Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 29, 2024, 12:10:42 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 29, 2024, 12:06:42 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 28, 2024, 08:58:02 PM
That's really the thing. I wouldn't expect to find anyone living on a remote farm by themselves in pre-Roman Gaul. As far as I understand the archaeology, the norm for iron age settlements is a walled village with farmlands clustered closely around it. That seems to also be the norm for pre-columbian settlements in Eastern North America and any other context where a pre-industrial and non-nomadic people are living under the threat of inter-tribal warfare. A man living alone in a remote farm, even a trained warrior, would still be screwed if taken by surprise by an armed war party.

honeydipperdavid is complaining about Phandalin, though, which isn't pre-Roman Gaul. They have a modern-style tavern, three trading posts, and an inn. He doesn't specify, but the only farm that fits what he is Alderleaf Farm, which is just two hundred feet from the nearest other homes of Phandalin.

There were plenty of non-walled settlements in medieval times, though there were also walled cities and towns. Walls were not rare, but it seems like they were an extra for more warlike areas, and many settlements didn't have them. That's also true in America. Of the Native American sites that I've visited (mostly in the Southwest and California), very few had walls or palisades. The biggest medieval city in North America, Cahokia, eventually had a palisade, but that was built over a century after the city was founded.

How many of those pre-modern IRL places had to deal with Orcs, Goblins, Trolls and many other soundry monsters? Many of which attacked from above or below?

None, so what bearing do they have in a game world?

If that's your attitude, why are we even talking about "period appropriate" settings?

A settlement designed to withstand attack by trolls and dragons probably wouldn't look like anything that ever existed in the real world, except for maybe the Maginot Line.

By that logic, couldn't someone turn around and say "well the woman we're talking about here is a halfling. What bearing do human sexual dynamics have on on a fantasy species?"

The specter of male violence also protects women who aren't married.

The majority of social interaction between men boils down to, "Is this guy going to punch me in the face?" It's so ingrained in our psyche, we don't even think about it. Men are just as afraid of men as women are, we just handle that fear differently. That's why 90% of murder victims are men, and men are most likely to be murdered by strangers (compared to women, who are most likely to be murdered by their domestic partner).

Couple that with the fact that fights between men rarely have winners, and most often have one guy who lost harder than the other, and the natural male response is to avoid violence unless it's really warranted.

Then you get to some random woman running the inn at the crossroads in West Bumfuck Oklahoma. She's probably somebody's mom, or sister, or daughter, and if I do something to this woman, that's crossing some kind of a line, and now I'm going to have to watch over my back for some guy who's name and face I don't know. Not only that, but there's other guys in this place all having a meal and a drink, and she's the one feeding them. The risk to this random woman isn't zero, but it takes a certain kind of guy to decide to cross that line. Finally, that type of guy, when he gets out to West Bumfuck, frequently decides he's far enough away from civilization that nobody knows his name, and he's won the game. Now I'm about to fuck up this grizzled Sam Elliot looking frontiersman's retirement, and we're all the way out here in West Bumfuck where nobody is ever going to notice I'm dead.

Greetings!

Well, historically, most settlements everywhere had fortified walls, gates, and towers.



The host of the video discusses the Argaric Culture--a culture that ruled Bronze Age Iberia from 2500 BC to 1200 BC. In the program, he comments about *every settlement* having defensive walls and towers. This isn't pulled out of his ass, but is supported by thorough archaeological research and analysis.

O have also consulted many history books from the ancient world, and the evidence clearly shows that any settlement larger than a watering hole for a herd of goats in the Middle East and Levant--were fortified by walls, gates, and towers. The Bib;e's refernces to meeting in "The city gates" and frequent refernces to a settlement's walls makes it very clear that having defensive fortifications, even for smaller sized towns, was the established norm.

In studying the East, again, China is famous for every town and city having fortified walls, going back thousands of years. Everywhere. In India, Burma, and also Japan--towns and cities being fortified was the standard norm.

Throughout history.

Greece? Rome? Carthage? All had fortified towns and cities.

So, we also see this general reality working throughout Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire--Gaul, Spain, Dacia, Britain, Germania. All areas and provinces of the Roman Empire customarily had defensive fortifications. This continued in general throughout the Dark Ages.

Yes, a few towns along the way in Britain, Germany, and up in the Viking north may not have had walls and defensive fortifications. They were an exception.

Most of history, human tribes have existed in harsh, brutal environments where war, raiding, and slaughter were common.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 29, 2024, 07:35:24 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 29, 2024, 12:10:42 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 29, 2024, 12:06:42 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 28, 2024, 08:58:02 PM
That's really the thing. I wouldn't expect to find anyone living on a remote farm by themselves in pre-Roman Gaul. As far as I understand the archaeology, the norm for iron age settlements is a walled village with farmlands clustered closely around it. That seems to also be the norm for pre-columbian settlements in Eastern North America and any other context where a pre-industrial and non-nomadic people are living under the threat of inter-tribal warfare. A man living alone in a remote farm, even a trained warrior, would still be screwed if taken by surprise by an armed war party.

honeydipperdavid is complaining about Phandalin, though, which isn't pre-Roman Gaul. They have a modern-style tavern, three trading posts, and an inn. He doesn't specify, but the only farm that fits what he is Alderleaf Farm, which is just two hundred feet from the nearest other homes of Phandalin.

There were plenty of non-walled settlements in medieval times, though there were also walled cities and towns. Walls were not rare, but it seems like they were an extra for more warlike areas, and many settlements didn't have them. That's also true in America. Of the Native American sites that I've visited (mostly in the Southwest and California), very few had walls or palisades. The biggest medieval city in North America, Cahokia, eventually had a palisade, but that was built over a century after the city was founded.

How many of those pre-modern IRL places had to deal with Orcs, Goblins, Trolls and many other soundry monsters? Many of which attacked from above or below?

None, so what bearing do they have in a game world?

If that's your attitude, why are we even talking about "period appropriate" settings?

A settlement designed to withstand attack by trolls and dragons probably wouldn't look like anything that ever existed in the real world, except for maybe the Maginot Line.

By that logic, couldn't someone turn around and say "well the woman we're talking about here is a halfling. What bearing do human sexual dynamics have on on a fantasy species?"

Notice how I chose the words, period appropiate and not period authentic?

True, when faced with a Dragon you're likelly fucked, doesn't mean intelligenbt beings would then throw up their hands and say "Fuck it, why have fortifications?"

I started the thread by decrying the need of some to insert IRL shit into the setting.

Why would we need to discuss Hobbit females biology beyond size/strength/speed? How is it relevant to the setting? Now, monster's biology might be relevant, you could have some that reproduce like amoebas, others lay hundreds of eggs, others need a living host for their cycle.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on February 28, 2024, 05:09:07 PM
I prefer settings that don't obey 21st century western leftist morality. Or 21st century rightist morality. Or 21st century morality. Or 20th century morality...point is, I exclude Abrahamic morality from my worlds

So, a world where slavery of all types is universal, women are property, child sacrifices (and human sacrifice in general) common, mass murder and sexual enslavement of conquered populations applauded, lying only matters if you're doing it to your people, and rulers can have anyone summarily tortured, maimed and/or executed on a whim?

I think you grossly underestimate the influence of Abrahamic religion on what you recognize as civilization. It's so pervasive that even the most anti-Christian fantasy writers take Christian morality as the norm for human thought instead of the absolute aberration from thousands of years of history that it actually is.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 29, 2024, 07:35:24 AM

A settlement designed to withstand attack by trolls and dragons probably wouldn't look like anything that ever existed in the real world, except for maybe the Maginot Line.

People wouldn't plan around the very unlikely possibility of a dragon appearing out of nowhere and attacking.  People would plan around much more likely threats like humanoid raiders.  Fortifications would work quite well against that.  Add some flaming arrows and they would work fine against trolls too.   

Greetings!

Dragons, and monsters. Yeah, while they are formidable, I think many people make the mistake of grossly and severely underestimating the iron will, ruthlessness, and savage might for war that humans possess.

Throughout history, the Bible, archaeology, and mythology, the evidence and themes are clearly shown--

When humans truly feel threatened, as a society, as a people, by foreigners, by giants and monsters, people unite, and rise up. They don't just unite and agree to help--no, generation after generation, they harden themselves and train, and dedicate themselves to resisting the invader, and eventually hunting the hated enemy down, and brutally exterminating them entirely.

Dragons and giants would be hunted down and exterminated. Eventually, they would live in resentful fear of the wrath of humans, should any few manage to escape the human onslaught.

Orcs and trolls, well, their numbers and breeding actually provides them with a better survival factor than dragons and giants. However, the hatred and wrath poured out against them would also be generational, and unflinching. Humans would always be watching and looking for opportunities to strike yet another victory against Orcs and Trolls. Orcs and Trolls may in some communities be eaten, or enslaved. Some would likely provide bounties for killing them, and otherwise working on some kind of commercial angle to further increase and promote the slaughter.

Humans day and night, live and yearn for booty, conquest, and glory. And also for blood and revenge. People will, and have, devoted absolute decades of their lives to pursuing and fulfilling the demand for vengence.

So, even in a fantasy environment, I think that humans would be far more adaptable, ruthless, and warlike than many people seem to be comfortable contemplating.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on February 29, 2024, 03:25:08 PM
So, even in a fantasy environment, I think that humans would be far more adaptable, ruthless, and warlike than many people seem to be comfortable contemplating.

Heh, I really need to get Monsters! Monsters! to the table.  Humans are the ultimate crawling horde, moving across the land like a plague.   

There's a reason why dragon lairs are depicted as being located in remote, inaccessible areas far from civilization.  No organized kingdom or nation state would allow something as powerful and dangerous as that to just sit on their doorstep.  Dragons are powerful but they can't take on the weight of a whole kingdom by themselves. 

If you want to see what humans are like, just read up on what Genghis Khan did to people who annoyed him.

Quote from: SHARK on February 29, 2024, 03:25:08 PM
When humans truly feel threatened, as a society, as a people, by foreigners, by giants and monsters, people unite, and rise up. They don't just unite and agree to help--no, generation after generation, they harden themselves and train, and dedicate themselves to resisting the invader, and eventually hunting the hated enemy down, and brutally exterminating them entirely.

Dragons and giants would be hunted down and exterminated. Eventually, they would live in resentful fear of the wrath of humans, should any few manage to escape the human onslaught.

Regardless of what you think of humans, dragons and giants are purely fictional. How humans fare against them depends on the fictional characteristics you give to them. The Norse thought that humans and giants would destroy the world in their final battle. In my first 5E campaign years ago, it was about an apocalypse of dragons - where dragons got the spark to take over the world and crush the puny humans. I have my original (pre-5E) design notes here:

https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dawnoffire/

You can claim that really humans would beat the dragons, but there's no logical basis either way.

Quote from: SHARK on February 29, 2024, 03:25:08 PM
So, even in a fantasy environment, I think that humans would be far more adaptable, ruthless, and warlike than many people seem to be comfortable contemplating.

Historically, lots of cultures have gotten wiped out. When populations of humans have been faced with extinction - sure, they're warlike, but they frequently get wiped out anyway.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 29, 2024, 01:38:58 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 29, 2024, 07:35:24 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 29, 2024, 12:10:42 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 29, 2024, 12:06:42 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 28, 2024, 08:58:02 PM
That's really the thing. I wouldn't expect to find anyone living on a remote farm by themselves in pre-Roman Gaul. As far as I understand the archaeology, the norm for iron age settlements is a walled village with farmlands clustered closely around it. That seems to also be the norm for pre-columbian settlements in Eastern North America and any other context where a pre-industrial and non-nomadic people are living under the threat of inter-tribal warfare. A man living alone in a remote farm, even a trained warrior, would still be screwed if taken by surprise by an armed war party.

honeydipperdavid is complaining about Phandalin, though, which isn't pre-Roman Gaul. They have a modern-style tavern, three trading posts, and an inn. He doesn't specify, but the only farm that fits what he is Alderleaf Farm, which is just two hundred feet from the nearest other homes of Phandalin.

There were plenty of non-walled settlements in medieval times, though there were also walled cities and towns. Walls were not rare, but it seems like they were an extra for more warlike areas, and many settlements didn't have them. That's also true in America. Of the Native American sites that I've visited (mostly in the Southwest and California), very few had walls or palisades. The biggest medieval city in North America, Cahokia, eventually had a palisade, but that was built over a century after the city was founded.

How many of those pre-modern IRL places had to deal with Orcs, Goblins, Trolls and many other soundry monsters? Many of which attacked from above or below?

None, so what bearing do they have in a game world?

If that's your attitude, why are we even talking about "period appropriate" settings?

A settlement designed to withstand attack by trolls and dragons probably wouldn't look like anything that ever existed in the real world, except for maybe the Maginot Line.

By that logic, couldn't someone turn around and say "well the woman we're talking about here is a halfling. What bearing do human sexual dynamics have on on a fantasy species?"

Notice how I chose the words, period appropiate and not period authentic?

True, when faced with a Dragon you're likelly fucked, doesn't mean intelligenbt beings would then throw up their hands and say "Fuck it, why have fortifications?"

I started the thread by decrying the need of some to insert IRL shit into the setting.

Why would we need to discuss Hobbit females biology beyond size/strength/speed? How is it relevant to the setting? Now, monster's biology might be relevant, you could have some that reproduce like amoebas, others lay hundreds of eggs, others need a living host for their cycle.

My point was that you can't base a thread on the idea that historical examples are a valid basis for a fantasy setting, and then dismiss historical examples on the grounds that they aren't fantasy. If you want to talk about how it being a fantasy setting would make it different from historical examples, or which historical periods more closely match the fantasy environment, that's fine, but it's not what anyone else was arguing about.

Quote from: SHARK on February 29, 2024, 03:25:08 PM
Greetings!

Dragons, and monsters. Yeah, while they are formidable, I think many people make the mistake of grossly and severely underestimating the iron will, ruthlessness, and savage might for war that humans possess.

Throughout history, the Bible, archaeology, and mythology, the evidence and themes are clearly shown--

When humans truly feel threatened, as a society, as a people, by foreigners, by giants and monsters, people unite, and rise up. They don't just unite and agree to help--no, generation after generation, they harden themselves and train, and dedicate themselves to resisting the invader, and eventually hunting the hated enemy down, and brutally exterminating them entirely.

Dragons and giants would be hunted down and exterminated. Eventually, they would live in resentful fear of the wrath of humans, should any few manage to escape the human onslaught.

Orcs and trolls, well, their numbers and breeding actually provides them with a better survival factor than dragons and giants. However, the hatred and wrath poured out against them would also be generational, and unflinching. Humans would always be watching and looking for opportunities to strike yet another victory against Orcs and Trolls. Orcs and Trolls may in some communities be eaten, or enslaved. Some would likely provide bounties for killing them, and otherwise working on some kind of commercial angle to further increase and promote the slaughter.

Humans day and night, live and yearn for booty, conquest, and glory. And also for blood and revenge. People will, and have, devoted absolute decades of their lives to pursuing and fulfilling the demand for vengence.

So, even in a fantasy environment, I think that humans would be far more adaptable, ruthless, and warlike than many people seem to be comfortable contemplating.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Odd coincidence, but that's almost exactly the backstory of Dark Souls. Gods and humans united to hunt down all the dragons and giants, which they either exterminated or enslaved, and that made way for the founding of civilization (it's a good deal more complex, but that's the cliff's notes). 

I would agree with you, but with the massive asterisk that it depends on which version of these creatures we're talking about. If we're talking about one of the settings where dragons are even more intelligent and ruthless than humans, plus being expert sorcerers that living for millennia, then I don't think humans are beating them in a genocidal war. In that case they would be smart enough to see the human threat coming, and would probably have wiped us out before we ever got out of the stone age.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 29, 2024, 11:17:11 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 29, 2024, 01:38:58 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 29, 2024, 07:35:24 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 29, 2024, 12:10:42 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 29, 2024, 12:06:42 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 28, 2024, 08:58:02 PM
That's really the thing. I wouldn't expect to find anyone living on a remote farm by themselves in pre-Roman Gaul. As far as I understand the archaeology, the norm for iron age settlements is a walled village with farmlands clustered closely around it. That seems to also be the norm for pre-columbian settlements in Eastern North America and any other context where a pre-industrial and non-nomadic people are living under the threat of inter-tribal warfare. A man living alone in a remote farm, even a trained warrior, would still be screwed if taken by surprise by an armed war party.

honeydipperdavid is complaining about Phandalin, though, which isn't pre-Roman Gaul. They have a modern-style tavern, three trading posts, and an inn. He doesn't specify, but the only farm that fits what he is Alderleaf Farm, which is just two hundred feet from the nearest other homes of Phandalin.

There were plenty of non-walled settlements in medieval times, though there were also walled cities and towns. Walls were not rare, but it seems like they were an extra for more warlike areas, and many settlements didn't have them. That's also true in America. Of the Native American sites that I've visited (mostly in the Southwest and California), very few had walls or palisades. The biggest medieval city in North America, Cahokia, eventually had a palisade, but that was built over a century after the city was founded.

How many of those pre-modern IRL places had to deal with Orcs, Goblins, Trolls and many other soundry monsters? Many of which attacked from above or below?

None, so what bearing do they have in a game world?

If that's your attitude, why are we even talking about "period appropriate" settings?

A settlement designed to withstand attack by trolls and dragons probably wouldn't look like anything that ever existed in the real world, except for maybe the Maginot Line.

By that logic, couldn't someone turn around and say "well the woman we're talking about here is a halfling. What bearing do human sexual dynamics have on on a fantasy species?"

Notice how I chose the words, period appropiate and not period authentic?

True, when faced with a Dragon you're likelly fucked, doesn't mean intelligenbt beings would then throw up their hands and say "Fuck it, why have fortifications?"

I started the thread by decrying the need of some to insert IRL shit into the setting.

Why would we need to discuss Hobbit females biology beyond size/strength/speed? How is it relevant to the setting? Now, monster's biology might be relevant, you could have some that reproduce like amoebas, others lay hundreds of eggs, others need a living host for their cycle.

My point was that you can't base a thread on the idea that historical examples are a valid basis for a fantasy setting, and then dismiss historical examples on the grounds that they aren't fantasy. If you want to talk about how it being a fantasy setting would make it different from historical examples, or which historical periods more closely match the fantasy environment, that's fine, but it's not what anyone else was arguing about.

You didn't read my opening post did you?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 25, 2024, 04:16:53 PM
In case someone doesn't know where I stand I despise the grey gruel most settings have become in recent years.

That said, if that's what floats your boat no hard feelings, just don't sling istophobes, nazi, etc libel against those who don't like it.

On the other hand 100% Period "Authentic" settings aren't really MY cup of tea either, I like SOME Fantasy/Fiction/etc in my ElfGames thank you very much. What do I mean?

Let's take Pulp as an example, but first we need to define it:

IMHO Pulp isn't a time period or genre, it is a style with larger than life Heroes (and Heroines), with Low Fantasy, High Adventure, Super Science, Weird Science, Cosmic Horror, Black & White morality, Manly Men and Femenine Women (the old fashioned type without dicks).

Now, when the Pulps were being published there was a lot of isms around, yes, and if that's what you want in your setting/games more power to you, even if what you want is for the Heroes to be Istophobic, no skin of my teeth.

IN MY Pulp Settings/Games, Racismus, Sexismus & Istophobismus are the exclusive province of the Villains and maybe the NPCs in certain parts of the world, of course I don't limit my Istophobes to being ONLY white or hating on "Teh Diversity TM". So Fu-Manchu hates westerners and thinks ANYONE not a Han Chinese inferior, got a problem with that? My table isn't for you.

NOW, having a Woman, Non-White PC provides for lots of interesting conflicts and RP. Why would I limit my self or my players simply because BACK THEN women were in the kitchen making samwhiches and Non-Whites and Whites didn't mix together?

It's not the "Real World TM" I'm trying to emulate, but a Pulp world that just happens to look a lote like the real one.

And yes, there were Heroines beyond the Femme Fatale trope:

1936 Domino Lady
1937 Sheena
1944ish Señorita Scorpion
1937 Gerry Carlyle, Interplanetary Huntress
Red Sonja

And others.

Thoughts?

Try again.

This topic started out interesting with a talk on how to handle controversial elements in settings and what kind of feel one goes for in their worlds compared to what the blue haired woke brigade do..

Then took a weird far turn towards trying to imply women were in constant danger of always being raped and enslaved in the medieval era (they weren't) and therefore they could never ever live or travel alone (they could).

To then saying every single Medieval Town and Village had walls (they didn't)... as a strange way of trying to give a justification for how the clearly proven woman living alone, were able to live alone (anyone could live alone, yes there was danger but the Medieval period had stable safe areas).

To now arguing about what or how people would prepare for Monsters and whether or not we could kill Dragons if they existed (Depends on the Dragon).

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 01, 2024, 01:49:29 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 29, 2024, 11:17:11 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 29, 2024, 01:38:58 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 29, 2024, 07:35:24 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 29, 2024, 12:10:42 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 29, 2024, 12:06:42 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 28, 2024, 08:58:02 PM
That's really the thing. I wouldn't expect to find anyone living on a remote farm by themselves in pre-Roman Gaul. As far as I understand the archaeology, the norm for iron age settlements is a walled village with farmlands clustered closely around it. That seems to also be the norm for pre-columbian settlements in Eastern North America and any other context where a pre-industrial and non-nomadic people are living under the threat of inter-tribal warfare. A man living alone in a remote farm, even a trained warrior, would still be screwed if taken by surprise by an armed war party.

honeydipperdavid is complaining about Phandalin, though, which isn't pre-Roman Gaul. They have a modern-style tavern, three trading posts, and an inn. He doesn't specify, but the only farm that fits what he is Alderleaf Farm, which is just two hundred feet from the nearest other homes of Phandalin.

There were plenty of non-walled settlements in medieval times, though there were also walled cities and towns. Walls were not rare, but it seems like they were an extra for more warlike areas, and many settlements didn't have them. That's also true in America. Of the Native American sites that I've visited (mostly in the Southwest and California), very few had walls or palisades. The biggest medieval city in North America, Cahokia, eventually had a palisade, but that was built over a century after the city was founded.

How many of those pre-modern IRL places had to deal with Orcs, Goblins, Trolls and many other soundry monsters? Many of which attacked from above or below?

None, so what bearing do they have in a game world?

If that's your attitude, why are we even talking about "period appropriate" settings?

A settlement designed to withstand attack by trolls and dragons probably wouldn't look like anything that ever existed in the real world, except for maybe the Maginot Line.

By that logic, couldn't someone turn around and say "well the woman we're talking about here is a halfling. What bearing do human sexual dynamics have on on a fantasy species?"

Notice how I chose the words, period appropiate and not period authentic?

True, when faced with a Dragon you're likelly fucked, doesn't mean intelligenbt beings would then throw up their hands and say "Fuck it, why have fortifications?"

I started the thread by decrying the need of some to insert IRL shit into the setting.

Why would we need to discuss Hobbit females biology beyond size/strength/speed? How is it relevant to the setting? Now, monster's biology might be relevant, you could have some that reproduce like amoebas, others lay hundreds of eggs, others need a living host for their cycle.

My point was that you can't base a thread on the idea that historical examples are a valid basis for a fantasy setting, and then dismiss historical examples on the grounds that they aren't fantasy. If you want to talk about how it being a fantasy setting would make it different from historical examples, or which historical periods more closely match the fantasy environment, that's fine, but it's not what anyone else was arguing about.

You didn't read my opening post did you?

I did, but it isn't relevant. JHKim's argument (and by extension mine and Orphan81's, since we were both arguing along similar lines) wasn't a response to your original post.

It was in reference to the general thrust of this thread, which up until then had been a discussion on how violent the premodern period was generally, and the viability of isolated farmsteads (especially run by women) in particular. Tacit in that conversation is a mutual agreement on the assumption that historical social organization is a valid and useful basis for modeling a fantasy world. You could say the entire conversation is off topic from your original post, but I took the fact that you let it go on for four pages without raising an objection as an agreement by you that it was relevant to the topic at hand. Maybe I made that assumption in error. If so, I would ask why you singled out that specific post, instead of pointing out that the entire thread had gone off topic.