or reasonable, it would surely improve his prestige quite a bit.

[Haldir]

It's still telling that the Mesoamericans seemed to be at the same place in 1500 AD that that the Mesopotamians were in the 1500s BC. (Okay, so I'm probably exaggerating.)

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't move to the other side of the world before Colonizing your first city in Civilization.

You're actually understating the issue here. Due to the smaller initial seed size of American Corn compared to the plethora of Mesopotamian grains, most scholars estimate that American societies were as much as 6000 years behind Eurasian societies in terms of food production, which is the primary factor for population size and societal complexity.

If you are interested in the methods that ancient civilizations used to deal with crime, there's plenty of great documentation of how tribes that exist in modernity deal with justice. Usually a smaller tribe or band had a "Big Man," an elder man or woman who through force of personality assumed the rule of leader, and consulted intimately with the tribe when passing judgement.

It is through taxes or tribute that we stop considering a group a "tribe," because it requires extra social apparatus like collectors, scholars, and peacekeepers. So you see an actual government starting to form.

[Knaight]

It's probably why they have faded of late in modern culture, that and centralized authority. Egypt also had a very centralized system as well.
All was the Pharaoh's, basically,

That's probably a large part of it, though the centralized authority bit gets tricky - the exact same situations that lead to the emergence of a hospitality culture make getting a centralized authority somewhat more difficult. A centralized authority needs things like well developed trade routes, communications, etc. Those are somewhat easier to develop in somewhere like ancient Egypt, where the problem solving pretty much comes down to "run something up or down the Nile", than Scandinavia. With that said, I will point to Bedouin culture again - there very much were sophisticated trade routes, communications weren't too terrible, and the hospitality culture persisted well into the age of central authority over the Arabian Peninsula. It was largely during the Ottoman period where it became more deemphasized (though by modern standards the entire region still has a pretty strong hospitality culture).

[Ravens_cry]

There is historical basis for 'sanctuary', even, yes, from legal authority. Since giving someone over to the legal authorities would mean them coming to harm, I seriously doubt most ancient codes of hospitality would allow it under almost any circumstances.

[Knaight]

There is historical basis for 'sanctuary', even, yes, from legal authority. Since giving someone over to the legal authorities would mean them coming to harm, I seriously doubt most ancient codes of hospitality would allow it under almost any circumstances.

With that said, outside of situations where the person providing hospitality has an armed retinue (which wasn't necessarily that uncommon in areas, and was probably disproportionately common where people who need to be worried about legal authority are concerned), there's not necessarily all that much preventing the legal authority from just busting in and grabbing the person.

This is before getting to the matter of how much "legal authority" was necessarily even a thing in the cultures.

[Ravens_cry]

With that said, outside of situations where the person providing hospitality has an armed retinue (which wasn't necessarily that uncommon in areas, and was probably disproportionately common where people who need to be worried about legal authority are concerned), there's not necessarily all that much preventing the legal authority from just busting in and grabbing the person.

This is before getting to the matter of how much "legal authority" was necessarily even a thing in the cultures.

Well, it certainly varied, to be sure. City states were much more common than outright nations how we think of it,

[Yora]

As I understand it, hospitality rules, revenge, and feuds existed to provide security in a society that completely lacks official authorities. Once you have a form of police and charitable institutions, those older customs stand in direct conflict to them. Which was why early Islam got such a great reception in Arabia. It was both religion and state, and a state that included legal institutions that can take care of crime and ensure order in a much more efficient way. The old customs still continued because there are many areas that were still quite isolated until the arrival of satelite phone reception. If you have police, but the next police station is 10 days away, you still need the old costoms to deal with problems.
I wouldn't be surprised if bedouins from the Sahara in 1000 AD had a very different idea of hospitality than people in Bagdad.

Even in Western culture we still have a special case in which the ancient hospitality rules apply, which is in the world of sea vessels. If you encounter another ship in distress, you have to try save them. If there are people nearby in the water, you try to get all of them out, even if they are enemies whose ship you just sank.
Simply because it's an environment where there is no neutral authority present, and there is no way to get help from your own people back at your home. The only people who can save you are strangers, so you want to make sure that everyone is in the habbit of saving strangers, which you do by acting accordingly when other are in need of your help.

It would be interesting to know how the founders of empires dealt with that situation. Hospitality doesn't create that much problems, but avenging crimes certainly would. In a nation state or empire, the police has a monopoly on using force, and only the courts can speak justice. People ignoring these institutions and applying the old tribal customs when it pleases them would be a major disruption of the public order. One that founders of empires surely must have been facing a lot.
But ideally, you only have one of the two in place: Tribal customs or a code of law. If you have both, you have a conflict between tribal leaders and the official government. Which, as we know, many countries still have.

[Kiero]

For a real-life, still-practised code featuring hospitality, feuds and so on, see Pashtunwali. Note which elements are first and second (hospitality and asylum).

[LibraryOgre]

Well, there was little public expenditure and no prisons. Generally there were three punishments for crimes: execution, exile or a fine.

Having been working on Game of Thrones, I'd also point to options like The Wall, in certain settings.

[Wardog]

Well, there was little public expenditure and no prisons. Generally there were three punishments for crimes: execution, exile or a fine.

To expand on that, my understanding is that (in the UK at least) using prison as a punishment for general criminality is actually a very modern (19th century) idea.

Before then, prison/jail was primarily used for
a) Holding political prisoners/hostages.
b) Holding debtors until they managed to pay off their debts.
c) Holding suspects awaiting trial, and convicts awaiting punishment.

[Knaight]

To expand on that, my understanding is that (in the UK at least) using prison as a punishment for general criminality is actually a very modern (19th century) idea.

Before then, prison/jail was primarily used for
a) Holding political prisoners/hostages.
b) Holding debtors until they managed to pay off their debts.
c) Holding suspects awaiting trial, and convicts awaiting punishment.

The capacity to operate prisons at that level is comparatively recent - there's the constant resource expenditure involved (which is a lot easier with current levels of food production, energy production, etc.), and then the material and construction costs of creating prisons in the first place. The latter of these gets really important in sufficiently ancient settings, prior to the development of any real masonry.