Jump to content

battle Wear vs. Town Wear


Michael Hopcroft

Recommended Posts

There's something I've always wondered why fantasy RPGs didn't bother with dealing with, and that is that you don't want to wear your adventuring gear while visiting a town, especially if you want to stay there for a long period.

 

After all, would you carry a loaded M-16 down the streets of Portland? It would make people run away, call the SWAT team out on you, and generally brand you as a dangerous lunatic. Even active duty soldiers never carry around their heavy weapons outside combat zones, especially in their homelands.

 

I can't see how towns and cities in fantasy worlds would be much different. Wear a full suit of armor into the inn with a broadsword strapped to your back and a crossbow on your hip and everyone there will probably think you're a bandit out to rob the place!

 

Which raises some practical questions: what do you wear in town? Where do you stow your adventuring gear during your stay? And if something happens in town, how quickly can you get to your equipment and weapons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

There's something I've always wondered why fantasy RPGs didn't bother with dealing with, and that is that you don't want to wear your adventuring gear while visiting a town, especially if you want to stay there for a long period.

 

After all, would you carry a loaded M-16 down the streets of Portland? It would make people run away, call the SWAT team out on you, and generally brand you as a dangerous lunatic. Even active duty soldiers never carry around their heavy weapons outside combat zones, especially in their homelands.

 

I can't see how towns and cities in fantasy worlds would be much different. Wear a full suit of armor into the inn with a broadsword strapped to your back and a crossbow on your hip and everyone there will probably think you're a bandit out to rob the place!

I think it has to do with the abundant fantasy races in many fantasy games - I have yet to play a fantasy game where the GM actually describes the assortment of various beings loitering around in a way I can grasp beyond that it usually gets portrayed more like a wild west town where everyone who arrives in town is awaiting high noon while the villagers hide on the sidewalks.

Certainly, I would think the typically armed and armored fantasy adventuring party would cause a commotion (at the very least) simply by entering a town.

 

Which raises some practical questions: what do you wear in town? Where do you stow your adventuring gear during your stay? And if something happens in town' date=' how quickly can you get to your equipment and weapons?[/quote']

Personally, I'm strongly in favor of concealable or inconspicious-looking weapons for this purpose (knives, slings, staffs, etc.), or failing that, a well-planned stash which is unlikely to be located. If I have to wear armor into a town (or especially a small village), I would use concealing cloaks/robes if the weather permitted, otherwise I'd stash that too. All that would mean that I'd probably have a hard time getting fully battle-ready if I was playing a warrior, but less of a problem if I was playing a rogue-like character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

The reasoning for doing this, is like the scene in LotR at Helm's Deep. At that point you see Gimli, Aragorn, and just about everyone else donning the heavy battle armors...

 

Kamarathin actually has a rule for wearing armor, that in a sense makes it so people do not run around in armor all the time. I will let Maya go into detail about it if he wants...

 

Myself, I prefer the social repercussions, as there are times that I want the guards and pcs to have that armor on...

 

To show to the pcs, that armor is not acceptable at a standard, you first have to explain it to them and the reinforce it with the npcs. I have the town guard with no armor on, the only time they put armor on is for patrols, and even then that is light armor. The battle armors just are not seen except in times of war. The one exception to this, is royalty. A knight or higher may be accepted to wear armor, but it is going to be next to impossible for them to move freely or discreetly. They will attract the attention of the lower casts seeking handouts, and it would be expected of one of that station to hand out some coin to the poor. An unknown knight showing up at a town gate, will have to present writs that he has the right to bear said armor. Those that cannot prove they have a right to bear said equipment, can either take it off or risk going to jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

The one exception to this' date=' is royalty. A knight or higher may be accepted to wear armor, but it is going to be next to impossible for them to move freely or discreetly. They will attract the attention of the lower casts seeking handouts, and it would be expected of one of that station to hand out some coin to the poor. An unknown knight showing up at a town gate, will have to present writs that he has the right to bear said armor. Those that cannot prove they have a right to bear said equipment, can either take it off or risk going to jail.[/quote']

Much like in medieval Japan where weapons that were considered weapons were forbidden to the peasantry, this wasn't exclusively Western medieval.

I am unsure how this worked in the Sultanates, but I assume the same applied generally there, or anyplace with a noble caste for whom different rules applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I general go by real world examples.

Not only is the carrying of stuff uncomfortable and tiring, it's also awkward, going to draw stares from normal people and will keep you under suspicion by any authority figures nearby.

Getting into armour takes time, is difficult, and isn't done often - because you don't carry it around with you. Armour is usually stored wrapped in a chest.

Getting a weapon is easier, as usually you can just run home and grab it off the shelf. Unless you use a knife you have with you (most folk do).

 

There are exceptions of course - if you're in a standing army, you're expected to be in the correct gear first thing each day. If you're in a muster of feudal obligation army, you carry with you, usually in a wagon. Likewise if you are a wandering vagabond warrior - which comes close to what many systems call an "adventurer".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

There are two factors that lead to the wearing of weapons and armor in fantasy RPGs. One is that most fantasy novels never refer to their characters taking off their gear and weapons when they are in town, and often have them getting into trouble in town and they are wearing their gear when they do. It is simply assumed by players and GMs alike, that the same holds true in their games. This is reinforced by every computer game ever made. The other factor especially prevalent in fantasy RPGs is the ubiquity of thieves. My automatic assumption is that if it isn't securely strapped to my person in a fantasy RPG, it isn't mine any longer. (And even then, I have to be careful.) Leaving one's armor and weapons in a room at an Inn is absolutely certain to mean that your character no longer has weapons and armor.

 

If a GM tells me that I am required to remove weapons and armor when inside a town or city, they will have an enormous amount of work cut out for them convincing me to ever enter such an insanely dangerous place. I will feel far more comfortable camping in a goblin infested forest, 'wearing' my gear, thank you very much.

 

If a GM wants me to believe that storing weapons and armor in an Inn is safe, ... No, scratch that. No GM could ever convince me that storing weapons and armor in an Inn is safe. Period. I either wear my weapons and armor in the city, or I do not enter the city.

 

And honestly, given how dangerous and unruly most fantasy worlds are, with danger lurking in every shadow, it makes perfect sense to me that those people who could afford to do so would wear weapons and armor even in a city. I think the notion of 'not' wearing weapons and armor is born out of frankly a naive idealism that the police will protect you and there is something fundamentally wrong with those who seek to defend themselves. People do not wear weapons and armor in today's civilized world, so why should they in fantasy? Well, people do wear weapons, you just don't see them because they are small and concealed. And most people don't wear armor because it is relatively ineffective against today's weapons, and our real world is not a fantasy world with danger lurking behind every corner. People wore their weapons openly in the old west, including in town, and they didn't massacre each other. I have been known myself in real life to wear armor and carry weapons on some occasions, in a city. Postulate a world with monsters and magic and I will do so all the time, and to hell with whatever the law says.

 

Generally the only reason to disarm one's people is because it is a necessary first step towards their enslavement. I'd say that in itself is a good reason to avoid fantasy cities where the people have been disarmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Armor's hot. Armor's heavy. 99% of everyone that's ever lived would ditch it in a second if they thought there was a less than 50% chance of their dying in the next ten minutes.

 

When I first came into the Army, it seemed like the major job of an NCO in the field was making soldiers wear their helmet, and that was way before we started wearing body armor. The helmet was the only armoresque thing they were wearing, and as soon as the NCO's back was turned, someone would have it off. And as soon as we come out of the field (ie back to "town") the NCOs can't drop it fast enough.

 

I play most of my fantasy characters the same way. Some even leave behind their weapon-weapons (knives and daggers don't count) when in town. Unnecessary weight..always dragging you down on one side, throwing your back out of alignment...

 

One of my favorite characters that I've played almost never wore armor. Once or twice, our characters were gearing up for some major carnage (taking part in an actual military battle, not a bar brawl or a back-alley rumble), so he put on a chain vest and a helmet. And this was before the idea of Combat Luck was common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

As a counter, in most fantasy settings central authority and the rule of law are much weaker and therefore not as reliable. That changes one expectation, that sanctioned agents will be the ones to take care of any problems rather than the individuals who are suddenly confronted by a threat.

 

Secondly, violence is generally more accepted as a legitimate and first recourse for solving a problem.

 

With these two factors in mind, it becomes much more reasonable to wear gear in populated areas. I'd have no issues with adventurerers arriving to and departing from the town in their full get out... and probably be ok with them wandering most areas of major cities armored and lightly armed. They'd encounter problems regarding private residences, noble sections of the city, certain religious areas, and more isolated communities (who are just plain suspicious of strangers, especially obviously competent and potentially violent ones).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

It depends upon the setting.

 

For example, during the Viking Age (and in my Norse campaign) you would be considered an idiot if you DIDN'T have your weapon with you at all times. Armor is more convoluted, as typically the only people who could afford it were pretty wealthy, and one doesn't typically wear the cost equivalent of a shirt weaved with silver out on latrine duty. But weapons, definitely.

 

That being said I think the social repercussion would have an interesting effect. You think you're safe in town, so you take your armor off. Then monsters come spewing out of the catacombs, and it's a running battle just to get to your armor.

 

I could also definitely see it as acceptable to have weapons in modern 3rd world countries, especially African countries. Constant tribal warfare means that if you don't have your gun with you, you're probably as good as dead.

 

So in essence, it depends upon your setting. I would definitely allow fantasy players to keep their weapons with them in the kind of games I run, but their armor is a different matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

There are two factors that lead to the wearing of weapons and armor in fantasy RPGs. One is that most fantasy novels never refer to their characters taking off their gear and weapons when they are in town' date=' and often have them getting into trouble in town and they are wearing their gear when they do. It is simply assumed by players and GMs alike, that the same holds true in their games. The other factor especially prevalent in fantasy RPGs is the ubiquity of thieves. My automatic assumption is that if it isn't securely strapped to my person in a fantasy RPG, it isn't mine any longer. Leaving one's armor and weapons in a room at an Inn is absolutely certain to mean that your character no longer has weapons and armor.[/quote']

This is all very true for many fantasy RPGs, the way they are played, but it doesn't necessarily mean they have to be played that way.

 

If a GM tells me that I am required to remove weapons and armor when inside a town or city' date=' they will have an enormous amount of work cut out for them convincing me to ever enter such an insanely dangerous place. I will feel far more comfortable camping in a goblin infested forest, 'wearing' my gear, thank you very much.[/quote']

Having played in a Stormbringer game gone hack'n'slash I can understand this sentiment.

 

 

If a GM wants me to believe that storing weapons and armor in an Inn is safe' date=' ... No, scratch that. No GM could ever convince me that storing weapons and armor in an Inn is safe. Period. I either wear my weapons and armor in the city, or I do not enter the city.[/quote']

Again, the fact that there is usually a Rogue/Thief/Assassin class or type to play, indicates that there are quite a few thieves around.

 

And honestly' date=' given how dangerous and unruly most fantasy worlds are, with danger lurking in every shadow, it makes perfect sense to me that those people who could afford to do so would wear weapons and armor even in a city. I think the notion of 'not' wearing weapons and armor is born out of frankly a naive idealism that the police will protect you and there is something fundamentally wrong with those who seek to defend themselves. People do not wear weapons and armor in today's civilized world, so why should they in fantasy? Well, people do wear weapons, you just don't see them because they are small and concealed. And most people don't wear armor because it is relatively ineffective against today's weapons, and our real world is not a fantasy world with danger lurking behind every corner. People wore their weapons openly in the old west, including in town, and they didn't massacre each other. I have been known myself in real life to wear armor and carry weapons on some occasions, in a city. Postulate a world with monsters and magic and I will do so all the time, and to hell with whatever the law says.[/quote']

If the world is in such a chaos, it is reasonable to do so.

But then there would probably not be many cities or towns or villages - rather there would be fortresses, fortifications, and fortified outposts, with some shanty-town habitation clustered around the walls, and woe to the peasants who would have to live out in the fields to harvest the land. Their safety would be resting upon the local lords, their soldiers, and the occasional mercenaries, so those peasants might feel safer if there were adventurers around in case the orcs came raiding again.

 

Generally the only reason to disarm one's people is because it is a necessary first step towards their enslavement. I'd say that in itself is a good reason to avoid fantasy cities where the people have been disarmed.

Hmm. What kind of people would you expect to grab available weapons first of all? Law-abiding citizens or gangsters? And why would this be any different in a fantasy city?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Well, yeah, there are times and places where, even if you're dropping the hot, heavy armor, it still makes sense to keep the heavy swordbelt.

 

Of course, all of this is kind of moot if the GM is running a constant campaign of breaking-and-entering at the inns and footpads in the alleys...if the cities are a battleground and leaving your stuff behind locked doors is essentially abandoning it to looters, then the PCs are justified in wearing their full kit at all times. If that's against the local law, well screw it. If it's against local custom, WTF are the locals thinking walking around unarmed when their home town is so damn dangerous? If the GM wants to occasionally catch the PCs off guard, then he needs to cut them lots of slack most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Hmm. What kind of people would you expect to grab available weapons first of all? Law-abiding citizens or gangsters? And why would this be any different in a fantasy city?

I'm not sure I follow your question. Gangsters are always armed, irrespective of laws. Gangsters don't care about laws. Laws prohibiting weapons take weapons out of the hands of people who care to obey the law. This of course makes life easier for gangsters. Repeal such laws and many law abiding citizens will promptly arm themselves, the gangsters already being armed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

sumptuary taxes

upon entering a village the local guard will give the characters a choice

1 keep your gear stowed or pay a tax to wear anything better than a large hunting knife and padded clothing

2 if under the writ of the local noble ii charge

 

also wearing armor is either going to scare away those that might confront or just have them set an ambush for you

boiling oil can be poured out a window into an narrow alley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I'm not sure I fallow your question. Gangsters are always armed' date=' irrespective of laws. Gangsters don't care about laws. Laws prohibiting weapons take weapons out of the hands of people who care to obey the law. This of course makes life easier for gangsters. Repeal such laws and many law abiding citizens will promptly arm themselves, the gangsters already being armed.[/quote']

Sorry, I was a bit unclear there. I meant the following: where I live, most weapons belong to gangsters, much as pretty much anywhere else. As long as the number of weapons is low, fewer people have weapons, meaning fewer criminals have weapons. This is a good situation in the eyes of the authorities, who will then try to limit the number of weapons by making them as unavailable to the public as possible, thereby theoretically limiting the number of armed criminals.

Does that result in criminals having weapons anyway? Sure, though maybe fewer. Does this put ordinary law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage against criminals? Sure. How would it change if all the people were armed? There might be either less crime or more dead people, probably a bit of both.

But in the eyes of the authorities, the less the number of powerful weapons available to the public, the less the unrest, and the better the local enforcement works (especially if citizens are forced to rely on local enforcement, such as it is).

 

So, to rephrase the question, which I mostly intended to be why native fantasy people should be armed:

Wouldn't all this probably be true in a fantasy city as well, and the same reasoning and reasons apply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I'm not sure I follow your question. Gangsters are always armed' date=' irrespective of laws. Gangsters don't care about laws. Laws prohibiting weapons take weapons out of the hands of people who care to obey the law. This of course makes life easier for gangsters. Repeal such laws and many law abiding citizens will promptly arm themselves, the gangsters already being armed.[/quote']

 

Quoted for truth.

 

In the interest of keeping the thread from spiraling down into a political firestorm, I posit that the most logical solution to the original question (in my opinion) is that if you are the GM, you create whatever laws you want. If you want a weapon-free utopia, go for it. If you want an armed populace defending their lives and possessions with weapons, go for it. If you're not the GM, then understand that many societal circumstance have and will continue to exist that merit the logic of carrying weapons and/or armor.

 

Trying to impose modern suburbian qualities to a dangerous and exotic fantasy setting will fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

If this turns into a weapon control debate, take it to the NGD. They always like such things over there.

 

I would probably use Long Term Endurance rules. If the character is big and strong enough to wear the armor without incurring an END cost or has a high enough REC to avoid the LTE cost, then I would probably allow it most small towns and villages. Some larger towns and cities may outright forbid the wearing of armor in any event. During those times, the character automatically gets a sort of temporary Social Limitation within those city limits if he chooses to flaunt the law. Cities are rather large affairs however, and it is not often that guards go looking for trouble. If the character is of moderate temperament and doesn't go around calling attention to himself, he would probably suffer no more than a some uncomfortable stares.

 

As with anything, every situation is a GM call. A character walking through the market square of an Arabian-esque city at noon in the summer might well not want to be wearing armor.

 

Panpiper has some valid points, so I might even allow for a couple of bonus DCV levels to be bought with the Limitation Only when not wearing restrictive armor.

 

And don't expect the local lord to extend the courtesy of his couch if you are wearing heavy plate armor. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Sorry, I was a bit unclear there. I meant the following: where I live, most weapons belong to gangsters, much as pretty much anywhere else. As long as the number of weapons is low, fewer people have weapons, meaning fewer criminals have weapons. This is a good situation in the eyes of the authorities, who will then try to limit the number of weapons by making them as unavailable to the public as possible, thereby theoretically limiting the number of armed criminals.

Does that result in criminals having weapons anyway? Sure, though maybe fewer. Does this put ordinary law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage against criminals? Sure. How would it change if all the people were armed? There might be either less crime or more dead people, probably a bit of both.

But in the eyes of the authorities, the less the number of powerful weapons available to the public, the less the unrest, and the better the local enforcement works (especially if citizens are forced to rely on local enforcement, such as it is).

 

So, to rephrase the question, which I mostly intended to be why native fantasy people should be armed:

Wouldn't all this probably be true in a fantasy city as well, and the same reasoning and reasons apply?

 

I understand where you're coming from, but several things must be considered.

 

1) If an assassin busts into my house in the middle of the night, the town guard is not going to be there. Just me and the assassin. Either I have a weapon or I don't. And if I don't, I'm dead. I'll keep my sword, thanks.

 

2) Frankly, I am very uncomfortable with the local lord taking away my weapons. If the government is corrupt or becomes corrupted, my means of resisting his forceful tyranny just got obliterated. I'll keep my sword, thanks.

 

3) Army is away. Minimal guard presence. Invading army. No militia. I'll keep my sword, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Quoted for truth.

 

In the interest of keeping the thread from spiraling down into a political firestorm, I posit that the most logical solution to the original question (in my opinion) is that if you are the GM, you create whatever laws you want. If you want a weapon-free utopia, go for it. If you want an armed populace defending their lives and possessions with weapons, go for it. If you're not the GM, then understand that many societal circumstance have and will continue to exist that merit the logic of carrying weapons and/or armor.

 

Trying to impose modern suburbian qualities to a dangerous and exotic fantasy setting will fail.

The most useful solution is of course that it depends on what you want, but I think it's not unreasonable to assume that either solution could exist; there can be reasons for both.

If there are undead monsters, rabid vermin, crazy wandering monsters, and kobolds, in the neighborhood, going around unarmed is just a symptom of either insanity or utter despair. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

For the games I run, instead of a ban on weapons in cities, I have the adventurers just get a sort of cheap "weapons permit", allowing them to carry their weapons and armours through the streets and general areas of the city, except for certain sensitive areas like the royal palace or a place of political/economic importance. Its less annoying to the PCs for having to store their armour and weapons and is easy to obtain such a permit. I don't even bother charging them since it really doesn't affect my campaign in my opinion. My adventurers know that there are just a few rare places they are not allowed to enter with weapons. Armour I see less as a problem, so I don't bother with that in the slightest. This doesn't prevent them or anyone from buying and owning weapons mind you. This is just saying "Hey, I am totally allowed to carry my great sword around town so jog off!"

 

Of course, it always depends on how a GM roleplays the cities. If the city isn't known for its criminal element and is pretty much the home base of the adventuring charter, being unarmed probably will never be a problem. However, if you are living in a dangerous city with knaves and bandits galore, and the GM loves to ambush you at every corner, I wouldn't think twice about keeping my greatsword close at hand. Plus, there are always ways to bend weapons laws. I'm sure in a vile city of scum and villainy, it would be easy to bribe some guards to look the other way when you stroll in with your great axe. In the end, it all depends on the city and GM style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

most of the weapons gangsters will have will be concealable or in locations they control

having an armed population is only good if the people really like their government otherwise it is bad thing to have

 

also there are lots of weapons you can use in a fantasy enviroment

(I act at faires here in SoCal and NorCal both of the characters I portray are armed to the teeth and they are not just swords and daggers

both characters are armed in addition to a bastard sword and dagger each also has a 30+ oz tankard made of pewter and would hurt alot if it hit you

a 10 or 12" eating knife a smaller 4" knife and a fid(a wooden spike for working large pieces of rope or to tighten bodice laces about 15" long)

in most cases if I had to surrender my weapons it would just be the sword and dagger

 

a pewter platter,a spartle(think a big paddle used in making beer),pitch fork,shovel,mattock all can be used as weapons and are easily found in any town or village

 

 

Sorry, I was a bit unclear there. I meant the following: where I live, most weapons belong to gangsters, much as pretty much anywhere else. As long as the number of weapons is low, fewer people have weapons, meaning fewer criminals have weapons. This is a good situation in the eyes of the authorities, who will then try to limit the number of weapons by making them as unavailable to the public as possible, thereby theoretically limiting the number of armed criminals.

Does that result in criminals having weapons anyway? Sure, though maybe fewer. Does this put ordinary law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage against criminals? Sure. How would it change if all the people were armed? There might be either less crime or more dead people, probably a bit of both.

But in the eyes of the authorities, the less the number of powerful weapons available to the public, the less the unrest, and the better the local enforcement works (especially if citizens are forced to rely on local enforcement, such as it is).

 

So, to rephrase the question, which I mostly intended to be why native fantasy people should be armed:

Wouldn't all this probably be true in a fantasy city as well, and the same reasoning and reasons apply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I apologize if anything I said was taken as arguments on gun control.

I was just trying to think of possible reasons for not allowing arms and armor in a medieval town or village, as per the OP. There were surely militias and arms among many people in medieval societies, but not so many heavy ones, nor armor. Then again, these were calmer societies than a typical fantasy world, so the point may be moot anyway. It would be interesting though to picture a reasonable fantasy society where having much arms around might be considered unusual, in the interest of both diversity and the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

If this turns into a weapon control debate, take it to the NGD. They always like such things over there.

 

I would probably use Long Term Endurance rules. If the character is big and strong enough to wear the armor without incurring an END cost or has a high enough REC to avoid the LTE cost, then I would probably allow it most small towns and villages. Some larger towns and cities may outright forbid the wearing of armor in any event. During those times, the character automatically gets a sort of temporary Social Limitation within those city limits if he chooses to flaunt the law. Cities are rather large affairs however, and it is not often that guards go looking for trouble. If the character is of moderate temperament and doesn't go around calling attention to himself, he would probably suffer no more than a some uncomfortable stares.

 

In a GURPS Fantasy game I ran, I instituted the "hot, sweaty armor" rule--basically, the minuses to DEX for wearing armor applied to all skill rolls when a player insisted on wearing his armor all the time. Not particularly realistic, but neither was wearing armor 24/7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Of course, in certain high-magic settings it's routine to have armor UNDER normal clothing that is quite effective. Frodo's Mithril shirt in the LOTR movies is an excellent example. If you are powerful or well-connected enough to have access to high-magic materials then you can be plausibly well-armored just about anywhere -- you wouldn't tell unless you were looking for it, and even those looking for it might not think it's that big a deal.

 

The sweatiness factor reminds me of another thing high magic can deal with -- the hygine factor of carrying around all that stuff for days at a time. Unless you do something about it, you'll smell like an overheated horse within hours. While cities may be filthy enough that people won't care, there are a lot of enemies and creatures that can track you by your smell. It would be like setting yourself on fire while being pursued by enemies with infared heat scopes.

 

And if the cities are that filthy, all the more reason for adventurers to avoid them. Plagues waiting to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Just some notes on weapons carrying.

In History the aristocracy generally had the right to bear arms and defend them selves. This was because they made the laws and did not want have to face an armed unhappy non aristocrat. In most societies if you carried a weapon you potbelly had the right to do harm to a non carrier. Now this can be limited think of our society and the limits on police or feudal Japan where if you did not carry a sword you are a peasant and if I the samurai decided off with your head. Aristocracy could have one class (American Citizen) to many layers think France in the Middle ages. Having weapons handy could be important, the American western frontier or the Ancient Greeks to meet raiders or not need so limited like England now. How one got to be an aristocrat or issue temporary papers is the other consideration that need addressed. How did you get to be an aristocrat?

· You could be born in the right family

· You could serve in the military this make you an aristocrat as they where the military

· Buy your way into the elite (ancient Rome)

· Be granted the right

o Which could be from one or all

o Bought from the leader or leaders

o Hold a office that give you the right for the office holder (prison guard, the watch and military)

· Claim it by carrying and beat off any who try to take it away from you . This is how aristocracy generally start.

The last thing to remember is that this could be a very excusive club which allowed no mobility up or down, some examples.

· Celts, you were born into the warrior class and that that.

· France in the renaissance, born to a noble patent holder, hold an office (such as officer in the army) and later you could buy into it.

· Rome, be born a Roman and either have family wealth or gain it

· Athens be born an Athenian and get wealth and then get the others to vote you in.

· United States, early own property of the correct amount or hold an office (the officer and a gentlemen by congress),later just be born in the United States.

· England be the patent holder or hold an office.

The way the locals view you in your weapons and armor could range from

· Japan, you are not one of us surrender your weapons or die

· France in the middle ages clearly you are a noble you have a sword now are you raiders or travelers

· Mycenae Greece every one has a weapon it dangerous out there and around here, Now are you raiders or traders

The wearing of armor is generally view by most local aristocracies before gunpowder as war like or even an act of War. Wearing armor general in a no war or frontier area get the local kid who wants to get out of that farm work to run into town and start the hue and cry. In Japan wearing armor was a sign of rebellion so it got you the death penalty. Ancient Athens prided them selves on the fact they where the first city you could walk the streets with out a sword. The Athenians accomplished this with liberal use of the death penalty. London could not make this claim until the 1800’s. Ancient Rome one needed to get escort which the local citizens on the dole used as a way to make money and if you did not then they made a lesson of you so every one at night had escorts.

As far as wearing armor it all depends on how dangerous a world it is out there. Modern troop wear the same amount of weight that men in the past did and they do it for weeks at a time. Yes there are health problem with this. If I was a conquering knight with William the conqueror then for the rest of my life unless I was in my castle or a good friends castle I would have some armor on and weapons on me (shield on my horse) for the rest of my life. Wearing your armor is one of the easiest ways to carry it around. I have worn medieval armor to events driving for it was just the best way to get it there (few hours). The conversation “yes officer some of us are knights” made me consider the, “are you raiders or traders” line for the first time.

As game master it is up to you to figure out the “laws” (conventions) of your game. In a world of raider and monsters, arms all around for everyone but in the great civil city of wonderburg only the watch and gate guards will have them and they will ticket you if you are seen with such. If you land in that foreign land armed the hue and cry will go out since you are not local aristocracy and you will be met with force until you give up your weapons or your life.

 

Hope that these thoughts help.

 

Lord Ghee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...