Unarmored in town?

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by JLV

I'm thinking the wise ruler would hesitate before making a hard and fast rule like that for his town. Maybe in the citadel, that would be the rule, but I suspect most would hesitate to interfere much in the activities in the town, simply because revenue means taxes, and making rules like that might tend to cut revenue. Known trouble-makers would be different, of course, but while the watch might keep a wary eye on people who insisted on going about fully armed, interference, other than to prevent or punish law-breaking, seems like it might be counter-productive; particularly in a game world in which such adventurers bring back lots of money to spend... But, to each his own.

If the characters are going around fully armed then so is everyone else and the Town is just an extension of the Dungeon; something like a frontier town in the Wild West. That's fine sometimes and there are bound to be towns like that but there will also be much more civilised, and therefore regulated urban areas in most worlds. Which you choose to focus on is up to you. I like to have both types, but the latter is a different sort of challenge: the characters can't just fight anything that disagrees with them. They have to evolve different tactics.

[JLV]

I hear you, Chris, but speaking as an historian, I can tell you that the "wild west" that most people mentally envision was nothing whatsoever like the reality. People walked around armed, but so what? Violence was actually rather rare, and it took a very brave man indeed to bother a woman in the old west -- total strangers were likely to come from miles away gunning for you if you did. As my grandfather (a World War I veteran who grew up in the tag end of the wild west in the '90's) said; "An armed society is a polite society."

Plus, many of the people in the old west during its heyday (the 1870s and 1880s) were veterans of the Civil War -- much like "adventurers" in that regard; and they had no desire for a bunch of violence in their backyards, and would take steps to stop it if it got going. The biggest problem they had was Indian raids, and that only on the actual frontier edge itself -- Indian raids deeper into controlled territory didn't really happen. in short, life on a frontier is always hard, but the vision most people have of the Wild West bears about as much relationship to the reality as the movie Crocodile Dundee does... You hear so much about things like the Lincoln County War precisely because they WERE the exceptions, and not the norm.

So no, NOT like the Wild West. ;-)

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by JLV

I hear you, Chris, but speaking as an historian, I can tell you that the "wild west" that most people mentally envision was nothing whatsoever like the reality. People walked around armed, but so what? Violence was actually rather rare, and it took a very brave man indeed to bother a woman in the old west -- total strangers were likely to come from miles away gunning for you if you did. As my grandfather (a World War I veteran who grew up in the tag end of the wild west in the '90's) said; "An armed society is a polite society."

Plus, many of the people in the old west during its heyday (the 1870s and 1880s) were veterans of the Civil War -- much like "adventurers" in that regard; and they had no desire for a bunch of violence in their backyards, and would take steps to stop it if it got going. The biggest problem they had was Indian raids, and that only on the actual frontier edge itself -- Indian raids deeper into controlled territory didn't really happen. in short, life on a frontier is always hard, but the vision most people have of the Wild West bears about as much relationship to the reality as the movie Crocodile Dundee does... You hear so much about things like the Lincoln County War precisely because they WERE the exceptions, and not the norm.

So no, NOT like the Wild West. ;-)

I was thinking of the Wild West of the movies, I know next to nothing about the real thing. TFT is cinematic after all :)

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

If the characters are going around fully armed then so is everyone else and the Town is just an extension of the Dungeon; something like a frontier town in the Wild West. That's fine sometimes and there are bound to be towns like that but there will also be much more civilised, and therefore regulated urban areas in most worlds. Which you choose to focus on is up to you. I like to have both types, but the latter is a different sort of challenge: the characters can't just fight anything that disagrees with them. They have to evolve different tactics.

Not really. Two false premises -
1 - adventurers/wanderers will be mirrored by the locals
2 - that weapon attitudes will mirror modern sensibilities

The idea that carrying a weapon in town is bad really only starts to take hold in the late 17th C... and has more to do with the migration of sidearms from blades to pistols. Pistols are far more likely to do accidental damage.

Most pre-gunpowder cultures have some social castes/classes that are expected to be armed at all times - and not just the town watch.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

Not really. Two false premises -
1 - adventurers/wanderers will be mirrored by the locals
2 - that weapon attitudes will mirror modern sensibilities

The idea that carrying a weapon in town is bad really only starts to take hold in the late 17th C... and has more to do with the migration of sidearms from blades to pistols. Pistols are far more likely to do accidental damage.

Most pre-gunpowder cultures have some social castes/classes that are expected to be armed at all times - and not just the town watch.

The premises are entirely sound.

1. Adventurers may or may not be mirrored by the locals. That will be down to the design of the GM. In any case the adventurers are unlikely to be the only wanderers in town. So that doesn't hold water.

2. Weapon attitudes may or may not mirror modern sensibilities. Again, up to the design of the GM. They may also not mirror some sort of imagined mediaeval counterpart. So that doesn't hold water either.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by JLV

As my grandfather (a World War I veteran who grew up in the tag end of the wild west in the '90's) said; "An armed society is a polite society."

Robert E. Howard (of Conan fame) said essentially the same thing. To paraphrase REH's philosophy (espoused through Conan) was that a society of Barbarians were far more polite to each other on-the-whole then the majority members of a so-called: Civil Society, as the risk and probability of having your skull beaten-in with the business-end of blunt ax if a beta male acted-up disrespectfully towards an Alpha was not only astronomically high, but also fairly immediate and relentless.

Whereas in a society of so-called civilized men, the betas usually express their nasty and less-than-polite disposition towards others, while hiding behind a bully-pulpit, and/or from a position within their small support-system of fellow betas - mistakenly thinking they are completely safe from swift and harsh *correction* from those members of a culture where rude and arrogant beta males are not tolerated for very long by the Alpha class.

And for those reasons, Howard's philosophy surmises that the so-called armed and uncivilized Barbarian is usually much more careful to conduct himself in a polite manner toward his neighbor, than the so-called civil man.

JK

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Robert E. Howard (of Conan fame) said essentially the same thing. To paraphrase REH's philosophy (espoused through Conan) was that a society of Barbarians were far more polite to each other on-the-whole then the majority members of a so-called: Civil Society, as the risk and probability of having your skull beaten-in with the business-end of blunt ax if a beta male acted-up disrespectfully towards an Alpha was not only astronomically high, but also fairly immediate and relentless.

Whereas in a society of so-called civilized men, the betas usually express their nasty and less-than-polite disposition towards others, while hiding behind a bully-pulpit, and/or from a position within their small support-system of fellow betas - mistakenly thinking they are completely safe from swift and harsh *correction* from those members of a culture where rude and arrogant beta males are not tolerated for very long by the Alpha class.

And for those reasons, Howard's philosophy surmises that the so-called armed and uncivilized Barbarian is usually much more careful to conduct himself in a polite manner toward his neighbor, than the so-called civil man.

JK

Actually, I feel far safer in a town where people are not armed. But that's a cultural/societal thing. If other people are armed, you'll feel safer if you are armed too.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Actually, I feel far safer in a town where people are not armed. But that's a cultural/societal thing. If other people are armed, you'll feel safer if you are armed too.

Well, that is why when I design a city or city-state for Cidri, I consider the cultural types and prevailing attitudes to reflect the expressed specific morality of a given place; and that includes the question of the open carrying of arms by the civil (or not so civil population), the level of corruption or honor of the government, fairness in trade, etc. Each City or City-State takes on it's own personality; just like any other NPC you would design to expose your players to. In fact, quite a long time ago, I discovered the joy of designing *interesting* cities for the PCs to travel through - variating the local laws, customs, and governmental/political structure - if only for the color and fun of it all.

JK

[zot]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

If the characters are going around fully armed then so is everyone else and the Town is just an extension of the Dungeon; something like a frontier town in the Wild West. That's fine sometimes and there are bound to be towns like that but there will also be much more civilised, and therefore regulated urban areas in most worlds. Which you choose to focus on is up to you. I like to have both types, but the latter is a different sort of challenge: the characters can't just fight anything that disagrees with them. They have to evolve different tactics.

"Anything goes" towns sound like Mos Eisley and they shouldn't be the norm. I still wonder how people deal with storing their armor.

When we went to China in 1994, we handed our cash to the guy at the hotel to keep safe for us because they didn't actually have a safe. His hands shook as he accepted the envelope from me.

Maybe there are bonded armories where you can store your weapons and armor. Still seems like giving someone thousands of dollars worth of stuff to watch though...

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by zot

"Anything goes" towns sound like Mos Eisley and they shouldn't be the norm. I still wonder how people deal with storing their armor.

When we went to China in 1994, we handed our cash to the guy at the hotel to keep safe for us because they didn't actually have a safe. His hands shook as he accepted the envelope from me.

Maybe there are bonded armories where you can store your weapons and armor. Still seems like giving someone thousands of dollars worth of stuff to watch though...

I like the Mercenaries or Adventurers guild for that. You can store gear and loot with them, have stuff repaired and characters healed, hire replacement warriors etc.