One
thing I am digging about writing the AD&D Domain Game series (now
collected here under this label), is how fun and liberating playing the “D&D is Always Right”
game can be. For
those unfamiliar with the term that is instead of getting bent out of
shape about how broken the seemingly wonky bits of classic D&D
are that you embrace the notion that there may really be something
there there.
Half
the fun is in exploring the backward implications of those premises,
so you'll forgive me as I digress a bit from the series focus.
Yesterday, we steered into some highly
pregnant territory for that kind of exploration talking about the
“monster” write-ups for normal humans in the Monster Manual.
A number of readers riffed on what was up with all
the bandit bands captained by name-level characters.
(Before we go too
far down this rabbit hole I will point that this extrapolation game
can often stretch analogies too far, often simpler explanations exist
for the real design motivators like “we should keep historical
feudalism out of this so people can imaginatively own their campaigns more”.)
UWS kicked off that round stating that
“you can look at bandits and brigands as mercenary armies without a
liege lord, or between services.” Bomasticus follows it up by
hypothesizing about why mercenaries are so scarce: “Strikes me now
that most of the armed men out there are already "working"
as the various Monster Manual vagrant tribes. Maybe the
mercenaries who show up are survivors of tribal or civilized armies
that have lost their name level leader.”
John Bell followed that up with some
astute historical comparisons: “Early D&D has an implicit near
post-apocalyptic setting. I always think of the two closest
historical representations of the milieu it's trying to create as
post-Roman, pre-Carolingian Europe (late 7th, early 8th century) and
Northwestern Europe shortly after 1348.”
This exchange resonated strongly with
my read of the domain-play pieces and what it says about the
somewhat-anarchic, implied world of the AD&D hardbacks. Many
others have explored the notion that most iterations—even the newer
ones (“points of light” anyone?)--of D&D have some implied
cataclysmic breakdown, but what interests me is the specific bit John
ends on because that period marks the series of cataclysms that
brought down the established routines of medieval feudalism.
The Funerary Monument of John Hawkwood |
Taking
one of the best and most accessible accounts of the upheaval of the
14th
century, Barbara Tuchman's A
Distant Mirror, you
start to see a world with some eerie parallels. You could spend hours
talking through chapters of that book, but let's focus back on the
mercenary/bandit question.
Take
this section from mid-book, note how it all feels so easily
translatable back into the AD&D domain game context:
“Outside Paris the breakdown of authority was reaching catastrophe. Its catalyst was the brigandage of military companies spawned by the warfare of the last fifteen years. There were the Free Companies who write “sorrow on the bosom of the earth” and were to become the torment of the age. Composed of English, Welsh, and Gascons released after [the Battle of] Poitiers, as soldiers customarily were to avoid further payment...
Along with German mercenaries and Hainault adventurers, they gathered in groups of 20-50 around a captain...In the year after the truce they swelled, merged, organized, spread, and operated with ever more license. Seizing a castle, they would use it as a stronghold from which to exact tribute from every traveler and raid the countryside.
They imposed ransoms on prosperous villages and burned the poor ones, robbed abbeys and monasteries of their stores and valuables, pillaged peasants' barns...As the addiction took hold, they wantonly burned harvests and farm equipment and cut down trees and vines, destroying what they lived by, in actions which seem inexplicable except as a fever of the time or an exaggeration of the chroniclers.”
Throughout
the rest of the book you find descriptions of Free Company leaders
who almost to a man sound like the rootless name-level fighters
rooting around the fringe of power we were discussing yesterday. Take the archetype, the
marvelously named John Hawkwood, Captain of the infamous White
Company, who rose from second son of a tanner to the man rich enough
to immortalize himself in the art above.
Or
Fra Monreale, a renegade Knight of St. John who “maintained a
council, secretaries, accountants, camp judges and gallows” in his
rough mercenary camp and who—undoubtedly emboldened by his massive
accumulation of hit points—cockily waltzed into Rome alone only to
be seized and tried. According to Tuchman, “he went to the block
magnificently dressed in brown velvet embroidered in gold and had his
own surgeon direct the ax of the executioner. Unrepentant he declared
himself justified 'in carving his way with a sword through a false
and miserable world.'”
Again
it's highly doubtful that Gygax sat down and said “how can I subtly
code in these great historical themes of the 14th
century into the game?” But those themes, tropes and parallels did
have their own distant mirrors in the pulp fantasy and historical
wargaming influences that inspired the game.
Personally
I like it because then it starts to weave it all into post (or pre)
apocalyptic themes that can be stretched into any number of
customizable campaign elements.
I had
originally sat down to write this post with the tongue-in-cheek title
“WTF Berserkers?” mostly because my MM reread had me scratching my
head again about why the hell you had strange bands of
anti-social Norse stand-ins tooling around the wilderness and first
level of dungeons with such relative frequency. It still takes some
creative spinning but in the above context you start to see it more.
Maybe these are some of the former warriors who have succumbed into
that pure blood frenzy, that terrible addiction of Tuchman's that
truly have become “monsters”? See, wasn't that fun?
Now
back to finishing that series, while I let you take a turn at the
game.