My Player Asked for a List of Moral Philosophers, Theologians, Political Theorists, and Economists in our Fantasy World...

No really.

He did.

I guess I found the right Players.

First off, if you're actually interested, HERE IS THE LIST. It's not a comprehensive list, and it takes a lot of influence from real-world philosophies (though not mapped on one-to-one), and it isn't set in any published campaign setting, so don't expect to recognize any continent names.*

So how did we come up with this list and these thinkers?

The first step was just importing real world philosophies, theologies and theories into the fantasy world. If you actually clicked the link, you probably noticed that there are a lot of real-world analogues. What can I say? I'm not creative enough to invent anarcho-communism all by myself.

But figuring out how to bring them into a fantasy world raises an interesting question: can a philosophy/theology/political theory be universal, or is it necessarily contextual?

Can these ideas be logicked-out by anyone with a 14+ in Intelligence? Or are they subject to the influences that affect us? No more than a response to our context, and, therefore, not universal to everyone? Does asking these same questions in a fantasy world change the answers? Does it change the questions?

For that matter, even in the real world, does asking certain questions in Western Europe in the 13th century yield the same results as asking those same questions in pre-columbian Central America? Do the questions change? Then why is it that a degree in "Philosophy" necessarily prioritizes Aristotle and Kant, but the complexities of South Asian and Native American philosophies (among others) can be selected as electives if you're lucky?

If these leading questions don't make it clear enough, I believe that all philosophy is contextual. There may be certain elements that are universal, like the importance of peace, justice, fairness, virtue, etc., but these ideals are so vague that they ultimately become unhelpful and deceptive until defined and interpreted by a particular philosophy.

Hell, even Ayn Rand claims that her brand of Objectivism helps the common good.

She may share a vague ideal of the common good with Marx, but you would never confuse the two.

So the 18+ Intelligence philosophers in any part of the world will develop totally different ideas about the world based on the things that are important to them. And that changes based on context.

Historicism is the philosophical theory that posits that our ideas are determined by our historical and local conditions. Hegel and Foucault are prominent historicists, for example.

The idea that philosophy and theology are contextual is foundational to lots of thinkers (primarily those outside of Western Europe). Latin America in the 60s-70s, for example, brought us Liberation Theology. The "liberation" bit asserts that we should understand the world from the perspective of the marginalized and oppressed in different contexts. For our world, that means not the privileged and wealthy thinkers of Western Europe and the United States, but from the most vulnerable in places which were systematically stripped of resources and power by imperialist nations.

This thinking gave rise to a multitude of other contextual theologies, including Black Theology, Feminist Theology, Womanist Theology, Queer Theology and many more. To them, theology is necessarily contextual. It's based on the theologians' experiences and the geographical and temporal context in which they find themselves.

For a less religious example, Edward Said, a (now deceased) Palestinian working in the U.S., is widely considered to be a founder of post-colonial thought (though he would probably object to being labelled at all). In his most famous work Orientalism, he contends that everything from entertainment to philosophical thought has been tainted by the experience of "the west," primarily by othering the "orient" as exotic, different, weak, unintelligent, and subservient.

According to Said, "western thought"** universalizes the contextual as a weapon against other cultures and ways of understanding the world. Instead of recognizing their thought as arising from and pertaining to a specific context, "the west" has attributed it to pure reason. Not only are other cultures and philosophies wrong, they are inferior. This thinking pretends that the primarily geographic divide is an intellectual one; they argue, essentially, that it's not because they're "oriental," it's because they're stupid. Specifically, Said calls this Eurocentric thinking "political intellectualism," which serves to affirm Western European and U.S. American identity and marginalize other identities, rather than conduct actual academic study.

Post-colonial thought, then, requires celebrating and centering thinking that has thus far been marginalized. Because context matters.

But how do we know that our ideas are contextual? Is there a way to prove it? Or is it all just speculation?

This question is related to the "moralizing gods" hypothesis. Basically, the theory is that people developed beliefs of supernatural entities that enforced moral principles because their societies became more complex. As strangers of different cultures came together, and as societies became more sedentary and less nomadic, communities grew and people needed a way to ensure accountability and peaceful relations. So they started pretending fairies were watching them if they did something bad. Their philosophy/theology developed out of a concrete need they had, not out of pure "reason."

For a long time, it was hotly debated which came first, social complexity or moralizing gods? Did we develop moralizing gods because of our context, or were we only able to develop social complexity because we believed in moralizing gods?

But in a 2019 paper called "Complex societies precede moralizing gods throughout world history", the authors had the following to say:

We systematically coded records from 414 societies that span the past 10,000 years from 30 regions around the world, using 51 measures of social complexity and 4 measures of supernatural enforcement of morality. [Their] analyses not only confirm the association between moralizing gods and social complexity, but also reveal that moralizing gods follow—rather than precede—large increases in social complexity.

So nail in the coffin, right? It seems like even for something so difficult to "prove," our best data shows that context determines our thought, at least in the very telling example of FOUR HUNDRED FOURTEEN SOCIETIES OVER TEN THOUSAND YEARS FROM THIRTY REGIONS AROUND THE WORLD!

So what does that mean for a fantasy world?

In a fantasy world, the supernatural is real and provable. Spells work and have measurable effects (usually in multiples of d6s). Monsters might be rare, but once they're encountered, there's no disputing them. Hell, even gods have stat blocks.

How do magic, monsters, and deities affect the questions people ask about the universe? The cosmoverse? Their kingdom? Their town? Their life? Their afterlife? What can be proven? What can't?

This all on top of the normal questions like how geography, time, access to resources, and political maneuvering have impacted the world. And then, how do these philosophies impact the world? Who embraces them? Who condemns them? Who responds? Who tweaks them? How do they spread? When the smartest people can teleport across the planet or to another plane, does migration affect how these ideas are shared at all? When casters can comprehend languages, is any knowledge out of reach? Does orientalism exist in a world that has become so much more interconnected so early on?

I must confess, the list I prepared (with help!) does not address all these questions.

Some things were just made up, like the Association of Desire or those who follow "The Purpose,"*** and they are pretty original with some real-world inspiration.

Some things were just direct imports like anarcho-communism and modal realism (with some creative liberties).

But the things that were adapted to a specifically fantasy world include the more religious elements and magical ones. Sometimes it's as simple as instead of people demanding the means of production be collectively owned, people demand that all beings have control of the power that allows spellcasting. Other times, I considered the consequences of suggesting collective anarchism in a theocratic society.

And still other times, I asked what would happen if you could demonstrably speak to the gods, the spirits or your ancestors. There are lots of cultures, religions, and beliefs that value communion with the ancestors. If these ancestors could manifest and give much clearer instructions, what would they say and who would you listen to? In my list, one spiritual leader listens to only the spirits of the wealthy and powerful who want to maintain their family's power. Another challenges that belief, and calls upon his people to listen to the ancestors of the most marginalized. Clear liberationist themes responding to the corruption of reverence for ancestors in a world where their presence is more obvious and demonstrable.

Partly because this world's lore is not well-fleshed out, partly because of my own education, and partly because of time constraints, the work of really anchoring these philosophies in a context has been kind of half-assed. Some things have been ripped off, entire cultures and philosophies have been radically simplified, and admittedly, priority has been given to Western European and U.S. American thought. But I hope this is a start to my own journey thinking critically about this fantasy world and learning more about the world in which I spend most of my time (the real one).

I deeply enjoyed putting this list together and working with my players to develop this world even more. And this is probably not the last time I'll be talking about these ideas...

*I run games in a homebrew world creatively named Terra. I intentionally leave it as a blank canvas where I can ask Players to add to the lore of the world with their backstories or improvise things off the cuff. This list of philosophers was developed with their input and the suggestions from fellow DMs over at the D&D DMs Only Facebook Group.

**I hate the term "western thought." I use it here because of the discussion in Said's work around orientalism and the othering of the east, but in general I try to be more specific. "Western" for some reason doesn't include most thought south of the U.S.-Mexico border, and ignores the philosophies of Native American peoples who existed before colonization of their lands and continue to exist today.

When talking about religions, I often juxtapose "Abrahamic" and "Dharmic" religions, and when talking about philosophical thought I usually compare "the U.S. and Western Europe" to whoever else I'm talking about specifically. I prefer this to "western" vs. "non-western" thought because "non-western" thinkers are by no means a monolith, and part of the work of decentralizing the experience of U.S. Americans and Western Europeans is to recognize the rich diversity of thinkers from outside of the centers of power.

***Though a few followers of The Purpose do take some inspiration from The Bhagavad Gita; when Arjuna asks Krishna if it's morally justifiable to kill people, Krishna assures him that if it is his dharma, he must do so, and that death is an illusion ("Whether the slayer thinks he slays Or the slain thinks he is slain, Both are wrong. There is neither slayer nor slain." II.19). But please don't mistake inspiration for allegory. There is a lot of inspiration and some things are total rip offs, but I do try to avoid one-to-one analogies. My fantasy world is much less complex than the real one.