I think you're safe using that word for this, Kagekiri.  After all, none of us has any actual experience in being the 'normal' person in a gaming world and dealing with adventurers...most, if not all, of us don't even have experience being a peasant under a noble's 'protection'.  I know that I certainly don't know anyone who runs an inn or tavern where adventurers tend to gather and look for information or rest up between adventures...

Everything in here is an assumption, based on our own personal interpretations of how such a society should/would work.

Even peasants might attack adventurers who mess with their wives/daughters/sisters.  Perhaps not very effectively given the relative weapon power, but a lynch mob can do a lot of damage.

In reply to Brianna (msg # 21):

How do you set these expectations in an "alien" culture?
On the other hand, do most players want to experience an "alien" culture?
Is it wise to only use "generic European" culture for all games?
(or whatever the culture is for the local play group)
This message was last edited by the user at 12:52, Sat 05 Apr 2014.

In reply to GreenTongue (msg # 22):

Make the 'alien' culture what you want.  Perhaps in another culture, the offensive action might be NOT showing interest in the sister/daughter/wife/whatever.  But I'd expect many varied cultures to have some gender/sex related customs, unless the natives reproduce in some other way.

The alien culture could be based upon a biker gang, feudal Japan, a technologically backwards totalitarian state (North Korea comes to mind), a 60 style commune, a place where everyone sings their dialog (remember Cop Rock), or anything else you may want to draw from human history.  Basic European is so boooooring.  It's your world.  Have fun with it.

Unfortunately, it is the Players world and we all have to have fun with it.
That is the crux of the problem. How to stay in the "comfort zone" while still being "different".
=

That's the thing:   A little "discomfort" goes a long way.   :)

You don't have to make a totally incomprehensible alien culture, just a few differences that can be intriguing, while having some comforting sameness otherwise.

I'm not sure that normality needs to be asserted except rarely for most games.

A little introduction and backstory when starting the game off, then a few periodic elements now and again.

The focus is going to be whatever the players end up focusing on -- if they want to explore the culture, you can put your culture hat on.

If they don't really care that much, have the monsters and loot ready at hand. Periodic nods to the setting occur when appropriate.

The game setting is something you should want player input on in advance though, to see how weird they're willing to go. There's a balance between how immediately accessible the fantasy world is, by the players having past experience with that kind of setting, and being "too weird" or detailed can detract from their game experience if that's not the kind of game they want.

Would anyone here mouth off to a group of soldiers on leave, insulting them and their mothers for no reason at all, even if you are protected by law from violent retribution?

Also, in the typical fantasy game, nobles either need to be adventurers too, or they cannot face a mid to high level adventurers. Or in other words - the guys who kill dragons for profit are generally not too impressed by the local knight.

"Normal" could very well mean, in the typical fantasy world, "might makes right" - and experienced adventurers often are the mightiest in the area.

In reply to GamerHandle (msg # 12):

Now totally hooked on Order of the Stick!!! LMFAO!!!

Not if you wanna live to see your next birthday you wouldn't. Law provides consequences for those breaking them, not protection from the offended's wrath.

It's the same in a fantasy world. I make the PC's in my games well aware that they are the scariest people around, and everyone acts accordingly.

In reply to eternaldarkness (msg # 30):

And yet, many of my military friends have stories of people who've done exactly that.  Whether or not you would mouth off to soldiers on leave all depends on whether your common sense outweighs your ego (or your distaste of the military, if you're inclined that direction).

Stupid decisions are part of human nature...if you're trying to create a 'normal' world, some consideration should be given to that.  There shouldn't be total reverence for soldiers/adventurers, any more than there should be total contempt for them.  Most people fall at various points along a continuum between the two poles.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 31):

Contempt for Adventurers might be comparable to what some soldiers get if they're connected to an unpopular ruler.    Many of our  soldiers get treated badly when the civilians have contempt for the war they're in or the person in the top office.
I'm thinking that Adventurers might qualify if they're part if an unpopular ruler's "King's Guard".

On the other hand just working freelance for a notably corrupt or brutal ruler might let them share in the hatred, especially if the rular is spending good money on some esoteric quest while the common folk starve.
Perhaps a bit like if the nobility in Pre Revolution France or the Russian Czars sponsored a lavish expedition.

I don't get it dude. Why exactly does it have to be for no reason at all? Maybe one of the soldiers slept with some guys wife and said guy intends to call the soldier out on it in a public place. Maybe these are occupational soldiers and the war is screwing with the economy, so people start blaming the soldiers for the rising cost of food.

Maybe the people collectively decide that they're tired of being pushed around by adventurers and start picketing in the streets and vote to put the Dark Lord Sauron back into office to get rid of these adventurers once and for all. That's right! Were talking the power back!

Perhaps nobody here would, but that doesn't mean that this doesn't happen in real life.  People get caught up in the "illegal war on terror" mindset, they don't like what's happening in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Guantanamo, and they take it out on soldiers that they happen to meet.  Unfortunately, the law doesn't really apply much of a penalty for someone who insults soldiers and their mothers for no reason at all that the soldiers can see.

Take a look at Vietnam.  How many people castigated soldiers back then, even those soldiers who'd been drafted in and had no choice?

It's been enough of a problem for Rudyard Kipling to write a poem about it.

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,

The whole thing:
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/tommy/

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 31):

Who said anything about reverence? In the context of the conversation we're having, i'm just saying that you would be wise to think twice before needlessly insulting someone who makes a living killing things that make the common person run or cower. I was just making the point that only the truly brave or foolhardy needlessly offend people who kill dragons and topple dark lords as part of their day job.

Sure, people could collectively decide that they've had enough of those darn adventurers, and if the actions of a particular group of PC's warrants that, or as others have said they're working for an unpopular individual, then have the world react realistically. But when doing so, don't ever forget that fear is the most powerful and primary motivator of all sentient beings, and no matter how much you may think the law will protect you, you'd better hope there's a guard or twenty nearby who can help you when that fireball-lobbing sorcerer decides you mouthed off to the wrong person.
This message was last edited by the user at 06:12, Mon 07 Apr 2014.

Don't forgot about Paladins. Nobody worries about offending a Paladin. He's Lawful Good. He wouldn't dare lay hands on me…heh-heh...

In reply to eternaldarkness (msg # 36):

Yeah, I think that was exactly the point I was making in saying that most people ARE NOT at the extreme ends of the continuum.  I'll stand by my choice of words, though, because I know people who do hold soldiers in an almost sacred degree of respect and I could see someone doing the same for adventurers who wiped out the marauding horde of Orcs that had bedeviled the countryside for years.

But the vast majority of people aren't that extreme.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 38):

And why shouldn't they? Someone who frequently protects you from threats about which you know nothing deserves a bit of respect and reverence - after all, you basically owe them your continued existence. Especially in a world where dragons, demons, orc hordes and all manner of even more horrible monsters lurk in every dank cave and abandoned ruin just waiting for a chance to kill you, you should treat the people that intentionally go out and eliminate those threats with utmost respect, even if you don't personally like them.

Now of course some people will just be ungrateful jerks just as in real life, but they have to do so with the knowledge that as much as they dislike the adventurers in question they're only alive to dislike them because of the dangerous work done by those adventurers which they themselves would not or could not do(which might just make them more resentful at those uppity adventurers who are just so much better than them).
This message was last edited by the user at 06:18, Mon 07 Apr 2014.

In reply to Kagekiri (msg # 37):

Lol! Tell that to my Paladin and see how you get on. He's L-G, but that doesn't mean he's a nice guy... Witchfinders were on the side of 'Good' and 'The Law'.

I still don't get how anyone would be considered normal for trying to insult or even drive away adventurers who can lay waste to a village without trying. That only works if there is a strong force protecting said peasants. If the adventurers are the strongest force in the area, then they do not have to fear anyone coming after them for torching a few idiots who tried to bully them.

And a noble or even king might think twice about protecting or avenging a peasant village if said peasants were stupid enough to insult adventurers. Fighting a band of high-level adventurers is simply not worth the losses you take even if you win.

Also, remember that duels were for a long time the legal (and for a longer the socially accepted) response to insults. That innkeeper mouthing off to the adventurer? Take it as an insult, and kill him legally.

Not to mention what spellcasters can do if provoked - especially the subtle things. You have to be a special kind of stupid to anger people who can curse your family, village, fields, etc. Or who can rain down fireballs on your house from afar, invisible. Or can summon fiends to wreck your village. Or spread disease.

And even if said adventurers are, for some reason, very, very peaceful, they might simply go to the noble whose land your village is in, and complain about getting insulted, demanding compensation (or it's a feud). That noble will certainly not be happy about some peasant causing such problems. Especially if it's for some stupid reason like "we don't like adventurers".

That's the problem right there.  As far as you know, I've protected you from a threat about which you know nothing.  Unless I spell out the threat for you, however, and tell you about what I did, it's not going to matter to you.  And even if I do spell out my "Men in Black" activities, you might not believe me without corroborating evidence, like other people that live near you that you already trust who tell you the same thing.

Anyway, in default D&D, normal people are going to be exceptional if they've ever gone 20 miles from their home.  Sure, those who were part of an army may have gone much, much, much farther than that.  In Australia and the United States, you had cattle drives that went for about 3,000 and 1,000 miles (respectively), but cowboys that went on drives like that were an incredibly small part of the population, percentage-wise.  People might up and move to a sparsely settled area in an attempt to make a better life for themselves, but once there they aren't going to move around very much.  Even in Eberron, basically the only way to really go long distance is by a costly airship ride.  People didn't really start traveling "long" distances just for fun or on a regular basis until railroads and cars were invented.

Newspapers were started just after the invention of the printing press, but most D&D campaigns don't have that device, and even for settings that do (Eberron), without easy long distance communication like telegram lines or something, the newspapers are going to be mostly all about piddely local stuff.  Take a look at any small town newspaper today and you'll see the same thing.

So, if there's an evil necromancer 30 miles away who mostly keeps to himself in his tower of power, it might not have really affected your life, it might be as remote as violence going on in Rwanda, a place where probably nobody that you know of has visited.  Did anyone here pay attention to the Rwandan intelligence officer who was recently sentenced in France to 25 years in prison on genocide charges?  Yeah, me neither.  Most of us have heard about things happening in Rwanda, we know rumors about the genocide, but it's just not making our local newspapers and most of us know about as much about Rwanda as your average D&D townsperson knows about the evil necromancer in his tower 30 miles away.

That's assuming the local feudal lord doesn't see an armed and combative group of adventurers in their domain as potential spies, or a force sent by a rival to subvert confidence in his own forces (the "Well, HE didn't care enough to do anything about the Orcs, someone else had to come in here and take care of it for him!" argument).  They may also be concerned that the actions of the adventurers may cost them face in the view of their liege lord, like they (the local nobles) aren't powerful or competent enough to take care of their own problems and had to be saved by outside intervention

Adventurers are easily as likely to be viewed as unwelcome interlopers by the authorities of the realm as they are to be welcomed as rescuers.  It's all a question of how secure or paranoid the authorities are.  And that is something that is entirely up to the GM, and whether they want a stable society for the adventurers to travel through, or want the adventurers to constantly be on the verge of serious trouble.

In my game a sarcastic gnome might try to explain to your character what "Normal" is.

I wouldn't trust him, though.