Support NeoGAF

[besada]

Let me rephrase that then: Were there controversies when a lot of the medieval movies of our time were all a bunch of white people?

As much of a controversy as there is here? Yes. Which means someone asked why the screen was so lily-white, and someone else pointed out that non-whites existed in the medieval period and had contact with whites.

The only "controversy" here is Reddit turning this into some sort of anti-PC crusade based off a couple of Tumblr posts, because Redditors apparently have nothing better to do than trawl Tumblr for things to make fun of.

And next time, Read the OP. Not doing so is a bannable offense.

 

[Orayn]

It would be nice if someone would remove "controversy" from the title since there really isn't one, and it seems to be prompting people to post without reading the OP (or understanding it).

Party A: Hey, did you consider historical possibility X?
Party B: Yeah, we looked into it, but what we've determined that it's not very likely.
[Party B might have been a little dismissive, Party A might have been a little snippy afterwards]
[Party A starts getting nasty messages, threats, and unnecessary derision from people who misread their intentions]

Sad that most of the supposed controversy is coming from people misunderstanding the situation or just being jerks.

 

[Sneds]

Let me rephrase that then: Were there controversies when a lot of the medieval movies of our time were all a bunch of white people?

Threats suck from all sides though. This just seems like such a weird thing to turn into an issue if they're going for a period correct game. If they did approach the topic while wanting to remain accurate, it could be an utter disaster based on how they portray them. It's a lose-lose when people are just looking for controversy. If they were making a game in a very diverse region, it's one thing but we're talking about Bohemia...

Maybe. I don't visit movie forums. If you didn't visit gaf would you know about this 'controversy'?

To make a broader point, people often try to suggest on gaf that video games are the only form of media criticised for gender or racial issues. That simply isn't the case.

Films are constantly criticised for their portrayal of race and racial issues.

 

[TatteredHat]

People really underestimate how little racial diversity is in slavic contries, exspecialy for non caucasian races . We are not talking about the western evropean countries here, who had huge presence around the world and colonies. Central and eastern europe was far more secluded from the world, and there was far little migration to them over time, due to them being porer countries. Can't blame the migrants, since why would anyone want to migrate here, if there are much bether and richer countries in europe :/

I live in a ex comunistic slavic country and i have only seen a black person twice in my entire life, on both of the ocasion in the capitol city. And this is in todays modern times.

The average Bohemian peasant in the medival time has probably never ever seen an non white person in his entire life.

Honestly, my knowledge of Bohemia and the history of Slavic countries might as well be non-existent so I don't feel qualified to make any definitive statements either way, which is why I can't in good faith rule out the possibility of a hand-full of black people having been present there.

But such a small group of people wouldn't really warrant representation in a game trying to be historically accurate over being politically correct, as then even including a single black person in the game would already vastly overstate the presence of non-white ethnicities in the area.

 

[rottame]

I think diversity in media is important for very real reasons though not simply because I want diversity for diversity sake.

I think diversity in society is very important, and also think that the idea that you can change society by doing some moral policing on pop culture is a tragic sign of political ignorance and naivety of a lot of people.
I like art to be free to be as antisocial, wrong and free as it wants to be. Louis Ferdinand Cèline had horrible opinions, his books are filled with very, very questionable (when not disgusting) ideas. And they are fantastic.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I think diversity in society is very important, and also think that the idea that you can change society by doing some moral policing on pop culture is a tragic sign of political ignorance and naivety of a lot of people.
I like art to be free to be as antisocial, wrong and free as it wants to be. Louis Ferdinand Cèline had horrible opinions, his books are filled with very, very questionable (when not disgusting) ideas. And they are fantastic.

You're either not understanding or refusing to understand what happened in this situation. The developers were asked about POC in their game, they game an answer, then the asker of the question gave their thoughts. There was no pressure or "policing" involved.

Being aware that you could be alienating a potential source of income is something that developers should be aware of for their own good, let alone for any strides toward more balanced media representation.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I'm not criticsing him at all. I'm criticising fantasy fans who use the "historical accuracy" excuse.

My tangent about fantasy authors who use a poor excuse for their misogyny and lack of imagination.

Wow. Who are you calling a misogynist exactly? Just to be sure what you're saying...

I am not calling the developers racist. I'm saying their excuse of historical accuracy will soon be forgotten after your character can survive the most grievous wound, fight against ten soldiers at once, run around the game world and never get tired etc.

And how do you know this will happen? They said you needed to actually wash your dirty/bloodied clothing in the game, FFS. I sincerely doubt you can brush off an arrow wound or fight ten soldiers at once.
Besides, of course some mechanics won't be 100% realistic. You probably won't have to visit latrines in the game. It's still a game with an epic adventure, not a 100% realistic medieval life simulator. That doesn't mean they should throw in women in bikini armour or extremely unlikely African traders just because "it's a game, see, your character doesn't even need to pee, that's biologically impossible!".

I wasn't saying the character in this game should be allowed to have tattoos. I was calling out your ridiculous notion that tattooing is some modern invention.

Sure, it was a ridiculous notion, but I think s/he was mostly just making a joke at your expense, since you're the one who brought up tattoos for no reason in the first place...

 

[Orayn]

Honestly, my knowledge of Bohemia and the history of Slavic countries might as well be non-existent so I don't feel qualified to make any definitive statements either way, which is why I can't in good faith rule out the possibility of a hand-full of black people having been present there.

But such a small group of people wouldn't really warrant representation in a game trying to be historically accurate over being politically correct, as then even including a single black person in the game would already vastly overstate the presence of non-white ethnicities in the area.

At the same time, we're still talking about a video game with an ahistorical protagonist, a plot that's a combination of embellishment and historical fiction, and game mechanics that are at least somewhat player-friendly don't portray all the realities of being a heroic figure who kills a bunch of dudes and presumably saves the day.

There's wiggle-room because they're already sacrificing some historical accuracy for the sake of storytelling, strictly speaking. How they want to portray the demographics of the area is still their call, obviously, but it's not like they've sworn an oath not to include anything that isn't 100% realistic.

 

[spekkeh]

People clamoring for POC to be included and pointing to a few Tatars that lived in the area should really google Tatar. Or the area where they're coming from, Tatarstan.

Hint, it's pretty close to this place called Caucasus.

 

[TatteredHat]

At the same time, we're still talking about a video game with an ahistorical protagonist, a plot that's a combination of embellishment and historical fiction, and game mechanics that are at least somewhat player-friendly don't portray all the realities of being a heroic figure who kills a bunch of dudes and presumably saves the day.

There's wiggle-room because they're already sacrificing some historical accuracy for the sake of storytelling, strictly speaking. How they want to portray the demographics of the area is still their call, obviously, but it's not like they've sworn an oath not to include anything that isn't 100% realistic.

Certainly true, and I don't think it is possible to create a game that is 100% historically accurate or realistic due to the need to apply gameplay elements to something that historically really wasn't fun, so that problem will persist as long as games will exist. As a developer you often have to sacrifice some of the setting's integrity in order to turn the setting into a gameplay viable environment.

I think there should be a disconnect between inaccuracies that are necessary to make the game playable and the ones that exist outside of this sphere of gameplay elements.

 

[Atrophis]

Wow. Who are you calling a misogynist exactly? Just to be sure what you're saying...

I don't want to derail this further or get into some slanging match about your favourite authors.

Sure, it was a ridiculous notion, but I think s/he was mostly just making a joke at your expense, since you're the one who brought up tattoos for no reason in the first place...

Read again, I did no such thing.

 

[bonesmccoy]

This (the tumblr) is fascinating. I wonder how much of our inculcated cultural superiority (I blame whiggish interpretations of history) factors in to how comfortable we are with being presented with evidence that the Medieval period was, to a degree, more comfortable with race than many of us have assumed.

I still think the game developers have the opportunity to add in some of the 'features' Dewalt identifies, at least in some shape or form. Hopefully they can!

 

[rottame]

You're either not understanding or refusing to understand what happened in this situation. The developers were asked about POC in their game, they game an answer, then the asker of the question gave their thoughts. There was no pressure or "policing" involved.

Being aware that you could be alienating a potential source of income is something that developers should be aware of for their own good, let alone for any strides toward more balanced media representation.

Mmm. I think it should be self-evident that "moral policing" is not to be interpreted literally. And I think it was pretty clear that I was answering to a quote regarding these kind of issues in general.
I know what happened and I was expressing my opinion of why "balanced media representation" in art/culture/media shouldn't be framed as a moral obligation nor as a moral question at all.
And if someone is alienated by the fact that at some point of history there was not a lot of racial variety in a given place... well... I don't know what to say.

 

[Sneds]

This (the tumblr) is fascinating. I wonder how much of our inculcated cultural superiority (I blame whiggish interpretations of history) factors in to how comfortable we are with being presented with evidence that the Medieval period was, to a degree, more comfortable with race than many of us have assumed.

I still think the game developers have the opportunity to add in some of the 'features' Dewalt identifies, at least in some shape or form. Hopefully they can!

A lot. People like to buy into ideas of teleological 'progress'. People like to think that medieval people were savage and brutal unlike our 'enlightened' modern selves. It's why today so-called 'backwards' societies are often described as medieval or as 'living in the Dark Ages'.

The Dark Ages itself was a term invented in the Renaissance by those seeking to distance themselves from their 'less cultured' contemporaries.

When people think of the medieval period they often think of torture even though torture is still carried out by the current US government among others. They might think of persecution even though some of the most heinous examples of persecution occurred in twentieth century Europe. They may think of brutal battles even though the twentieth century saw two World Wars and a Cold War that forced people to live under the constant threat of mass annihilation.

Yet for some reason 'modern' still has positive connotations while the medieval is stuck with its Dark Ages label.

 

[neither]

Kind of weird to see people get do up in arms about a blog post that doesn't really affect anything.

I mean, it's not odd that people want to be represented in their entertainment. Our more accurately, don't want to feel excluded from it.

Where does all the "how dare they" sort of sentiment come from?

Exactly!
Couldn't have said it any better.

 

[grandwizard]

I'm still waiting on that medieval African RPG setting...

Almost..

Set on a different continent that had inspirations from Arabic, African and Egyptian styles, with dark skinned characters and NPCs.

Of course, when you loaded it up 90% of the new characters made were white. I bet by some of the same people who refuse to acknowledge POCs who ask for better representation in games.

 

[bishoptl]

Almost..

Set on a different continent that had inspirations from Arabic, African and Egyptian styles, with dark skinned characters and NPCs.

Of course, when you loaded it up 90% of the new characters made were white. I bet by some of the same people who refuse to acknowledge POCs who ask for better representation in games.

The fact that a poster named "grandwizard" said this is just....hoohaaa

 

[ultratruman]

This (the tumblr) is fascinating. I wonder how much of our inculcated cultural superiority (I blame whiggish interpretations of history) factors in to how comfortable we are with being presented with evidence that the Medieval period was, to a degree, more comfortable with race than many of us have assumed.

Yeah, try telling this to the medieval Jews in Central Europe. The lack of slavery or oppression of black people in this era is not indicative of a morally superior culture, it's indicative of a lack of black people.

Maybe it's not a fair comparison, but nobody denigrates painters who depict a typical scene in the middle ages without any black people. There is no tumblr facepalming about novels written about this time which have no black characters. Why should we care when a medieval game's scope doesn't extend to include what it would be like to be a black person in this age?

Having lived in Prague for most of my life (and the other half in Scotland), I feel it's safe to say that Czech cultural ideology is not as sensitive or insecure about the representation of black people as other western countries. They had no colonies, they had no slaves. There is no tradition of black oppression here; more often than not Czech people were the oppressed colony. I'm not saying ethnic issues are not a problem with Czech people, but it has never extended to black people. Jews? Yes, go to the Jewish quarter of Prague and you will still see armed police patrolling the streets. Romani? Absolutely, a couple of years ago 44% of Czechs said they were afraid of Romani people. Bohemia is in the heart of Europe, between Berlin and Vienna, so of course it'll always have a European ethnic mix. But the keyword here is European, not African or Arab. Czech people simply do not have this same sense of tension or burden towards black people as other western nations do.

If this game was made in the Anglosphere, there is no doubt that it would include black people, and they wouldn't be wrong in doing so. The fact that Warhourse Studios didn't include them in Kingdom Come: Deliverance is not because they are racist or lazy, but is a result of a discrepancy of ideologies (perpetuated by historical realities) between the Czech Republic and countries like the United States, which in turn reveals a much wider gap between the historical and cultural legacy of these countries. I think this accounts for the strange resonance this topic has created.

 

[Sneds]

Yeah, try telling this to the medieval Jews in Central Europe. The lack of slavery or oppression of black people in this era is not indicative of a morally superior culture, it's indicative of a lack of black people.

You can't know that.

Persecution of Jews had a specific context linked to Christianity and money-lending. You can't just extrapolate wildly from that.

It's possible that medieval Bohemians, and other Europeans, may have persecuted poc on sight if given the opportunity but no-one in this thread has provided any compelling evidence of that.

And I certainly wouldn't claim that medieval Europe was morally superior but it was a different society with a totally different worldview. You can't impose our ideas of race onto it.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Mmm. I think it should be self-evident that "moral policing" is not to be interpreted literally. And I think it was pretty clear that I was answering to a quote regarding these kind of issues in general.
I know what happened and I was expressing my opinion of why "balanced media representation" in art/culture/media shouldn't be framed as a moral obligation nor as a moral question at all.
And if someone is alienated by the fact that at some point of history there was not a lot of racial variety in a given place... well... I don't know what to say.

Why do you think I put policing in quotes?

Anyway, since you don't appear to understand my post, I'll leave you to your own devices

 

[Azih]

You can't know that.

Persecution of Jews had a specific context linked to Christianity and money-lending. You can't just extrapolate wildly from that.

It's possible that medieval Bohemians, and other Europeans, may have persecuted poc on sight if given the opportunity but no-one in this thread has provided any compelling evidence of that.

And I certainly wouldn't claim that medieval Europe was morally superior but it was a different society with a totally different worldview. You can't impose our ideas of race onto it.

Islamophobia and constant hate for the powerful Islamic empires of the time that were chock full of poc and controlled the holy lands to boot.

 

[ultratruman]

You can't know that.

Persecution of Jews had a specific context linked to Christianity and money-lending. You can't just extrapolate wildly from that.

It's possible that medieval Bohemians, and other Europeans, may have persecuted poc on sight if given the opportunity but no-one in this thread has provided any compelling evidence of that.

And I certainly wouldn't claim that medieval Europe was morally superior but it was a different society with a totally different worldview. You can't impose our ideas of race onto it.

I never disagreed with any of that, of course it's possible that medieval Bohemians would've oppressed black people had they been around. I'm saying that the fact there's no evidence it happening isn't because it was a morally enlightened time, but because there were virtually no black people to oppress.

Also the Jewish tradition of money-lending is a symptom of anti-semitism, not its root.

 

[Minister of the Dog]

You can't know that.

Persecution of Jews had a specific context linked to Christianity and money-lending. You can't just extrapolate wildly from that.

It's possible that medieval Bohemians, and other Europeans, may have persecuted poc on sight if given the opportunity but no-one in this thread has provided any compelling evidence of that.

And I certainly wouldn't claim that medieval Europe was morally superior but it was a different society with a totally different worldview. You can't impose our ideas of race onto it.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3472-bohemia

"The fifteenth century witnessed a constant succession of massacres and pillagings"

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12660-reichskammerknecht

"The medieval state was based on the feudal principle by which every one was a member of an order first and a citizen of the state next. The Jews, being of no recognized class or order, were aliens, and as such the property of the king, like wayfaring foreigners or wild game."

Everything in those two articles cites bibliographical sources as accurately as citing the exact page.

edit: I misunderstood your second sentence, I thought you meant "extrapolate from that how were the Jews treated", not other ethnicities. No-one has provided sources on how people from other races were treated because there were none or virtually none in that area during that time. Just like you won't find sources regarding how the people from Bohemia treated the Mayans or the Japanese.

 

[DocSeuss]

Things I have learned from this thread:

1. People don't get that Redditors are very quick to jump on Tumblr's particular brand of quirky social activism, which is pretty often completely insane. Honestly, it's just a reactionary thing; "Oh, tumblr said x? Cool, here's a quick post for karma." Best just to ignore when Reddit gets mad at things, it's just a mouse that roars, and doesn't mean anything in the long run.

2. MPOC's argument isn't very good, but it has started a really interesting discussion about demographics in the middle ages, and this is a really cool thing.

3. We actually spend way too much time thinking of RPGs as games centered almost entirely around the middle ages. We should totally expand our scope in thinking about what we can explore.

Reflecting on this post, I find myself wondering just how someone could make an African, not Egyptian RPG. Most culture on the African continent didn't... like, it's not comparable to China or Europe or the Mediterranean or Egypt or South America. It didn't grow like that. We don't go to Africa and start finding giant Mayan or Incan pyramid-type structures anywhere that the Egyptian empire wasn't. And this is largely because culture grows as a result of tools. Tool tech expands the most when agrarian society is a factor, and living in Africa, especially Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa, didn't generally demand agrarian stuff. So we never really get this culture growth that we see in a lot of other places.

I guess for me, this is a bit of a thought experiment. If I wanted to make an RPG in Africa, with African characters, how would I accomplish that? I feel like RPGs tend to need, y'know, wars and large cultures and stuff, and historically, the African continent's societies never got particularly expansive, not like the Romans, the Mongols, or even the Sumerians. It's really just limited to Egypt.

I dunno, if you were tasked with making an RPG in Africa but not in Egypt, how would you pull it off?

Islamophobia and constant hate for the powerful Islamic empires of the time that were chock full of poc and controlled the holy lands to boot.

The Crusades are what happens when the Roman Empire reforms as a massive adoption and perversion of Christianity, changing religion from The Emperor is God to The Pope is In Charge 'cause God Said So, becoming the Holy Roman Empire. This massive economy wanted the most important trade route on the planet. Likewise, the Muslims wanted the most important trade route on the planet. It was a war based entirely around money, under the guise of religion because that gets hicks out the door. Was a money thing, not a race thing. Race was really only brought into it as a form of propaganda.

 

[ultratruman]

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3472-bohemia

"The fifteenth century witnessed a constant succession of massacres and pillagings"

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12660-reichskammerknecht

"The medieval state was based on the feudal principle by which every one was a member of an order first and a citizen of the state next. The Jews, being of no recognized class or order, were aliens, and as such the property of the king, like wayfaring foreigners or wild game."

Everything in those two articles cites bibliographical sources as accurately as citing the exact page.

edit: I misunderstood your second sentence, I thought you meant "extrapolate from that how were the Jews treated", not other ethnicities.

No you were right, anti-semitism does not have its roots in Christianity or money-lending. It's more fundamental than that.

 

[Sneds]

Islamophobia and constant hate for the powerful Islamic empires of the time that were chock full of poc and controlled the holy lands to boot.

Right. The Crusades were a means of externalising conflict and claiming the Holy Lands for Christendom. It wasn't a random act of ethnic prejudice.

I never disagreed with any of that, of course it's possible that medieval Bohemians would've oppressed black people had they been around. I'm saying that the fact there's no evidence it happening isn't because it was a morally enlightened time, but because there were virtually no black people to oppress.

You misunderstood my post. That's what I disagree with.

Also the Jewish tradition of money-lending is a symptom of anti-semitism, not its root.

Money-lending was a specific cause of tension because their religion forbid Christians from loaning money, whereas Jews could lend money freely.

Here's a review of an influential book by well-respected historian R. I. Moore. Moore recognises that persecution occurred in medieval society (as it does in modern society) however he explains the specific historical context and reasoning behind it:

http://www.uvm.edu/~hag/personal/portfolio/224paper1.html

It's possible that poc would have been persecuted but I don't think it's a given. Ultimately, it's a counterfactual so we can't know for sure.

 

[Harken Raiser]

People really underestimate how little racial diversity is in slavic contries, exspecialy for non caucasian races . We are not talking about the western evropean countries here, who had huge presence around the world and colonies. Central and eastern europe was far more secluded from the world, and there was far little migration to them over time, due to them being porer countries. Can't blame the migrants, since why would anyone want to migrate here, if there are much bether and richer countries in europe :/

I live in a ex comunistic slavic country and i have only seen a black person twice in my entire life, on both of the ocasion in the capitol city. And this is in todays modern times.

The average Bohemian peasant in the medival time has probably never ever seen an non white person in his entire life.

I'm not that knowledgeable about the middle ages nor Bohemian history, but wasn't that region invaded and occupied by the Mongols? If they were, wouldn't it be fair to say that the average Bohemian peasant at the time probably saw a whole lot of non white people in their lifetime?

 

[Minister of the Dog]

I'm not that knowledgeable about the middle ages nor Bohemian history, but wasn't that region invaded and occupied by the Mongols? If they were, wouldn't it be fair to say that the average Bohemian peasant at the time probably saw a whole lot of non white people in their lifetime?

You can see on this map from Wikipedia that they didn't reach Bohemia (look at the Czech Republic).

And the video source for it

 

[Azih]

The Crusades are what happens when the Roman Empire reforms as a massive adoption and perversion of Christianity, changing religion from The Emperor is God to The Pope is In Charge 'cause God Said So, becoming the Holy Roman Empire. This massive economy wanted the most important trade route on the planet. Likewise, the Muslims wanted the most important trade route on the planet. It was a war based entirely around money, under the guise of religion because that gets hicks out the door. Was a money thing, not a race thing. Race was really only brought into it as a form of propaganda.

Agreed mostly but the hicks, read the peasants, of medieval Europe were primed by this propaganda to hate Muslims. Now I am assuming a bit that a poc would be labelled as a muslim by Bohemian peasants of the time but the suspicion of outsiders is well understood. If they didn't treat Jews or romani well then I think it is safe to say that a random brown or black person would not have the welcome mat rolled out and if the local priest pointed and screamed "devil heathen" then well that would be that. The priests wielded enormous power over the people.

 

[Sneds]

Agreed mostly but the hicks, read the peasants, of medieval Europe were primed by this propaganda to hate Muslims. Now I am assuming a bit that a poc would be labelled as a muslim by Bohemian peasants of the time but the suspicion of outsiders is well understood. If they didn't treat Jews or romani well then I think it is safe to say that a random brown or black person would not have the welcome mat rolled out and if the local priest pointed and screamed "devil heathen" then well that would be that. The priests wielded enormous power over the people.

Medieval Europeans persecuted specifically targeted members of society. Does that mean that they would have persecuted all minority groups if given the chance?

Because homosexuals are currently facing persecution in Russia does that mean that all minority groups will inevitably be persecuted?

If you don't say that of Russia in the twenty-first century then why would you assume it of Bohmemia in the twelfth century?

 

[Azih]

Well, what minority groups were treated well in Medieval Europe for one thing?
And Russia is a very intolerant society towards all minorities.

 

[Harken Raiser]

You can see on this map from Wikipedia that they didn't reach Bohemia (look at the Czech Republic).

And the video source for it

Ok, reading wikipedia I now see that the Bohemian forces fought the Mongols outside of Bohemia itself.

 

[Sneds]

Well, what minority groups were treated well in Medieval Europe for one thing?

Bald people, tall people, fat people, people of various eye colours or hair colours, people with various occupations...

The people who were specifically targeted in medieval Europe were Jews, homosexuals, prostitutes, lepers and Christian heretics. That's not a particularly lengthy list.

 

[zeldablue]

Joan was very lucky she was speaking to the oppressed French people who had been at war for nearly a 100 years and claimed to be a messenger from God. She managed to unite all of France under her banner despite the common prejudices at the time because EVERYONE wanted to kick British ass regardless of who was leading them. It was the British who ultimately killed her and yet in modern times both nations revere her as a valiant heroine. Truly a legend of a different age.

Unfortunately in this game you play some random dude trying to make ends meet and sees a way out in the form of becoming a Knight.

When you say it like that....Joan would make a great game.

Now I am assuming a bit that a poc would be labelled as a muslim by Bohemian peasants of the time but the suspicion of outsiders is well understood. If they didn't treat Jews or romani well then I think it is safe to say that a random brown or black person would not have the welcome mat rolled out and if the local priest pointed and screamed "devil heathen" then well that would be that. The priests wielded enormous power over the people.

In Northern Europe, all black people were called Ethiopians. In Southern Europe they were called moors. Their skin reflects their evilness, and they were mostly muslim or pagan. They were enslaved and traded a bunch, but if they converted to Christianity they were immediately freed and given a chance.

If they allowed for POC or women, they'd have to spice up the story a lot due to the reality of discrimination and...intolerance. Which would be a lot of work, but would also be a lot more interesting and unique.

Even in AC: Liberation where you play as a black women in antebellum Louisiana your treated well because of your class and prestigious father. It would be nice to see a more realistic situation. It might've been nice to see a medieval kick starter game do that.

 

[system11]

Their game, their setting, their choice, our choice to buy it or not.

If someone made a game about my life right up until about age 12, there would be no POC aside from an Indian barber, and nobody puts getting your hair cut into a game (well, except for Rockstar).

 

[Spring-Loaded]

This will be the third post in a row where I've asked for a statement from the developers stating that historical accuracy was the predominant reason for only including one playable character. I will reiterate that my initial post, which was not directed at you personally, was about that, as was my subsequent one. If you feel that rarity is not justification in and of itself for the exclusion of non-white characters that's fine, and you can see my views on that in my previous post. However lumping that in with options for player characters, necessitating an entirely different paradigm of game design and play, only does as a disservice to your argument.

To construct a strawman, imagine if the game went above and beyond in terms of content (characters, dialogue and quests) that educated about and challenged concepts of ethnicity and gender in ways that applied to both its historical setting and the modern day context of the players. Even in such a case, there could be people who criticise it for not allowing the player to be anything other than a white male, ignoring the fundamental differences between an RPG with a pre-defined character and one with a player-created protagonist. Alternatively, should a game like Skyrim be praised for having those options open to the player, despite containing almost no meaningful content on the matters?

Then I repeatedly misread/understood your question as "what would've been a satisfactory reason Warhorse could give for their decision?" which was just my mistake.

I disagree that there needs to be a distinction made between player characters and NPCs — as far as this matter is concerned — even if the main character is only a Witcher/GTA-style "set main character who you can customize on the surface" avatar rather than a blank slate. Whether Warhorse would allow for non-white protagonists and whether they'd include non-white NPCs are different in terms of how much work required to implement, yet are both the same — as far as this matter is concerned — when it comes to Warhorse stating they didn't include other ethnicities in the game because "there weren't any/they were very very rare." While that quote did not explicitly say the very words "historical accuracy," them citing the supposed rarity of non-white people in medieval Bohemia as their reason in response to a question about the matter suggests that

• they consciously made that decision to not create non-white NPCs at some point
• they believe they are doing so in accordance to history, which is essentially "historical accuracy"

Maybe they only said that because they didn't want to say "well, we never really thought about that," or they only thought about this in passing, and they didn't consider the implications of such an answer.

Warhorse haven't specified in everything I've read, but, from what they've said publicly, they did not design their main character in a specific way for the sake of the story.

Now, that's all considering they actually avoided including non-white people because they truly believed that would compromise the story they had in mind (if the main character was non-white).

there's this on the kickstarter page:

Freedom of choice

Your character is defined by your choices. Your abilities and stats grow depending on what you do. You decide how you want to appear. Every quest can be solved in multiple ways. Branched dialogue trees grant you the freedom to express yourself. Your reputation is based on your choices, and every choice you make carries appropriate consequences. There are no class restrictions, you can do anything you want to.

It's flavor text, but since the game isn't out yet, it's what we have to go on. When MedievalPOC said something equating to "it's clear the devs didn't have representation as a priority" that wasn't just a snarky comment. It really seems like Warhorse didn't consider that anyone would either be concerned with their highly customizable avatar's ethnicity or with the ethnicities of NPCs. The way they view customization and appearance is in clothing, armor, Etc. Compared that to what I think of when I hear that word, it's vastly different. If that's the case, it's a fair criticism to make.

It'd also be fair for someone to question and/or criticize Warhorse for not allowing for a non-white main character even if the game appropriately addressed issues of ethnicity and gender in that area and time period. If Warhorse said they made that decision because they needed the main character to be a particular race to tell their story, then that couldn't be held against them. If, in that scenario, Warhorse said that non-white people were rare, so that's why they didn't let you play as one, then that causes the same issue we have here (in real life, not the hypothetical situation).

I'm interested by what you mean when you say these design choices are at odds with the game's overall goal. If you're referring to the goal of realism/historical accuracy, I'd have to disagree. Historical accuracy doesn't necessarily require the inclusion of every element that actually existed, only the absence of those that did not.

I've said this a few times, but the problem is that they seemingly avoided allowing non-white player characters (and, according to their answers, definitely avoided non-white NPCs) because those people were exceedingly rare, which was the same as "didn't exist" in their minds when it came to decide whether to include them. If Warhorse believed those people being rare is the way history was, and they wanted to be historically accurate, why didn't they make them rare in the game? They contradict themselves

To the bolded: I don't necessarily agree. There are many situations where leaving something out can provide a skewed or inaccurate portrayal of history.

That said, even if that's true, Warhorse didn't merely not consider including these options/NPCs, they actively made the choice to not add them. The decision to not do something still counts as an action. They decided against this, then said they did so in accordance to their desire to be accurate. Yet... they say they believe those people were rare in Bohemia, so if they use that as a justification for actively deciding not to add representations of those people in their game, then they're going against their goal of historical accuracy, just by their own standards (what they believe to be historically accurate).

I'll try to respond to a couple other posts from a ways back when I get the chance.

 

[Azih]

I disagree with your assertions. Warhorse was not contradicting themselves, they were clear in stating the numbers of poc in the area they were concerned with was negligible. Medieval poc agreed and others in this thread have agreed as well.

Sned: Your definition of minority and mine differs markedly.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Then I repeatedly misread/understood your question as "what would've been a satisfactory reason Warhorse could give for their decision?" which was just my mistake.

I disagree that there needs to be a distinction made between player characters and NPCs — as far as this matter is concerned — even if the main character is only a Witcher/GTA-style "set main character who you can customize on the surface" avatar rather than a blank slate. Whether Warhorse would allow for non-white protagonists and whether they'd include non-white NPCs are different in terms of how much work required to implement, yet are both the same — as far as this matter is concerned — when it comes to Warhorse stating they didn't include other ethnicities in the game because "there weren't any/they were very very rare." While that quote did not explicitly say the very words "historical accuracy," them citing the supposed rarity of non-white people in medieval Bohemia as their reason in response to a question about the matter suggests that

• they consciously made that decision to not create non-white NPCs at some point
• they believe they are doing so in accordance to history, which is essentially "historical accuracy"

Maybe they only said that because they didn't want to say "well, we never really thought about that," or they only thought about this in passing, and they didn't consider the implications of such an answer.

Warhorse haven't specified in everything I've read, but, from what they've said publicly, they did not design their main character in a specific way for the sake of the story.

Now, that's all considering they actually avoided including non-white people because they truly believed that would compromise the story they had in mind (if the main character was non-white).

there's this on the kickstarter page:

It's flavor text, but since the game isn't out yet, it's what we have to go on. When MedievalPOC said something equating to "it's clear the devs didn't have representation as a priority" that wasn't just a snarky comment. It really seems like Warhorse didn't consider that anyone would either be concerned with their highly customizable avatar's ethnicity or with the ethnicities of NPCs. The way they view customization and appearance is in clothing, armor, Etc. Compared that to what I think of when I hear that word, it's vastly different. If that's the case, it's a fair criticism to make.

It'd also be fair for someone to question and/or criticize Warhorse for not allowing for a non-white main character even if the game appropriately addressed issues of ethnicity and gender in that area and time period. If Warhorse said they made that decision because they needed the main character to be a particular race to tell their story, then that couldn't be held against them. If, in that scenario, Warhorse said that non-white people were rare, so that's why they didn't let you play as one, then that causes the same issue we have here (in real life, not the hypothetical situation).

I've said this a few times, but the problem is that they seemingly avoided allowing non-white player characters (and, according to their answers, definitely avoided non-white NPCs) because those people were exceedingly rare, which was the same as "didn't exist" in their minds when it came to decide whether to include them. If Warhorse believed those people being rare is the way history was, and they wanted to be historically accurate, why didn't they make them rare in the game? They contradict themselves

To the bolded: I don't necessarily agree. There are many situations where leaving something out can provide a skewed or inaccurate portrayal of history.

That said, even if that's true, Warhorse didn't merely not consider including these options/NPCs, they actively made the choice to not add them. The decision to not do something still counts as an action. They decided against this, then said they did so in accordance to their desire to be accurate. Yet... they say they believe those people were rare in Bohemia, so if they use that as a justification for actively deciding not to add representations of those people in their game, then they're going against their goal of historical accuracy, just by their own standards (what they believe to be historically accurate).

I'll try to respond to a couple other posts from a ways back when I get the chance.

You still don't quite seem to get what I'm saying. You've taken a quote about non-white characters in the game and applied it to player characters without ever considering if more than one type of player character was ever considered to be an option. None of the public statements given so far suggest that to be the case. There are always limits on the type of character the player can be, and they form the fundamental underpinnings of a game's narrative and play. Mass Effect contains aliens, but does not allow the player to be one of them. Even if rural medieval Bohemia was a cultural melting pot and the game accurately represented that, the decision about playable characters would have had a number of other facets to it. Put simply, in order for elements such as ethnicity and gender to have any significant purpose beyond cosmetics, the game must be designed around them from the start. That the protagonist of this game can only be a white male says that this game was never designed with those options in mind. So whereas the talk of non-white NPCs refers to content, the talk of female/non-white playable characters refers to mechanics. Saying that if Warhorse were more aware of/determined to represent diversity they would have included those options for playable characters is basically saying that if they were more aware of/determined to represent diversity they would have have made an entirely different type of game. I don't think that's a useful or credible position to argue from, unlike the notion that characters and quests based on these topics could plausibly be included in the game, which I think is justifiable. I also think that the inclusion of such content would be a better treatment of diversity than the game allowing you to choose your race and gender but offering no meaningful commentary or mechanics based on those issues (looking at you, Skyrim).

On the topic of historical accuracy in general, you seem to be treating the game as an encyclopaedia. It is not. The generally accepted use of the term "historical accuracy" in this context refers to verisimilitude. The absence of something only matters if it leads to an inaccurate element being introduced to fill in the gaps. For example, the absence of a Middle-Eastern silk trader would not break that verisimilitude, but saying all the silk came from England instead would. Just because it's plausible that non-white NPCs could be found in these 9 square kilometres doesn't mean they have to be included to maintain accuracy. If the game was set in a sprawling trade hub then that would be a different matter.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Something I want you, Azih, to keep in mind throughout this post: the main, game development-related issue here is Warhorse's decision making, why they make the decisions they make and whether they realize why.. Not the exact number of nonwhites living/present during medieval Bohemia. Not whether they should or shouldn't put in extra work. I only say this because you and a few others (not all) continually bring up issues directly in response to some of my posts that lose focus of the core of this discussion.

There is nothing malicious or harmful even inadvertently so coming from the skin tone of NPCs in a game set in a small part of medieval Bohemia.

I wasn't saying Warhorse were being malicious or harmful, though it could be argued that treating the existence of people as being negligible, the definition of which being "so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant" could be demeaning, or harmful in that it could contribute to a general misunderstanding of history. In my post you quoted, I was responding to someone who said I was insisting Warhorse have an "ulterior motive" when I only said they might have an ulterior motive. That was when I was discussing possible reasons Warhorse would avoid adding nonwhite NPCs, ones that would make sense (unlike "we did this to be historically accurate).

Warhorse has pretty clearly said there weren't in the quote of theirs that you keep repeating. Can't quote verbatim as i am on phone but they flat out said there would have been no real chance of meeting a POC in that area in that time.

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that warhorse thinks the number of POC in that area in that time was any more than and negligible.

Warhose said nonwhite people "were very, very rare" in medieval Bohemia. They did not provide their conclusive evidence that led them to come to that conclusion. MedievalPOC said they did exist in that area and showed some paintings that suggests there were nonwhite people in Bohemia at the time, but that doesn't speak to how common they were.

Neither provided conclusive evidence as to how common nonwhite people were in medieval Bohemia. Warhorse said they were very rare, but they haven't provided evidence that illustrates how rare. Warhorse first said "there weren't any" then, they essentially said nonwhite people were too rare to justify being in the game (this is IMPORTANT) They admit there were some nonwhite people in medieval Bohemia. If they believe there were nonwhite people in medieval Bohemia, then it would be historically accurate to include them. It would also be historically accurate to never encounter a nonwhite NPC in 9 sq. km since nonwhite people in Medieval Bohemia were rare IRL.

It's widely accepted that nonwhite people would be minorities in this setting. "Might never encounter" is reasonable because they were almost certainly rare. "Actively decide not to put them in the game at all" is not the same as "rare."

If their game has scripts that determine how many NPCs are bald/female/old/young/Etc. and they know just how rare nonwhites were, then they make that script produce one nonwhite NPC for every thousand, or whatever that statistic was in real life. Warhorse didn't do that, and, since they said they consciously made the decision not to add nonwhite NPCs/characters when they were asked about it, that means either

1) The statistic for the number of nonwhite people in bohemia was too small to be calculated, as per their research (which isn't what they believe since they said there were nonwhite people)

or

2) They knew there were some nonwhite people in Bohemia and, going by their own personal metric of what constitutes "too rare," they chose not to add nonwhite NPCs.

Since video games are capable of being built with really complex strings of code, it's possible to create an in-game population that accurately reflects real life population statistics. If there were 1 nonwhite person for every million white people 9 sq. km in Bohemia, you could build the game to reflect that. If you didn't know exactly what the real life statistics were, but you either had an idea, or simply felt "X nonwhite people for every 1000 white people" was appropriate, you could add that in. If you know/believe there were nonwhite people there, and you decide not to include any in your game, you are doing it out of personal preference for what's worth putting in the game, not to stay true to history.

If Warhorse didn't know what statistic would be accurate and wanted to avoid getting that wrong, then they could have said that. They didn't say that. They answered the question "why aren't there any nonwhite people in your game?" with "because they were very, very rare." which begs the question "how rare is 'too rare'"?

The answer to "what's too rare?" would be a reflection of personal, individual, subjective opinion since it's possible to code even really small statistical probabilities into a game — it would be possible to do. It would not be a matter of historical accuracy, which they are definitely implying in their answer, just without using the words "historical accuracy." Saying "because they were very, very rare" means "that's the way history was" and "we're doing this because of the way history was," which is a long way of saying "we're not putting them in, and this is for historical accuracy."

There is no objective, factual answer to "what is too rare?" in this instance when considering historical accuracy. If Warhorse believed the necessary work to add those NPCs or race/sex options in would be too much for their budget, timeframe and capabilities, then that can be objective fact. If they say they don't think nonwhites are significant enough to put in the game, that could be fact; they might genuinely not care about it.

These other answers don't have to do with abiding by historical accuracy, and "not putting nonwhite people in, for historical accuracy!" does not make sense since including some would still be historically accurate. Not encountering nonwhite people in the game could still be historically accurate since if you lived in that setting in real life, you might not encounter other nonwhite people (this is NOT the same as "there are no nonwhite people" though, but I'm making a different point).

The bolded is what Warhorse referenced ("historical accuracy could be used to argue either way") and that's what MedievalPOC said "that’s totally true" to (you reference that in your post below, albeit, in a very, very simplified way that changes the meaning of MedievalPOC's "that’s totally true").

MedievalPOC then says:

Which is why I’m trying to emphasize the fact that these were conscious choices made by the game developers, not some kind of force beyond their control. Nothing was stopping them from including people of color aside from their own choices.

Which is an assertion that no one has sufficiently disproved, disputed or otherwise opposed. This is the very core of the issue. If you don't see why it's important, that's understandable and we can discuss that (there's a long history of people using "forces beyond their control" as justification for harmful acts or agendas, inadvertently or otherwise). But we can't until I know you understand what's being said above in the red highlight. "force beyond their control" means "abiding by historical accuracy" here.

Does that make sense to you? If not, say why, or say how it can truly be disputed.

I disagree with your assertions. Warhorse was not contradicting themselves, they were clear in stating the numbers of poc in the area they were concerned with was negligible. Medieval poc agreed and others in this thread have agreed as well.

Again, "negligible" is subjective here. There's no objective standard for what's too rare to put in a historical videogame; it will almost always be a personal decision, and it's definitely a personal decision here(though we don't know the details).

I could say the number of nonwhite people wasn't negligible solely because there was at least one, or i could say even a million was negligible. Even if we had hard statistics that showed there were only three nonwhite people in that region at the time, they would still exist; no one (not Warhorse, MedievalPOC, you, I) have those statistics though, so all we have to go on his Warhorse's opinion of what counts as "negligible." If they do say "it's our opinion that it's negligible," then whether that's fair or correct would be their responsibility. If they say "we did this because of accuracy" that absolves them of accountability for their decisions.

THIS IS PURELY AN EXAMPLE: If they have something that's bad in their game, but they say they did it because of historical accuracy, then they can't be criticized for it. "It's out of hands" mentality. If that bad thing actually doesn't contribute to historical accuracy, then it's fair to say how so that the developers must again be held accountable. Does that make sense? Legitimately not a rhetorical question here.


MedievalPOC did not just agree, and that was that, as I stated above. I really can't continue with this until we come to an understanding on what the core issue is, but I do try to illustrate that above.

You still don't quite seem to get what I'm saying.

I do understand, yet I have considered that the developers needed the main character to be a specific person for any number of possible reasons (none of which I've noticed in their kickstarter page). you're partially right though, I have lumped player characters in with NPCs and above I went into detail why these are the same, NOT overall, but in regards to the very specific central point of this entire discussion which I am focusing on. Re-read my posts above; if you can't find it, let me know and I'll quote it again.

Even if the developers had a very specific design for their main character/game story that required the character themselves to not be fundementally customizable, that in no way excuses or justifies the decision warhorse made that was based on their belief they shouldn't include nonwhite people NPCs because of the way history was.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I don't want to derail this further or get into some slanging match about your favourite authors.

You're the one who brought them up. But, evasion noted.

Read again, I did no such thing.

My bad, got you confused with Authority. Sorry.

 

[Minister of the Dog]

Warhose said nonwhite people "were very, very rare" in medieval Bohemia. They did not provide their conclusive evidence that led them to come to that conclusion.

Let's at least admit that what they said is open to interpretation, because they first said that there were none. I take the "very, very rare" as a "well, you never know", because while there might not be any evidence it's impossible to prove a negative. We can however use the evidence we have to see how probable it would be.

MedievalPOC said they did exist in that area and showed some paintings that suggests there were nonwhite people in Bohemia at the time, but that doesn't speak to how common they were. Neither provided conclusive evidence as to how common nonwhite people were in medieval Bohemia.

MPOC's post was sensationalist and dishonest, not to mention false. If you believe otherwise, please let us know why. The truth is, one of them has provided false evidence.

It's widely accepted that nonwhite people would be minorities in this setting. "Might never encounter" is reasonable because they were almost certainly rare. "Actively decide not to put them in the game at all" is not the same as "rare."

If their game has scripts that determine how many NPCs are bald/female/old/young/Etc. and they know just how rare nonwhites were, then they make that script produce one nonwhite NPC for every thousand, or whatever that statistic was in real life. Warhorse didn't do that, and, since they said they consciously made the decision not to add nonwhite NPCs/characters when they were asked about it, that means either

1) The statistic for the number of nonwhite people in bohemia was too small to be calculated, as per their research (which isn't what they believe since they said there were nonwhite people)

or

2) They knew there were some nonwhite people in Bohemia and, going by their own personal metric of what constitutes "too rare," they chose not to add nonwhite NPCs.

You keep defending the existence of minorities based on what you think WH meant with their statement, and at the same time you argue that they don't know how many people from different ethnicities there were.

Myself and others have already told you that you're not going to get any hard statistic for the data you want. Look at this (page 211). It's hard to even determine the life expectancy! It's impossible to give a hard statistic for the percentage (if not ~0%) of people of different races. Furthermore, from the Kickstarter page:

"Guided tour: We will treat you to a two day trip through the real-world locations that served as models for the places within the game. We shall have a professional archaeologist/historian to guide you and explain everything and you will be able to get to places that are normally off limits."

What's to say they're not working with either an archaeologist, a historian or both? Why don't you ask them?

If you know/believe there were nonwhite people there, and you decide not to include any in your game, you are doing it out of personal preference for what's worth putting in the game, not to stay true to history.

Again, I don't think they believe there were some, they would've said so from the start. They were just conceding the highly improbable but impossible to disprove chance.

If Warhorse didn't know what statistic would be accurate and wanted to avoid getting that wrong, then they could have said that. They didn't say that. They answered the question "why aren't there any nonwhite people in your game?" with "because they were very, very rare." which begs the question "how rare is 'too rare'"?

The answer to "what's too rare?" would be a reflection of personal, individual, subjective opinion since it's possible to code even really small statistical probabilities into a game — it would be possible to do. It would not be a matter of historical accuracy, which they are definitely implying in their answer, just without using the words "historical accuracy." Saying "because they were very, very rare" means "that's the way history was" and "we're doing this because of the way history was," which is a long way of saying "we're not putting them in, and this is for historical accuracy."

"Too rare" can be applied when:
1. The native population is ethnically homogenous. Immigration could have occured (and did occur, "[e]thnically Czech students made 16 – 20% of all students."), but French, Polish, etc. Minorities don't seem to be a concern here.

2. There's no evidence for people from sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East or from far regions in Asia to have ever settled or lived in the area. Nothing. If you have evidence otherwise, please share; because it seems like you want for people of different races to have lived there, rather than finding out whether it's true or not.

including some would still be historically accurate. Not encountering nonwhite people in the game could still be historically accurate since if you lived in that setting in real life, you might not encounter other nonwhite people [/B](this is NOT the same as "there are no nonwhite people" though, but I'm making a different point).

How can you support this statement? What has MPOC or anybody else done to support this statement?

MedievalPOC then says:

Which is an assertion that no one has sufficiently disproved, disputed or otherwise opposed.

An assertion they've made based on false evidence. What's there to disprove when you're lying to making your point? If I showed you this image and I told you this is proof of the existence of any of what's represented in there, and then it happens to be a Liber Chronicarum, in which "[m]ost of these views were entirely imaginary", would you still entertain me and take my argument seriously?

Even if the developers had a very specific design for their main character/game story that required the character themselves to not be fundementally customizable, that in no way excuses or justifies the decision warhorse made that was based on their belief they shouldn't include nonwhite people NPCs because of the way history was.

The fact that they want to have a main character that can become a knight and talk to the nobility, set during the XV century in Bohemia means that they need for that character to be an ethnically Czech and a man.

--------

Look, personally, I don't really care for character customization. I played with the default model in Mass Effect. I've had male and female characters in WoW. I play a Khajiit in TES just so I don't have to bother with a human face (also, dat thief class bonus), I've played as a girl and a boy in Pokémon... You see where this is going.

If this wasn't about historical reasons, I wouldn't see an issue at all with full character creation (size, gender, race, religion...) In fact, I'd find it weird if they didn't allow it.

But that's not what this is about, this is about the reality, and the demography of Bohemia in the Middle Ages. The fact that none of the supporters of Bohemia's cultural diversity has proved is that there's a reason to consider it. I think I said before that if this were set in the Iberian Peninsula, it'd be ignorant not to include Maghrebis. There are even terms for Muslims in Christian territory and Christians in Muslim territory, Mudéjares and Mozarabs respectively. There's recorded history of this. There are paintings. Hell, there's even architecture from these people in their respective regions.

I'm having a lot of fun discussing this topic, and I'm learning more than I thought I ever would about medieval Bohemia, but I'm busting my ass looking for sources to sustain my position (as weak as some of them might be, this is a topic you'd study during a PhD, not on a videogame forum) and all I see from the other side is people asking for the impossible, to prove a negative. I can prove the existence of black people in England during the XVI century. I can prove the existence of a black person in the Russian nobility during the XVII and XVIII centuries. That doesn't mean I can prove there were none during the Middle Ages in Bohemia. Is the lack of representation of black people during this time historically inaccurate then, just because I can't prove there weren't any? Why can't anyone provide similar info for their argument?

Look at what a map of the world from 1418 looks like:

Source

"This was before the famous navigator, Prince Henry of Portugal, began to send out expeditions to explore the west coast of Africa." 1418 was before that. 1403 was fifteen years before this map was drawn.

Most of what you see from Africa is the Sahara desert. Not only is the Sahara huge, but there might as well be a 12km high mountain, if it was difficult to travel across Europe, imagine what it would be to try and cross the Sahara. Impossible.

This is a political world map from 1403, if you are interested. Even with the Mercator projection you can see how incredibly big the Sahara was, and the distance even if you tried to go along the coast was also enormous.

 

[Sneds]

I disagree with your assertions. Warhorse was not contradicting themselves, they were clear in stating the numbers of poc in the area they were concerned with was negligible. Medieval poc agreed and others in this thread have agreed as well.

Sned: Your definition of minority and mine differs markedly.

That's because your imposing your ideas of 'minority' on a society in which they don't fit. You probably wouldn't think of prostitutes or lepers as minority groups that would be singled out for persecution and yet they were. What was important in medieval times isn't necessarily important today and vice versa.

Again, it's very possible that poc would have been persecuted because of their skin tone but you don't have any evidence for that. But again this is all counterfactual.

 

[Canis lupus]

Did I hear the developers will be having Romani/gypsies in the game? I knew when I was living in Prague, people had a negative view of them even now. They used to be sterilised during WWII If Tatars are of Turkish origin, it's not surprising that there's quite a sizable Turkish and Arab population that I found there. So many doner kebab shops!

Tatars are Turkic people, just like Turks.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

I'm going to point out the parts of your post that don't have to do with the point I'm trying to make. You mention that you feel this discussion isn't appropriate for a video game discussion board. That suggests your focus is not on "why Warhorse is actually making a game design decision," (a subject very relevant to game design and to the inudstry as a whole) and you're instead focusing on "whether there was a significant number of nonwhite people in medieval Bohemia."

The latter focus is not important here in this discussion.

That may sound like a ridiculous statement, but it's true. I have to say this in such an aggressive way because, going by the responses in this thread, people will shift the focus away from that.

I'll also post some shorter responses because we seem to be talking past one another and you seem to have a different focus outside the the game-related aspects of this whole issue.

Let's at least admit that what they said is open to interpretation, because they first said that there were none. I take the "very, very rare" as a "well, you never know", because while there might not be any evidence it's impossible to prove a negative. We can however use the evidence we have to see how probable it would be.

What Warhorse said could be interpreted in different ways. What isn't open to interpretation is that they believe "they were very, very rare."

"Very rare" is subjective. There are no widely established standards for "too rare to include in this RPG video game." If anyone says "this was too rare to put in our game," that is their opinion. That decision is entirely on them, even considering that, technically, everything they put into their game their personal decision. They cannot say that they made their decision because of [insert non-opinion-based standard here] if they could've made the opposite decision and the game still would be in accordance to [non-opinion-based standard].

I hate using unrelated examples because people tend to point out inconsistencies between the core matter and the example, despite that being unavoidable, and they'll then ignore the point that's trying to be made, but here I go:

If I am making a deep, detailed open-world WWII game set in France where the player gets to choose what type of character the use in the game (sort of like how Kingdom Come lets people be bards, knights, thieves, Etc.), and I don't include any women since it'll take place in combat-ridden areas where women were very, very rare, I could say that no women were in such scenarios in WWII, so I purposefully avoided adding them in.

In that scenario, I could have a few women be present and the game could still be historically accurate. If it could still be historically accurate, I can't say that's the reason I didn't include them at all. If I say "that's what I did it, full stop" that implies it's out of my hands since I'm can't defy accuracy.

That's BS. If I didn't include women, it's because I thought women's role in such a scenario was insignificant. Since women did exist during WWII and were in areas my game takes place, then someone out there will think differently than I do. If they question my opinion that is made manifest in this video game, that's fair.

Public statements, in any form, are subject to criticism. If I say "2+2 = 4" that is fact. If someone says "that's BS," I can say "it's fact, and I don't want to be wrong." If I say "4 is a too big a number for me put it in this game" even though "too big" is subjective, and 4's size would not force my hand in any way, then I'm making a decision based on what I believe to be "too big", therefore it is solely my choice. I am not adhering to a higher rule, higher power, Etc.

The above is a really drawn out, messy version of MedievalPOC's statement quoted in the OP. You mention that below, and

MPOC's post was sensationalist and dishonest, not to mention false. If you believe otherwise, please let us know why. The truth is, one of them has provided false evidence.

This is one of those "irrelevant points" I mention at the start of this post. If you don't see why, PM me and we can continue there.

I don't believe MedievalPOC's research was true or false, nor am I particularly concerned with whether it's true or false.

No evidence either side has presented changes (or even affects) that Warhorse made a personal choice, not one dictated by historical accuracy.

You keep defending the existence of minorities based on what you think WH meant with their statement, and at the same time you argue that they don't know how many people from different ethnicities there were.

I'm not defending the existence of minorities based on what Warhorse said (which wouldn't make any sense, even if I were).

I am arguing that they don't know how many nonwhite/non-native bohemian people there were.

You have misunderstood.

I said "It's widely accepted that nonwhite people would be minorities in this setting" meaning that MedievalPOC, Warhorse and virtually everyone in this thread believe that if there were some nonwhite people in bohemia, they would be lesser in number than white people in Bohemia (i.e. they'd be minorities).

Myself and others have already told you that you're not going to get any hard statistic for the data you want. Look at this (page 211). It's hard to even determine the life expectancy! It's impossible to give a hard statistic for the percentage (if not ~0%) of people of different races. Furthermore, from the Kickstarter page:

I only ask for hard statistical data because it's existence would require Warhorse to abide by it. Architectural design documents should dictate their design of in-game structures. Population statistics should dictate their in-game population makeup.

Hard data or conclusive evidence is the only way their statement "we did this because it was historically accurate."

If data for population is N/A, then their decision to actively exclude something can't be because of that data. Because they don't have it.

If you don't understand the importance of the "actively" distinction, let me know in a PM.

"Guided tour: We will treat you to a two day trip through the real-world locations that served as models for the places within the game. We shall have a professional archaeologist/historian to guide you and explain everything and you will be able to get to places that are normally off limits."

What's to say they're not working with either an archaeologist, a historian or both? Why don't you ask them?

They suggest they made their decision to exclude bohemian ethnic minorities because of their research, but they say they believe those minorities existed.

If they existed then they could've put them in the game without going against what they believe is accurate.

Since the game is not a time machine, I'm not actually traveling to that 9 sq. km in Bohemia. The good chance that I wouldn't meet a minority wouldn't mean there are none.

There are none in the game. (Warhorse's understanding of) history says they existed. if Warhorse is building the game within the confines of history, then they could add minorities. History does not tell them "hey, don't put minorities in."

When Warhorse said "we didn't put them in because that's history" that is them saying that history wouldn't allow them to put minorities in the game.

If anything in the above doesn't make sense, PM me about it. And you don't have to, but try to see the forest rather than the trees.

Again, I don't think they believe there were some, they would've said so from the start. They were just conceding the highly improbable but impossible to disprove chance.

They might not believe there were any. They did concede there could've been minorities, which would mean they could've added them in the game, which means their decision to apparently have 0 minorities was because of their own desires, not a higher purpose. [again, using "higher powers" as justifications for actions can be problematic when those "higher powers" don't actually dictate one's actions; that falsely absolves people of accountability. PM me if that doesn't make sense; it's central to this discussion]

And neither of us actually knows how improbable that was either, so let's not base any arguments on nebulous probabilities or mystery stats. We can't make a point either way based on that, just like Warhorse can't make a decision just because of that.

"Too rare" can be applied when:
1. The native population is ethnically homogenous. Immigration could have occured (and did occur, "[e]thnically Czech students made 16 – 20% of all students."), but French, Polish, etc. Minorities don't seem to be a concern here.

2. There's no evidence for people from sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East or from far regions in Asia to have ever settled or lived in the area. Nothing. If you have evidence otherwise, please share; because it seems like you want for people of different races to have lived there, rather than finding out whether it's true or not.

"too rare" is always opinion. "More rare than ____" isn't opinion, it's a statement of fact.

What I want, what I need, is irrelevant. When I remove my desires from the equation, and look at the assertion that "Warhorse made this decision as a personal choice, not adherence to accuracy, which is out of their control," I can't dispute it based on what Warhorse has said. I can't say "yeah, there shouldn't be any nonwhite people in this game because of what Warhorse believes to be historically accurate" because of what Warhorse has said.

Therefore, I don't oppose the possibility of having different races appearing in this game, and I don't particularly care about whether they did live there, as far as this discussion is concerned.

Warhorse has said "yeah, there can't be any nonwhite people in this game." They didn't say "there could be nonwhite people in our game and it'd still be historically accurate, but we decided to not include them." The latter would be a more accurate reflection of reality than the nonsensical statement "they were rare, so there's 0 in our game which is supposed to be historically accurate."

How can you support this statement? What has MPOC or anybody else done to support this statement?

This is another instance of you being concerned with what real-life medieval Bohemia was like. When I say "historically accurate" in this thread, I'm referring to what Warhorse believes is historically accurate

because

what Warhorse believes is the truth will determine their decisions. Unless they're lying, they believe nonwhites were rare, yet existent. If they believe that, then they would be okay with nonwhites being rare in their game. does that make sense?

Then... If they would be okay with that... but they decide not to include nonwhites... then that decision was not made because of what they believe is true (i.e. historical accuracy).

If that doesn't make sense to you, PM me

An assertion they've made based on false evidence. What's there to disprove when you're lying to making your point? If I showed you this image and I told you this is proof of the existence of any of what's represented in there, and then it happens to be a Liber Chronicarum, in which "[m]ost of these views were entirely imaginary", would you still entertain me and take my argument seriously?

Whether they're lying about this historical artwork or if the artwork is fake, or whatever, doesn't have any effect on that MedievalPOC's assertion that Warhorse made a personal choice, not one that's out of their control because "well, history."

Keep in mind Warhorse are the ones who originally made a statement; they are the ones who need to defend it. MedievalPOC addressed that answer.

The fact that they want to have a main character that can become a knight and talk to the nobility, set during the XV century in Bohemia means that they need for that character to be an ethnically Czech and a man.

That's a good point. If a non-Czech and/or female person couldn't interact with nobility, it would either be impossible to have the game be exactly the way Warhorse envisioned, or it would require considerable work to make the player be able to become a knight, but have different challenges to experience because of their ethnicity and/or gender.

I propose this food for thought:

The game will be comprised of historical elements. What the player does, however, never actually occurred. A player could decide to run through town punching people's windows, or trap dogs in barrels then roll them down hills before throwing knives in the air and catching them in their own faces. That may never have happened and the exact type of reaction those actions would elicit from medieval society may never have existed, BUT Warhorse could program historically accurate reactions to those actions. You might get put in stocks in the town square or something.

So, going along that route, Warhorse could include nonwhite NPCs or even player characters since (they believe that) some of them existed (WH says they were rare, but existent). Warhorse could program appropriate, and what would be historically accurate reactions from society seeing a nonwhite person deciding to become a knight and attempt to interact with nobility. They could let the player even attempt to become king as a nonwhite/non-Czech person or a be a knight as a woman, but have it be appropriately difficult to do, requiring you to convince everyone it should be allowed.

This level of detail is likely not possible right now. But it will take even longer to achieve if we use "historical accuracy" as an excuse for leaving such options out of your game. It takes the pressure off of designers to give the player all the options they could possibly have (especially in a game where the devs so heavily tout the customization and "freedom").

By admitting to concessions they make, developers keep the pressure on themselves to improve and expand. Instead of saying "well we didn't do this because [insert excuse]" they'll have to say "we didn't do this because we don't have the resources," or "we couldn't figure out how just yet."

It makes a big difference. It may seem idealistic, but that's something that can be striven toward, just like Warhorse is striving for 100 historical accuracy, but making concessions along the way (like leaving out those options).

But that's not what this is about, this is about the reality, and the demography of Bohemia in the Middle Ages.

Nope. This thread is about a video game developer who decided to abide by history, then believing they made a decision one-way because history wouldn't let them do it the other way. And history didn't force their hand; they made that choice themselves.

The fact that none of the supporters of Bohemia's cultural diversity has proved is that there's a reason to consider it.

There's a reason to consider it. Even if there isn't reason enough to actually include it in the game, this entire thread is proof there's reason to consider it.

Now, the rest of you post is completely about history itself, not the game or game development. I hate to sound dismissive since you seem to have a genuine interest, but I'm of no help to you there.

I'm having a lot of fun discussing this topic, and I'm learning more than I thought I ever would about medieval Bohemia, but I'm busting my ass looking for sources to sustain my position (as weak as some of them might be, this is a topic you'd study during a PhD, not on a videogame forum) and all I see from the other side is people asking for the impossible, to prove a negative. I can prove the existence of black people in England during the XVI century. I can prove the existence of a black person in the Russian nobility during the XVII and XVIII centuries. That doesn't mean I can prove there were none during the Middle Ages in Bohemia. Is the lack of representation of black people during this time historically inaccurate then, just because I can't prove there weren't any? Why can't anyone provide similar info for their argument?

Look at what a map of the world from 1418 looks like:

Source

"This was before the famous navigator, Prince Henry of Portugal, began to send out expeditions to explore the west coast of Africa." 1418 was before that. 1403 was fifteen years before this map was drawn.

Most of what you see from Africa is the Sahara desert. Not only is the Sahara huge, but there might as well be a 12km high mountain, if it was difficult to travel across Europe, imagine what it would be to try and cross the Sahara. Impossible.

This is a political world map from 1403, if you are interested. Even with the Mercator projection you can see how incredibly big the Sahara was, and the distance even if you tried to go along the coast was also enormous.

This is where you mention this discussion is out of place on a gaming forum, and that's because, in this part of your post (in a addition to a few other parts), you are focusing purely on history. The matter of actual historical accuracy is a degree removed from the main issue (that being Warhorse's reasons for their decision). That's not to say it's meaningless in it's own right, but it definitely seems as if it's distracting you from the core issue. If you were truly and fully focusing on Warhorse's decision-making process, your wouldn't use historical evidence as support for your stance. If that previous sentence sounds ridiculous to you, it's because you don't understand the delineation.

If Warhorse concluded from their research that dragons existed and they put them in the game, that would be in accordance to their "historical accuracy" standard, so long as they truly believe their research was properly conducted. Whether what they believe is actually historically accurate doesn't matter in regards to this issue.

I'm going to bold this, just because I know it's possible to skip over a sentence or to gloss over what someone's trying to say, here and there. This isn't me being facetious or condescending, it's just that I've said this over and over, yet you've rejected the validity of it without providing any meaningful reasons why:

What does matter is that they are using a justification for deciding against including any other ethnicities in their game and the the thing they're using for their justification ("to be historically accurate") would not, by itself, have any bearing on their decision.

If you're interested in the the the existence of non-native Bohemian ethnicity, here's the link to MedievalPOC's followup response. Again, if you want to discuss that, cool, but it's clear many are conflating this matter with the core game-design-related matter and I don't want anyone going on long tangents in that direction in response to my posts since I won't respond to those. Send me a private message and we can go from there; long posts allow distraction from the core issue and I'd like to clear this up since I'm only responding when I see this bumped.

 

[spekkeh]

Is this discussion actually going somewhere? Of course it's a design decision first and foremost. Of course POC existed at that time. But if a black man ever set foot in medieval Bohemia it would have been part of a diplomatic or trade envoy. If he was alone, like in this game, the whole town would have ran out to look at him. Then, if he didn't leave quickly, he quite likely would be captured and either put on trial to ascertain his Christianity, or brought to a court and dressed up in exotic clothes as a prized possession. If the game purported to have historical accuracy, allowing for (in those times exotic) POC would greatly influence the course of the story. Probably because of that and the fact that there quite likely weren't any anyway, Warhorse unconsciously dismissed their implementation. This may or may not bespeak a white man's obliviousness to minorities but we really couldn't tell.

 

[Messofanego]

Is this discussion actually going somewhere? Of course it's a design decision first and foremost. Of course POC existed at that time. But if a black man ever set foot in medieval Bohemia it would have been part of a diplomatic or trade envoy. If he was alone, like in this game, the whole town would have ran out to look at him. Then, if he didn't leave quickly, he quite likely would be captured and either put on trial to ascertain his Christianity, or brought to a court and dressed up in exotic clothes as a prized possession. If the game purported to have historical accuracy, allowing for (in those times exotic) POC would greatly influence the course of the story. Probably because of that and the fact that there quite likely weren't any anyway, Warhorse unconsciously dismissed their implementation. This may or may not bespeak a white man's obliviousness to minorities but we really couldn't tell.

I'm not sure why a black person is the only POC considered, what about a Romani blacksmith?

 

[spekkeh]

I think they weren't there yet at that time? In any case, though I'm of course no expert on the matter, I would say that in terms of computer game representations you'd be hard pressed to tell them (or Slavs or even Turks) apart from other black haired, slightly tanned Europeans. They could certainly add them if it was useful for the story; though I think it's also not a stretch that the average Bohemian villageperson of that time would never encounter anyone of another ethnicity for their entire life.

 

[Scipius]

What does matter is that they are using a justification for deciding against including any other ethnicities in their game and the the thing they're using for their justification ("to be historically accurate") would not, by itself, have any bearing on their decision.

I highly doubt they will have done any in-depth research on this and their not including nonwhites is likely simply a result of what they know of general Czech history. Their "very rare" comment isn't an admission there is a realistic possibility there were nonwhites, but rather more an acknowledgement that they don't know for sure. It is in fact impossible to know for sure if no records exist, as history does not allow for such mathematical precision.

You can certainly claim from a logical point of view that this uncertainty invalidates their claim of historical accuracy, but from a historical point of view this is a pointless argument. If there is no record, whether written, painted, or preserved orally, of the persistent existence of nonwhites in Bohemia in that time, then historically, the claim that not depicting them is historically accurate is entirely valid. Even if there were such records, one could still claim not including them is accurate, as the location and duration of their presence would likely be limited; it would depend on what the records say (hence why it is important to have some). One swallow does not a summer make, whether that swallow is European or African

If you're interested in the the the existence of non-native Bohemian ethnicity, here's the link to MedievalPOC's followup response.

Your link seems to be missing, but I assume it's this post. Let's have look at what he's claiming this time:

First he tackles the fact that the Cumans (whom he mentioned as an example of supposedly nonwhite Asians migrating to Europe) were known as the "Blond Ones". He correctly says that blonde hair is not unique to Europeans (though not demonstrating the Cumans were one such group). However, he then says:

You can even look at page 436 and see yet another reiteration of William of Rubrick’s account of various Cuman people living in Central and I believe Western Europe too.

But there is nothing on that page or on the others found under that link that suggests the Cumans were anywhere further west than Hungary. He then continues:

If you want a genetic study, here’s one specifically about the Cumans and assimilation in Hungary, but that ALSO demonstrates that this is also something that happened in other, more Western parts of Europe, actually farther west than even Bohemia, or the current Czech Republic.

Note he repeats his claim this supports the presence of these nonwhite Cumans west of Hungary. However, the abstract of the study explicitly says:

The results indicate that, while still possessing a Central Asian steppe culture, the Cumanians received a large admixture of maternal genes from more westerly populations before arriving in Hungary. A similar dilution of genetic, but not cultural, factors may have accompanied the settlement of other Asian nomads in Europe.

It actually presents a perfect explanation of why the Cumans may have appeared somewhat European by the time they entered Hungary. The abstract mentions nothing about further westward examples though and it would be difficult to imagine how these people would be distinguishable from other Hungarians if they had moved yet further westwards later on.

So nothing in these links supports any notion of the Cumans moving west of Hungary. Their presence in Hungary is well-attested, their presence in Bohemia is definitely not, so why does he pretend there is a link to Bohemia?

Next he gives two examples of supposedly Mongolian people being depicted in religious scenes "for no apparent reason other than to just be, you know, people". The second picture deals with the upside-down crucifixion of Saint Peter and quite why 13th century Mongolians would be present at a 1st century event is beyond me, as is the reason why the people cropped from the full image would be Mongolians in the first place; they don't look very Asian.

The first image clearly does depict an Asian man of course. So why are they there; is it just a representation of the artists environment? The page for the full image mentions they may have been inspired by a visit from Mongolian emissaries. That would still suggest only a transient presence of them, but perhaps the inclusion of them in a religious scene is an indication of a more persistent presence?

Actually, it isn't. The reason Mongolians are depicted is because the painting deals with the martyrdom of Franciscan missionaries in Tana or Tanais, a city on the Black Sea. Italians would be well acquainted with that area, which though ruled by a Mongolian elite, also had a few Genoan colonies from where they traded with the Mongolians and Crimean Tartars. The reason there are Mongolians in the painting is because it is meant to evoke an Asian event with the Mongolians (or Tartars) as the villains; it is no coincidence nor evidence of their presence in Italy.

Again, exactly why this is relevant to Bohemia is not explained.

Next up he gives another example of an Asian nomadic group moving into Europe with a picture of a lovely, but more importantly, a very nonwhite looking Kalmyk girl. He does acknowledge this occured much later (17th century, which is correct), but what this has to do with the topic at hand is not clear. Most Kalmyks are still where they settled then, along the lower reaches of the Volga river (making them the only Buddhist people within the conventional borders of the European continent), but this is still 2,000 km east of Bohemia. Perhaps it's the only clear example he could find of nonwhite nomads living in the widest possible interpretation of "Europe" (and even then just barely)?

Which leads to:

Now, geography’s not my strong suit by any means, but unless the entirety of what is now Slovakia was actually an electric or barbed wire fence in the 13th and 14th centuries, somehow human beings must have moved around slightly in 200-300 years…?

Along with a picture of the current Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. I assume he means to suggest the Cumans discussed earlier could be expected to have moved from Hungary to Bohemia via Slovakia. Actually, they wouldn't.

Bohemia and Hungary were two completely different entities in the 13th century; Hungary being its own sovereign kingdom and Bohemia a kingdom subject to the Holy Roman Empire. Though a subject, the Bohemian kingdom was quite powerful in the 13th century, ruling over various parts of Poland and Austria and coming into conflict with Hungary as well. The Battle of the Marchfeld pitted the Czechs against the Empire and the Hungarians, with the Cumans explicitly mentioned as fighting for the Hungarians. Here we have evidence of the Cumans coming very close to Bohemia, not as settlers of course, but as enemies in battle, much like the Mongolians earlier that century.

Why doesn't he mention that rather than his unsubstantiated suggestion they may have "moved around"? Maybe he isn't aware of it or maybe be realises that warriors are unlikely to move to their recent opponent's lands? The Cumans were reasonably well integrated in Hungary; the Hungarian king that fought at the aforementioned battle was in fact half-Cuman and depended on his Cuman kin during his otherwise unpopular rule. Why would they "move around"?

The Cumans were found outside Hungary of course, but only south and east of Hungary, in Romania and Bulgaria. There don't appear to be any references to them settling in Bohemia. Could it perhaps be that Bohemian life is simply poorly recorded? Well, no, as in the 13th century there was a well-known movement of immigrants into Bohemia: the Germans. So why suggest the Cumans may have "moved around", apparently without them leaving any trace of it, unlike the places where they did settle?

And of course, for his final point he decides to Godwin his own narrative, so we can leave him to it. Nothing this guy has been positing as evidence of nonwhite presence in Bohemia seems to hold up under closer inspection. He suffers from the classic American misconception of Europe as a monolithic entity wherein anything that happens in a part of Europe applies to the whole of Europe. He also doesn't appear to be familiar with what the images he chooses actually depict. He doesn't seem to be too knowledgable about European history; he admits to be less than that on European geography.

In conclusion, I don't think MedievalPOC should be considered a credible source on anything. He's (or would it be a she?) just an idealogue talking about something he doesn't seem to know very much about. A dangerous combination for any argument.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

I highly doubt they will have done any in-depth research on this and their not including nonwhites is likely simply a result of what they know of general Czech history. Their "very rare" comment isn't an admission there is a realistic possibility there were nonwhites, but rather more an acknowledgement that they don't know for sure. It is in fact impossible to know for sure if no records exist, as history does not allow for such mathematical precision.

That they didn't directly research this is likely. It seems like something they weren't genuinely concerned with and/or had other aspects of the game they were more concerned with.

If the developer doesn't know for sure, answering with "there were almost none," while a nonspecific answer in itself, is still a deliberate one. Using that as an answer suggests they actively chose not to include nonwhite NPCs and/or player characters. It says, in not as many words, "we couldn't add them in and still be historically accurate."

If that's not what Warhorse actually meant, then they worded their answer incorrectly every time they answered that question. That answer is not the same as "we didn't know for sure," or "we just wanted to be as historically accurate as possible considering our timeframe and resources, and including that would've required more work." Those answers do ascribe their decision to factors other than their own preference, but those factors could still be ones they're responsible for (budget, time management, knowledge/research or lack thereof).

Them saying "because of history" does not say "our research couldn't find out either way." Again, the latter would reflect their shortcomings when it comes to historical research or (the lack of) documentation of the existence of nonwhite people in Bohemia.

Warhorse are saying "we can't do 'X' because 'Y'; t's out of our hands." Believing that, even when 'Y' actually doesn't prevent them from doing 'X' can be limiting and harmful in myriad ways. It can cause people to make decisions that don't actually align with their conscious intent, and indirectly cause fallout elsewhere (i.e. this situation where even the possibility of putting nonwhite people in a game is, seemingly, completely out of the question).

Ask any developers if they hate nonwhite people and don't want to put nonwhite people into their game because they're not white and the developers will say "of course not." That's because prejudice toward, and subjugation of, people because of their skin color with no good reason is frowned up, and justly so. It has ramifications like potentially dehumanizing or reducing that group.

However, developers could do just that, but believe they're doing it in accordance to a "higher power" (e.g. historical accuracy), which they believe is a good reason to do it. If that "higher power" actually does demand they leave out nonwhite people, then it's out of the developers' hands and the "higher power"/overarching rule must be criticized, not the developers. If that overarching rule/"higher power" doesn't actually require they do something in a certain way, the developers are responsible.

Do you believe it's important for people understand which of their actions they're accountable for? Can you think of any ways it might be harmful for people to use a "higher power" as the end all, be all justification for their actions? And that's not a rhetorical, facetious or condescending question, I do want to know.

If you say yes to those questions, take a close look at Warhorse's scenario. If you think there's no considerable difference between them admitting they could've done things differently and them saying they had to exclude something from their game, please reconsider. And please consider what possible consequences on audiences there could be depending on what the "something" is.

The difference may be minuscule, but it could be the same size difference as choosing between two different directions to travel in a straight line from one point. Even if there's a .1 degree difference, where you ended up later can be much different.

You can certainly claim from a logical point of view that this uncertainty invalidates their claim of historical accuracy, but from a historical point of view this is a pointless argument. If there is no record, whether written, painted, or preserved orally, of the persistent existence of nonwhites in Bohemia in that time, then historically, the claim that not depicting them is historically accurate is entirely valid. Even if there were such records, one could still claim not including them is accurate, as the location and duration of their presence would likely be limited; it would depend on what the records say (hence why it is important to have some).

And there's a difference between not doing something and choosing not to do it. If you never encounter other nonwhite NPCs in the game, your experience could reflect a common, comparable experience of being in real-life Medieval Bohemia; in the real-life situation, they still exist, but you don't see them. However, in the game, they don't exist at all. There's never a chance the player will encounter them.

What makes this contradictory to what Warhorse is doing with the game overall is that they aren't advertising a "common Medieval Bohemian life" simulator where your experience matches the most common real-life Bohemian experience. All of the content in the game is meant to reflect history accurately (structures, weapons and environments are meant to look the way they really did), but player is able to become a knight, a thief or a bard (or more, going by the kickstarter page), and potentially become all of those things in one go. The likelihood of any one person doing everything that any one player will do will be pretty slim. Even if the intent behind the game is to make the player's experience reflect a common one of the time, one's experience could strongly deviate from the average one.

Warhorse hasn't said that. They have said they want to give the player high levels of freedom to make the experience their own using historically accurate elements. A shovel could be modeled perfectly accurately, but a player could use it as their main weapon, something no one may ever have done in Bohemia. If there were nonwhite people in Bohemia, they could be included in an accurate way. Even if no nonwhite people never went on to become knights, thieves or bards in Bohemia, the player could, just how the player will be able to do myriad things that no one ever did.

If the game is as open-ended and provides as much freedom as advertised, is it too ridiculous to add in nonwhite NPCs from other lands, or their descendants? Again, Warhorse has said there "were almost none/they were very very rare" which (even if that's just an acknowledgement that can't "prove the negative" and say there were none) means there's a possible they could be in the game according to Warhorse's "history" criterion. If there were too few to justify their inclusion, then they could make it in.

But how many would it take for Warhorse to be able to put them in the game? Whatever that number may be, is it the objective cutoff number for historical accuracy?

It's not. In conclusion, it's a personal preference.

Warhorse never said "we don't know if there were any and we didn't want to include them in case that's inaccurate." To that, someone could justly say that Warhorse needs to conduct better research and other developers would see that, then strive to find some more definitive answers in their research for their next historical game. That would be fine. There wouldn't be any nonwhite people in the game, but it doesn't perpetuate a false belief or popularize using "historical accuracy" as an excuse for a (understandable, in this case) personal shortcoming.

That's wildly different from Warhorse saying "that's just the way it is; the number of nonwhite people were below the objective 'historical accuracy' line" to which a lot of people would just blindly accept, potentially perpetuating that strain of thought where people believe the existence of medieval nonwhite people in Bohemia.

Your link seems to be missing, but I assume it's this post. Let's have look at what he's claiming this time:

Nope, I meant to link to this page that was linked in the DailyDot story, though I don't know whether it's making the same point. It was meant to give Minister of the Dog more insight into MedievalPOC's argument about history (not their point about Warhorse's decision being of their own accord).

And I have to reiterate: whether MedievalPOC's argument about the existence of people of other ethnicities in medieval Bohemia is valid and whether there actually were any is tangential to this thread. The first part of your post addresses Warhorse's decision. After that, it's simply off-topic. Interesting, but something that would be best suited as a response on MedievalPOC's tumblr. I don't mean to be dismissive, nor do I want to say the post has no use here, but I'd hate to see you write all that that and not get a reply because it's outside the main discussion. Repeatedly in this thread, the discussion has drifted away from the game design focus.

However, even though this is off-topic, I did want to ask since you took interest in critiquing one of MedievalPOC's posts: why is it that Warhorse's assertion is met with so little scrutiny, especially compared to MedievalPOC's claim? Is asking them to back up their claim an attempt to make them prove the negative? Again, that's specifically about history and not how it relates to this game or game design in general, yet I'm interested in hearing what everyone thinks of that.

If it's more just to make a baseless claim there were no nonwhite people in Medieval Bohemia than it is to baselessly claim there were, that then the use of the former claim seems like a grandfather clause, one that's fair on the surface, yet fundamentally unfair. If that former claim is considered acceptable, it can be used as justification for myriad decisions or actions while the other claim will be more likely to be contested.

 

[Scipius]

Well, I doubt there's much of an audience left, so we should probably keep it short. Again, I don't see the point in trying to analyse Warhorse's motivations ad nauseam. My point is that their original claim of not including nonwhites for historical accuracy is, by itself, essentially correct, regardless of what their overall intentions may be. Ultimately, without Warhorse being involved in this discussion, it's just conjecture about a process the details of which none of us were privy to.

To touch upon this point though:

However, even though this is off-topic, I did want to ask since you took interest in critiquing one of MedievalPOC's posts: why is it that Warhorse's assertion is met with so little scrutiny, especially compared to MedievalPOC's claim? Is asking them to back up their claim an attempt to make them prove the negative? Again, that's specifically about history and not how it relates to this game or game design in general, yet I'm interested in hearing what everyone thinks of that.

If it's more just to make a baseless claim there were no nonwhite people in Medieval Bohemia than it is to baselessly claim there were, that then the use of the former claim seems like a grandfather clause, one that's fair on the surface, yet fundamentally unfair. If that former claim is considered acceptable, it can be used as justification for myriad decisions or actions while the other claim will be more likely to be contested.

The reason why MedievalPOC's claim is being challenged is because the "evidence" he is presenting is demonstrably irrelevant, misleading, or incorrect. That is also why it is indeed relevant to examine the history being discussed here; ask yourself what value does MedievalPOC's argument really have if he cannot support it without making spurious claims?

He's doing it yet again in the page you linked to; a desperately flawed reasoning of how, since the Hohenstaufen's were German and ruled over a Sicily with "Black Moslems", the influence these Germans had on Bohemian culture would mean that their presence in Bohemia is possible. He's just linking events up to arrive at his desired destination, without showing exactly how he gets there. The end justifies the means for MedievalPOC.

What is worse is that his whole "Mission Statement" is unsupported by any evidence as well. He wants to combat a supposed "whitewashing" of European art, but without showing concrete examples of such actions, conveniently allowing him to present his blog as "uncovering" hidden truths. The only way it makes any sense is if we consider the latter part, where he seems to specify this relates more to the US.

And there we have the crux of the matter I suspect; a clash between American racial concepts and the absence of these in European societies like the Czech. This probably ties in with your continuous assertion that Warhorse is doing some sort of harm by their actions; while that would be a natural position for an American to take, it would likely seem quite awkward to a Czech and many other non-Americans. They would not necessarily see the presentation of an all-white population in medieval Europe as harmful in any meaningful way.