What? When the main feature of a setting is gender roles, I didn't give them much thought? Perhaps sad, but true. I had thought that simply putting women in positions of power would be sufficient. Let the whole thing be an exercise in role-reversals. All "manly" activities would be performed by women and vica versa.

Well, that didn't last long. In a pre-industrial society, "manly" activities often need "manly" strength. All right; for day-to-day life, men and women would stick to a traditional division of labor. But when power and money came into it, women took over. They would be the property holders, the rulers, the ones who were desired in the more prestigious, better-paying occupations.

The Questions Start

That was better. Then little detail questions started to pop out. Would there be brothels? While a straight reversal of the traditional fantasy brothel might be funny, would it make sense? What would the armies be like? Just like historical armies, but with female generals? Are men and women that alike?

Surely, humans have a lot in common. Both women and men can be humane, sensitive and caring, as well as brutal, vicious, and cruel. But there are certainly differences between the sexes. Men are (on average) more aggressive by virtue of their copious testosterone. How much of what was bad in our history was driven by that? How much of what was good?

This, of course, starts getting into the "nature versus nurture" debate. How much of who we are is influenced by our biochemistry? Did the men of the Age of Exploration map the world because some primal impulse drove them to acquire more territory and booty, or because of intellectual curiosity? Probably both. Would things have unfolded similarly if women, noted for a "nesting instinct," had ruled the nations of Europe? (I tend to think probably; Elizabeth I sponsored Drake and Isabella of Spain famously sponsored Columbus. Possibly not the best example...)

We don't like to think of women waging war, because the image of mothers killing other mothers' children is disturbing to us. But most everyone acknowledges the protective instincts of mothers. Would a female war-party eschew offensive actions for defensive ones?

Or is this all modern psycho-babble? Does holding autocratic power over an entire nation eclipse matters of sex? Is the experience of wielding power more telling than the experience of being male or female? How much would a great intellect change, if it were housed in one body or the other?

What social techniques are biologically-based and which are social? "Woman's weapon" has long been her tongue - gossiping, sniping, implying. Is that a function of being a woman, or of having no better weapons? If the traditional fantasy paradigm is that a duel is honorable but court gossip is not, might a new one be that defeating an enemy with gossip is more honorable than spilling her blood? Or would knights of Saromatia mount up on their faithful bird-steeds and go tilting, just as male knights do?

A Solution

As of May 2002, my thoughts on all these tangled questions run thusly:

• I have no matriarchy upon which to model my own.
• No matter how I resolve the issues, things will appear unbelievable to someone.
• A fun campaign setting is, to me, more important that high-fidelity realism, anyway.
• So, the best way to answer the questions is the way that will result in the most fun.

So what's fun? Right now, I think a slightly alien place would be fun. If all I do is stand every male-dominated fantasy convention on its head, I'll be running a parody, not a campaign. (Not that there's anything wrong with parody, but that's not what I'm shooting for). But if I try to think every detail through with a female-centric logic, the place will become unnavigable for my PCs. They want to be able to use some of the assumptions they've formed about how a fantasy world ought to operate. And I've found that those assumptions, long-engrained, can be very tough to rub out. (For instance, no matter how many times I told them plate glass was not available in the last game, people still expected glass windows).

Brothels? Sure, let there be brothels. PCs expect brothels. But instead of a "wham, bam, thank you, ma'am" sort of servicing, the clientele expects a candlelit dinner with charming conversation, a full-body massage, and a specified amount of foreplay. For anything less, you'd just toss the aleboy a few coins and go up to a room, anyway.

War? It happens. Women can be greedy, too, and greedy women with armies will put them on the march. A peaceful utopia is boring, anyway.

Exploration? Well, the sirens have make sea travel dangerous. Clearing them out hasn't been a priority - chalk it up to a woman's touch if you like, but there could be (and are) other reasons for letting the sirens be.

Rulers? There are good ones and bad ones. Some are Royal Mom; some are Mommie Dearest. Some aren't maternal at all - young women with vigor and strength or old women with wisdom and sharp eyes. If Eleanor of Aquitane can incite her sons to revolt against their father, or Catherine Sforza can laugh off threats to kill her children, the women of Saromatia can do no less.

So, in the end, it comes back to playability. The matriarchy setting is a hook, a novel idea to engage the PCs' imagination. But that hook has to set in a body of knowledge they already have, or else they'll be lost, confused, and feeling stupid. Nobody likes to feel stupid. While maintaining a "certain something" to set Saromatia apart from every other campaign setting, I don't want to make it something so alien that it takes three lectures and some outside reading to play "right."

Back to Essays

Saromatia Home | Geography | Religion | Civics | Organizations | Culture | Races | Bestiary | Game World Index