Its worth pointing out that for most of the middle ages the Bible was written exclusively in Latin and most sermons were also exclusively in Latin. Even Italians of that time would have a hard time understanding old latin. So with the exception of clergy and particularly well educated nobility most people just followed cultural norms and assumed it was the Christian way. We can’t just read the Bible today and assume thats what they believed. I’m not even going into the fact that the current version of the Bible was ratified at the Council of Trent in the mid 16th century. Well after the middle ages.
16 Likes
“True for all people…” You know, I don’t think I’ve seen a single demand for realism when it comes to straight sexual relationships in medieval or medieval-equivalent settings. Even though RO NPCs tend to be plot-central regardless of their orientation, and their anachronisms thus more prominent and hard to avoid.
Medieval Christianities tended by and large to put more effort into policing fornication and (especially) adultery than sodomy. Monks and nuns who fiddled around with each other within the monastic community tended to face much more lenient treatment than those who took straight lovers. The literature of the time bears witness to the preoccupation of a huge share of the elite population with sexual continence. Even where more permissive counter-currents like amour courtois were prevalent, affairs were still conducted in a wildly different way to our present mores.
But post-1960s Western sex-positivity shapes how the vast majority of games treat sex, both inside and outside CoG. Only villains talk or care about “fornication”; no one else judges the MC, and there are no social consequences to having sex. All ROs are uncomplicatedly DTF, with any qualms being based on whether the MC as an individual fits their individual preferences, not on any other issue of sexual ethics. There’s a level of freedom in copulation that not even kings consistently enjoyed in the real world.
Isn’t that also a realism problem? There’s plenty of complexity and ambiguity in how medieval cultures handled same-sex intimacy; it wasn’t as simple as “Christians didn’t tolerate it.” But to the extent that we want our medieval escapism to be shaped by the hegemonic sexual ethics of the time, that should require rethinking the whole trope of “the RO”, not just or primarily LGBTQ characters.
Funnily enough, that’s not how it works out. If you happen to be bugged by that too, and just haven’t got round to complaining about it yet, fair enough. But you might consider whether it’s really “laziness” you’re upset about, or authors accommodating their audience…and in the latter case, whether that accommodation should be limited to the pantsfeelings of the cishet majority.
Edit:
As others have noted, you’re slipping into anachronism on the role of the bible in the period. “Most people” definitely would not have gone to a text until modernity, and that included most village priests. The sacred book was important, but not nearly as important or widespread as it became in the information age that started with Gutenberg (which was also the “height of indoctrination” – the tools for effective mass indoctrination were a lot weaker in the medieval period than in modernity).
25 Likes
Aside from the fact that most people couldn’t even read the Bible, because it was in Latin? Saint Anselm of Canterbury (who was himself potentially gay) refused to strongly condemn homosexuality on the grounds that most people didn’t even know it was a sin.
During the medieval times, the Church was powerful, but it was generally more concerned with expanding its power base (e.g. with the Crusades) than it was with punishing the faithful. The medieval Inquisition was also far more concerned with anti-Papal sects than it was with individual sinners. It wasn’t until the Reformation brought along the more fundamentalist Protestants that the Catholic Church itself became more fundamentalist in response.
14 Likes
Just to offer a little more food for thought on archaeology: it’s worth noting that you’ve added two words that weren’t in LiliArch’s comment.
The real power of bias isn’t that it turns us into dishonest liars – it’s that it colors our thinking at its most sincere, often at a very foundational level.
It doesn’t take a conscious conspiracy of archaeologists or historians for systematic errors to creep into their analysis. All it takes is the “common sense” of the epoch in which they work.
No doubt we’re making mistakes that will be clearer to the next generation…but meanwhile, there’s lots of scope for us to revisit old conclusions that rested on sincere-but-flawed interpretations of the available evidence.
22 Likes
By “realism in straight romance” I take it you mean that PC must marry the person that they are betrothed to (if they are nobility/royalty) unless the political winds change and they are paired off with someone else. While a straight male PC can be with his true lady love, she and he may be married to different people, any children they have will be bastards (even if he’s a king and she has a husband who is interested in the political gains of having a royal bastard in the family and willing to pretend the child is his even if the rest of the world knows the truth)–and this is not even talking about domestic and international machinations to influence him via his mistress (starting of course with putting her in his bed). A straight female PC could be with her love as well, but it would be much more scandalous if word got out about her true love than about her male counterpart’s. That and if she was a princess or a queen her father or husband (or even someone who wants to destroy her) could accuse her of high treason for it (which would lead to imprisonment at best for her, and certain horrific death for her lover). Unless she was Isabella of France. And of course, straight noble/royal married couples were expected to have children or make a good effort to do so.
While common people did have slightly more freedom in their choices of marriage (but if they were parts of guilded professions, marriages and marriage control could get…interesting), they did also have other things to deal with.
Did I get things right? A little bit? Not at all? Although I admit it’s something I want to see in a game, but it’s rather hard to write well.
6 Likes
It would also mean that romances for noble MCs would involve 11-13 year old girls. REALISM! Hard pass.
11 Likes
To anyone who want to wrote realistic:
You must drink the sour chalice until the last drop. Warning: it can choke you, it can bring to artistic suicide, It can be mediocre and/or no sense
I’m aware. I think that ITFO did it very well in that it was brutal and unflinching and PC could have the player’s (mine) revulsion toward arranged marriages like Sobik’s offering to Rade pre-rebellion.
I suppose I want more games like ITFO or similar to non IF works such as Vinland Saga (which does have historical liberties, I know). Games that write about the past (or fantasy past) without giving people the fantasy that it was better than the modern era.
1 Like
Well, the actual details of what “realism” would look like would depend on a lot of things – social class, what country and area you’re in, what point in the medieval millennium we’re talking about. Even as a non-historian I’m aware that norms and rules around marriage, consent, sex, and romance all changed repeatedly during the period.
The overall dynamic I think most games leave out is that sex is something intensively policed by society – especially but not solely if you’re a woman. Many people around you hold (to varying degrees of intensity) the belief that they will be eternally tortured for doing it wrong, and invest significant effort into penance to avert this likelihood. Offenders against the norms of their class and community can be physically punished, publicly shamed, and face lifelong social consequences. This is an uncomfortable fit with the free and easy “RO” dynamic that most gamers expect.
And romances aren’t private. Your family and community are implicated in who you have sex with and how. In the high-class milieu you describe (which would include most game protagonists) that would involve marriage dynamics like the ones you describe in your post. Even in rural areas where fornication and concubinage were more common, your family and community would take a strong interest in who you were taking up with.
At the end of the day, there was tremendous diversity in that millennium of European history, and the efforts by the church to police sexuality were neither consistent nor successful everywhere. But anyone who can’t suspend their disbelief that this leaves space for tolerance of same-sex relationships or androgyny should also, I suggest, be deeply bothered by the general absence of non-villain NPCs judging the MC and RO as fornicators or adulterers (or for that matter any ROs who have qualms about the spiritual and social consequences of hooking up with you).
20 Likes
I just wanted to note here that the actual power of the roman catholic church varied wildly across the medieval period, and in some instances it was, in actuality, limited to the areas surounding Rome, with shameful episodes of arab raids and warbands basically preventing any movement between italian cities between the 8th to 10th centuries, and not even the constant pleas and threats of the Pope managing to move the local lombard lords to do something about it. The centralization we often tie with catholicism is nothing short of anachronistic in the Middle Ages, the actual application of religious customs and laws varying depending on both the secular rulers and the local priesthood, that had a bigger saying in how religion was practiced than what most people imagine. We should not confuse cultural influence and worldview (that was, yes, completely christian) with actual political or cultural power, which was a far more scarce resource the church struggle to gather even after the 13th century.
13 Likes
While I would rather not deviate the topic even more from the initial point, I believe certain clarification regarding how religious institutions historically work is necessary due certain very strong terms thrown during the discussion:
To speak about the Middle Ages as the height of indoctrination and religious political power ignores not only the general decentralization forced by the lack of quick methods of travel and the influence of local bishops, but furthermore, the way common people interacted with their faith and of course the fact that Roman Catholicism was in no way or form a monolith. While the church strived for unity in what theological and legal grounds concern, in practice the debate, discussion and factionalism was constant, several reformists coming and going leaving a substantially different church behind. It would be pertinent to note that Saint Thomas Aquinas, a man whose theology forms the basis of western christian metaphysics for both catholics and several protestant branches, was nevertheless rejected by very influential factions within the church even after his death, and he was not to be confirmed as the paragon of catholic thought until much, much later.
About the first point, when the proper MIddle Ages begin Europe has been christian for more than several centuries, and a massive number of local customs and traditions were already in place born from the interaction between the christian cosmology and the largely germanic peoples that settled within the ruins of the WRE: Local saints and feast days dominate the interaction between common folk and religion, a far call from the modern Bible Faith we observe in protestant nations, and while a substantial number of them end up being ultimately recognized as canon by Rome, in their origins they are likely completely organic, cultural artifacts supported by the local clergy. The religion of the commons is mostly oral, liturgical and folkloric, not intelectual, thus to speak of “indoctrination” is completely out of place.
11 Likes
A mechanic I hate is when you’re locked from entering an area because of a door but the door looks like it would fall over if you sneezed on it, like bro please just let me Brogue Kick the door down why do I have to pick the friggin’ lock
11 Likes
Oddly enough, the first Deathless story does that - the entire plot is you remembering the series of events that led up to your soul being punched into a billion pieces by the main villain, and the reason you’re going through all your memories is because you’re in the process of hauling your soul back together one piece at a time, which culminates in you resurrecting yourself, looking at the villain and being all, “So how 'bout round two, bitch?”
In that instance, I appreciate it, it was a well-done twist.
Should’ve leveled Strength, man.
6 Likes
I’m considering writing a game now just so I can have a scene where you Brogue Kick a door down.
Hmm…I wonder how one would go about ankle-picking a door in order to establish dominance over it?
2 Likes
“Sheperd with a HUGE spear outta nowhere! Booker, that’s gotta be it!”
“Did you see that? DID YOU JUST SEE THAT?”
“I did, Booker, it was incredible! Oh my, Sheperd’s going for the pin! Is that all she wrote?!”
“Sheperd wins! Sheperd is your new Intergalactic Wrestling Federation Champion! Unbelievable! Can you believe it, Booker?!”
5 Likes
I’m so glad Book’s on commentary again
4 Likes
He never should have left.
BATISTA IS DOWN. BATISTA IS DOWN. BATISTA IS DOWN. BATISTA IS DOWN!
4 Likes
Yeah but the Flashback include you doing Deathless things since day 1. It literally start with you and two siblings fighting a horde of monsters for millennia IIRC.
1 Like
Honestly, I know we’re supposed to be hating elements and mechanics here, but the lore of the Deathless stories is actually some of my favorite worldbuilding, and it’s in interactive fiction stories of all things.
2 Likes
The author of those games wrote several books in that setting before he wrote those games, which partially explains why everything is so detailed.
4 Likes