Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Green 04-08-08, 02:45 PM	This blog (http://scifimedia.blogspot.com/2006/09/fantasy-cliches-and-why-i-want-to-kill.html) discusses some prevalent cliches in many fantasy settings. Rather than gripe about them, I'm more interested in how worldbuilders can add a fresh angle to these things or even do something completely different. Like the blogger I mentioned, I'm more interested in addressing aesthetic, narrative, and ideological elements that often limit how we perceive and create fantasy settings. I'm eager to see what authors and worldbuilders can do to make things more diverse, more relevant, and more interesting. To give you a jump start, here are some of the ideas the blog author mentioned: Racial determinism Chosen One Syndrome Epic Authority worship Eurocentrism What are some other cliches you notice, and how would you address or change them?
tyrandor 04-08-08, 06:58 PM	Here's my take on it... RACIAL DETERMINISM I have to say that I agree with the Blogger about the inherent problem caused by having an entire race has 'evil'. This is more of a problem with the alignment problem of D&D however - because evil race aren't merely perceived as evil by the 'good' race... they are ACTUALLY evil. This would imply that eventually, the race would wipe itself out. A race that is Good doesn't make much sense either - such a level of altruism is good on paper, but would fail in practice... kind like the communist idea. The majority of race and people would thus need to be neutral, with some good and evil being within the communities. There's plenty of reason for Orcs and Dwarves to hate each other without having one be good and the other 'evil'. Religion, ideals, lands, ressources... why does it have to be about good and evil? And why must the setting tell us who is right by making one side good and evil? I always figures a much mature way to storytell this would be to make both side believable and let the reader/player figures which side they believe in. The problem with the proposed idea to make demi-human magical instead of biological is that it makes that fairly difficult to adapt as playable race... if your elves have more in common with the sidhe of celtic lore then they do with tolkien's elves... well, you can't really play something like that. There's nothing wrong with that (In fact, in my current setting, humans is the only available player race, since all the demi-human are much more 'alien' then the classic fantasy set up). It's also not really 'original', since that's how the original folklore on which fantasy is build upon described them. You can also clash with your readers/players expectation... people expect elves to be elves and orcs to be orcs, change them to much and you might as well just change their name altogether. As for why races like elves which are superior to humans aren't ruling the world... number is always a pretty easy answer. THE CHOSEN ONE SYNDROME & THE EPIC Can't help but agree. I always hated the chosen one gimmick. None of the character I create ever has some link to greatness in his background - I expect him to forge his own destiny. However, some of my players always need to be the great grandson of some super powerful legend. It gets tiring. To each his own I suppose. AUTHORITY WORSHIP I'm not quite sure what book he has been reading on that one. The Wheel of Time, the Runelords... hell, even Tolkien had plenty of corrupt kings. Outside of Walt Disney, corrupt nobles and backstabbing politices between the noble houses is the meat and potato if any fantasy setting that deals with nobility. BOREDOM WITH EUROCENTRISM That's actually a valid concern, but 'original' doesn't mean better. A story set in an 'african' setting might be fascinating to some and a total turn off to others. I really liked overall, one of the reply to his blog: I think this list of cliches is, in and of its self, cliched. Every fantasy writer has heard it a thousand times and still new books are being produced, containing a few of these cliches, and are wonderful, rich, intelligent stories. So get down of your high horse; if you want to read a cliche-free stort, write it yourself. I think people are to quick to value originality for originality's sake.
JulesCARV 04-08-08, 06:59 PM	Prophecies always turn out to be either true or "imminently true," -- i.e. true if the hero/villain doesn't stop it first. Widely discussed prophecies are never just complete nonsense. When fork-in-the-road type dilemmas arise, being good-hearted will lead to making the right decision with good consequences for all, while being pragmatic with a touch of ruthlessness, selfish, or evil will lead to making the wrong decision with bad consequences for all. Earnest good intentions never lead anyone important astray in the long run. If something acknowledged as undesirable exists, it's because of someone's malice; it can't "just be." (To pick an example from the blog post you linked to, Nicky Fingaz says nobles "starved the people to live in luxury" -- i.e. the low standard of living in agrarian societies is due to the malice of the ruling classes. However, given the natural limits of agricultural productivity and the incentives of peasants to have as many children as possible to help with work and provide for them in old age, would less taxation lead less deprivation among peasants, or just high population densities?) If the idea of a malicious hand behind something undesirable is too implausible (i.e., the Forces of Darkness aren't responsible every time you stub a toe), then the undesirable thing is rationalized into being a necessary and good part of life. (i.e., stubbing our toes is part of what makes us who we are, and without stubbed toes we'd lose our humanity and not have the characters we have, so toe stubbing is really good!) Any form of utopianism, dissent from a widely accepted status quo, or aspirations to improve life is presumably delusional or evil: particularly suspicious are aspirations to eliminate or reduce aging and/or death (humans who try to find a route to immortality are evil), acquire knowledge of things people think oughtn't be known (seeking ultimate knowledge means you'll be evil sooner or later), etc. The last three (bad stuff results from malice, if it doesn't result from malice it isn't really bad, and any aspirations to change the status quo at a fundamental level is bad) might collectively be emanations of the "just world hypothesis."
Space_Dragon 04-10-08, 09:56 PM	I agree with some of these points and dissagree with others. Racial Determinism This one just plain isn't true in most fantasy settings I'm familiar with. Orcs and goblins might be evil, but that is most often due to social or cultural reasons, not inborn proclivity. Note that, in the monster manual, it specifically says that a creature with the "usually evil" alignment descriptor is NOT born evil, but is evil because of certain learned behaviors it acquires from outside sources. Orcs are evil in the same way that Vikings were evil; because they have a culture that encourages the raiding and pillaging of other peoples. That's it. To the best of my knowledge, that's the most there is to orcish evil. Is this racial determinism? If so, we have always lived in a racially deterministic world ourselves. Chosen One Syndrome Agree wholeheatedly with this one. In a few cases, there is actually an explanation for why the Chosen One is the only one who can complete the quest at hand; if, for example, if the Chosen One has special powers due to his unique magical heritage, and the quest is impossible for someone without said powers, then it makes sense. But having the Chosen One be the Chosen One just because some old guy witha beard made a prophecy describing him as "chosen" is fail of the utmost degree. The Chosen One should be chosen because there is a tangible, causal property to him that MAKES him the best one for the job. And even then, not all fantasy stories need to have a Chosen One. I'm just saying it can be done well if handled with a bit of thought. Epic I'm sorry, but if something big isn't at stake, there's not much to draw the reader in. If the hero's quest doesn't involve the entire world, then you've made up a fictional setting for nothing. Authority Worship I've never seen this in a fantasy novel. Ever. There is almost always a mixture of good, bad, and neutral kings, any of whom might be legitimate or illegitimate rulers. And that's only in the more optimistic stories; just as often, all the rulers are portrayed as being at least slightly corrupt. Eurocentricism Um...read more fantasy books.
DarkSoldier 04-11-08, 01:28 AM	The TV Tropes Wiki (http://tvtropes.org/) has lists of cliches for all sorts of media. I use it as a reference for when I'm writing my own stories, to try and avoid getting into a rut of predictability or unoriginality.
GoriceXII 04-11-08, 07:57 AM	Racial Determinism I think that what he's saying is not so much that you couldn't have racial alignments and such but rather that the 'humans in funny suits' tendency is a little tiresome. Basically some creativity and good story is needed. Check out the Midnight campaign setting in particular for a good depiction of elves and orcs. Chosen One Syndrome I agree with Space_Dragon; again you really need a good story here. I also think it sometimes goes a little too far. David Gemmell as an author does it rather well, I think. He tends for instance to say that a 'chosen one' is the rightful heir to a magical item or else that they have been picked to defend a particular land or kingdom. I began to find the chosen one syndrome tiresome in the Sword of Truth series in particular for example. I'd want to qualify this in general though as saying that there is a tendency at times to have a Mary Sue character in this kind of role. So for example in D&D having a legacy weapon related to a specific kingdom or realm is a good idea; having perhaps several different prophetic elements involving different people as in Dragonlance also works. Epic Again, I understand. He's more lamenting the tendency to imitate the Tolkien plotline than complaining about a genuinely epic plotline. For example A Song of Ice and Fire is certainly very epic and yet it is very different from Tolkien. Then there is the rather Iliad-esque The Worm Ouroboros. One of my favourite kinds of general campaign trends is the Conan type campaign where it is really about the rise to power of the heroes of the story. Authority Worship I know what he's driving at here. Those who've read Mercedes Lackey or Melanie Rawn would know what I mean: there are 'good' rulers and 'bad' rulers and there's a huge gap between their types of behavior. The good rulers are always wise and good and kind and just with a little spice thrown in; the bad rulers are tyrants who want to exploit their subjects and grab more power. However I think the general trend of fantasy novels and game writing lately tends to make things better rounded out. Good examples would be perhaps Dark Sun and Midnight. Eurocentrism I don't have an issue with this at all. One of my favourite campaigns was an Oriental Adventures one; I've also run a game set in Nyambe (African D&D). I do very much recommend looking up Nyambe btw if no one has played it--it has rather unique character types and a very cool middle ages era African realm. After reading Gary Jennings' Aztec I feel you could certainly run a really interesting Mesoamerican game. The main character starts off as a soldier, becomes a travelling merchant-adventurer, is later rewarded and becomes a courtier/intelligence operative and finally retires with the rank of noble. (only to find that the Spanish invade while he's too old to do much about it, but that's another matter) What I liked about it is that most of it takes place before the Conquest and so there is a lot of interesting speculation about Mesoamerican cultures. Anyway Eurocentrism hasn't been done to death. Look at Jacqueline Carey's books set in a decadent and intriguing fantasy version of France, or George R. R. Martin's brutal and thrilling Westeros. The problem with eurocentrism is that too many stupid assumptions and bad story techniques are done with it, casually tacking on a few European titles and social trends across the map of European history doesn't make for a good setting.
Eldritch_Lord 04-13-08, 07:39 PM	In regards to the Chosen One cliche, I think it only really works when the Chosen One is just the one who happened to get there/find the artifact/pass the test/etc. first. In the Cloudmage series, for example, the heroine is simply the first person to find the most powerful magic artifact in the series after it has been lost for many years, and the first book describes how she deals with the pressure she didn't want and doesn't know how to deal with it. Chosen Ones that get there through blood relations, prophecies, and so on I really don't like reading about. In regards to Eurocentrism, I don't think that's as much of an issue as it's made out to be; there are plenty of aspects of European history to be explored, tweaked, and stretched to make good fantasy. It's when the author (A) doesn't know what they're talking about when they use what they think is the "typical Medieval" X or (B) uses a particular premise that has already been done past the usual cliches that it becomes a problem.
Reddrakk 04-15-08, 11:41 PM	To give you a jump start, here are some of the ideas the blog author mentioned: Chosen One Syndrome I think the Bard's Tale has a good response to this one. *Begins to sing 'Oh It's Bad Luck To Be You* Epic I think the only requirement for epic is that it has to either be big and flashy or else change things (or keep them from changing rather rapidly and to the detriment of most forms of life). Epic means a lot to DnD. Where would Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Eberron, and even Spelljammer be without some really Big, Bad Things (Big, Good Things) to set the tone for the endgame? Now, whether your epic quest is interesting or about as fun as tooling around the wilderness and fighting over who gets the shiny is up to you. Authority worship For every lawful society there is a small neutral or chaotic group that isn't happy with the way things are. Any nation in my world that is full of people that are completely happy with how things are being run is a nation being run by mind flayers or powerful fey. Eurocentrism Most people go with what they know. Most Western fantasy writers know European culture and the cultures that derive from that. I'd absolutely love to be involved in a game run by someone intimately familiar with the stories and prevalent themes of a nonwestern culture.
Etarnon 04-16-08, 03:04 AM	Meh, he needs to get a clue and stop playing D&D, and read more, and for his own ideas, do more historical research. While I agree that many D&D games of young DMs fall into the tropes he mentions, there is a world of fantasy literature out there that doesn't fall into the tropes he mentions as so overtly prevalent. The Farm boy becomes a leader by discovering his noble lineage, not because "Why can't a farm boy make good on his own", but because if any farm boy could, many would try, then the country would be overrun with power mongering farm boys. But the myth is there, such that any farm boy doing the reading might think, "yes, if only, then I" Thus the fantasy. Firstly they depict rulers as either entirely enlightened, just, nearly holy rulers, or evil usurpers of the throne. What a broad brush he paints with. There is not one shred of decency or admirability in the Lords and Ladies. Beside misspelling admirable, he's never heard of Carolus Magnus. This reply is telling, and true: Cliched works are proven to be just what the reader ordered, because they've sold so well in the past. That guy gets it. Welcome to the real world of Publishing. you can only be original if you're not trying to be. Exactly. The people posting in the responses understand it far better.
Orchomenos 04-16-08, 10:46 AM	Here's my take on it... RACIAL DETERMINISM The problem with the proposed idea to make demi-human magical instead of biological is that it makes that fairly difficult to adapt as playable race... if your elves have more in common with the sidhe of celtic lore then they do with tolkien's elves... well, you can't really play something like that. There's nothing wrong with that (In fact, in my current setting, humans is the only available player race, since all the demi-human are much more 'alien' then the classic fantasy set up). The problem is Tokien's elves WERE actually magical beings. They were divine beings, immortal. Tolkien's orcs WERE also magical beings, and evil to the core as well; they were former elves who had lived underground, but not in the "drow" sense of the world, more in the sense that the hell was underground. Even Aragorn, the ranger archetype, was of a noble race called Dunedain; he was more akin to Aasimars than humans. Then in D&D, elves became a playable race, an humanoid race with a touch of magic. To keep touch with Tolkien's elves, Ed Greenwood made Faerunian elves "leaving the known world to the island of Evermeet". And 95% of fantasy elves were this way. Then when the 3rd edition came, editors less versed in Tolkien began to wonder why an humanoid race was simply leaving to an island, and how large this island was to hold so many elves... In early third edition, elves were now 100% humanoid and playable, with a politically correct no discrimination based on race regarding what class they can be. And there was a whole sleigh of Feys and Fairies to take the old elves niche. But suddenly, there was these fey-touched and half-fey templates, allowing someone to play a fey. And subsequent monster manuals gave us fey creatures with lower ECL, bringing feys in the category of "playable races"... Well, where am I going with that rant? Oh, yes. All this have been done to somewhere go beyond the "RACIAL DETERMINISM".
Naderion 04-16-08, 11:13 AM	In regards to the Chosen One cliche, I think it only really works when the Chosen One is just the one who happened to get there/find the artifact/pass the test/etc. first. In the Cloudmage series, for example, the heroine is simply the first person to find the most powerful magic artifact in the series after it has been lost for many years, and the first book describes how she deals with the pressure she didn't want and doesn't know how to deal with it. Chosen Ones that get there through blood relations, prophecies, and so on I really don't like reading about. I SOO agree on that. Prophecies of a comming hero are fine, but people destined before birth to do a certain thing are very lame. If you allready know he will succeed, where's the challange, and more importantly, how can he prove his worth? Chosen by action is much more interesting than chosen by birth.
Orchomenos 04-17-08, 01:06 PM	I SOO agree on that. Prophecies of a comming hero are fine, but people destined before birth to do a certain thing are very lame. If you allready know he will succeed, where's the challange, and more importantly, how can he prove his worth? Chosen by action is much more interesting than chosen by birth. This is a part I like in the Harry Potter serie. The prophecy made by Trelawney specified Voldemort would choose his nemesis; and in fact, two young boys could correspond to the requirements. But only the one he attempted to kill gained the power to ultimately defeat him.
Scion9x 05-13-08, 02:17 PM	The problem is Tokien's elves WERE actually magical beings. They were divine beings, immortal. Tolkien's orcs WERE also magical beings, and evil to the core as well; they were former elves who had lived underground, but not in the "drow" sense of the world, more in the sense that the hell was underground. Even Aragorn, the ranger archetype, was of a noble race called Dunedain; he was more akin to Aasimars than humans. Then in D&D, elves became a playable race, an humanoid race with a touch of magic. To keep touch with Tolkien's elves, Ed Greenwood made Faerunian elves "leaving the known world to the island of Evermeet". And 95% of fantasy elves were this way. Then when the 3rd edition came, editors less versed in Tolkien began to wonder why an humanoid race was simply leaving to an island, and how large this island was to hold so many elves... In early third edition, elves were now 100% humanoid and playable, with a politically correct no discrimination based on race regarding what class they can be. And there was a whole sleigh of Feys and Fairies to take the old elves niche. But suddenly, there was these fey-touched and half-fey templates, allowing someone to play a fey. And subsequent monster manuals gave us fey creatures with lower ECL, bringing feys in the category of "playable races"... Well, where am I going with that rant? Oh, yes. All this have been done to somewhere go beyond the "RACIAL DETERMINISM". Yeah, monsters in DnD are evil because they were evil in Tolkien's work, but the reason for the inherent evil and inherent good is lost. Orcs were literally touched and molded by the hands of Morgoth/Melkor, which is a figure analagous to Satan. A fallen, evil servant of the creator diety Eru Ilvater. The races of Man, Dwarves, Elves and Hobbits were all either created by Eru Ilvater or given a part of his divine essence, so that they have true sapience, and free will. They were imbued with the Inextinuishable Flame of Ainur, the Secret Fire. When Morgoth makes his own races, Dragons, Trolls, etc, he gives them sentience but does not have access to the divine spark that Eru Ilvater gives to the other races. In essence, the evil races in Tolkien's world do not have souls, which is what makes them inherently evil. Dragons are artificially intelligent biological robots that eat stuff and horde treasure essentially. They don't choose to be evil and are incapable of choosing to not be evil. Elves and Wizards are very close to Eru, so they are less likely to become corrupted and actively choose evil. They are spiritual beings that wear bodies. Elves are technically capable of coming back to life like Gandalf does, they just rarely do so, since after death they wind up in the Undying Lands aka heaven. In the stories Glorfindel the elf still comes back to life just like Gandalf though. DnD took its cues from Tolkien, but it of course couldn't totally rip off everything. As such you have almost nonsensical cultures that are so strongly aligned on either side of a spectrum that defines an eternal existential conflict for no apparent reason. In Tolkien's writing, the monsters were evil because they were tainted by the source of all evil in the world, or they were created soulless. They weren't evil because they grew up that way. I'm not opposed to that style of writing in general. I think it has worked well in DnD in some areas, such as the Drow being driven underground after their Goddess is driven from the abode of the rest of the elven pantheon and into the Abyss coincides in a very poetic way. The dark elves were blessed with Lloth's dark beauty as a gift from the father of the pantheon when she was his consort, and then wound up sharing her curse and turned evil with her. The issue is that virtually every race can be explained this way and way too many are. It is likely that any would ever get the attention and time devoted to them that Elves do in DnD though. A trope isn't inherently bad, just when they are poorly implemented. Dragonlance did fairly well with all of those tropes and a fairly simple and symmetrical creation mythology, along with a racial determinism for all of their races. Dwarves, Orcs, Elves, Dragons et al being tied to their Gods inextricably as an explination for their inherent goodness, or evilness is way overdone, and only the Elves are really fleshed out in any of the DnD pulp novels as they are the most popular.
fodigg 05-13-08, 04:07 PM	The blogger had some interesting points. My responses: Racial Determinism: I agree with this. I generally dislike the "evil because it's evil" mentality. I'd much rather it be framed by societies in conflict or by "overwhelming trends" and not biological determination. "Orcs all have aggressive tendencies" is different from "Orcs are all evil". - The Chosen One: I like a character that reveals himself to be a great leader of men through his abilities, but I'm not really against this trope. Star Wars did this pretty well in my mind, as did the Dune series. - The Epic: I do agree with this. The entire kingdom doesn't need to be at stake. Sometimes the "street level" stories are best. For example, Batman is fully capable of taking part in battles against threats to the world, or even to reality itself, but he still fits perfectly well in a crime noir story. - Authority Worship: I think you should get a mix of everything. There should be noble rulers and corrupt rulers. I do agree that it shouldn't always be those of "noble" blood who are the good rulers. - Eurocentrism: I prefer a cultural mix, and I don't mean different nations in the story that are analogs to real cultures. I mean interesting jumbles of cultural features.
Green 05-13-08, 07:20 PM	Racial Determinism: I agree with this. I generally dislike the "evil because it's evil" mentality. I'd much rather it be framed by societies in conflict or by "overwhelming trends" and not biological determination. "Orcs all have aggressive tendencies" is different from "Orcs are all evil". I wouldn't even go that far. I'd make that aggression a cultural rather than a biological trait. Make them more like Spartans, samurai, Vikings, Waodani and Zulus than innately stupid and violent. The Chosen One: I like a character that reveals himself to be a great leader of men through his abilities, but I'm not really against this trope. Star Wars did this pretty well in my mind, as did the Dune series. I'm pretty tired of this one too, since it often translates into the Great White Hope (quick, think of a Chosen One - besides Eddie Murphy in "The Golden Child" - who was a woman or a person of color). The Epic: I do agree with this. The entire kingdom doesn't need to be at stake. Sometimes the "street level" stories are best. For example, Batman is fully capable of taking part in battles against threats to the world, or even to reality itself, but he still fits perfectly well in a crime noir story. I honestly prefer a smaller scale story. I'm honestly bored with much of epic fantasy. I'm not sure why. I guess it's because often comes across as too linear and lacking in depth. If you look at RL history and politics, you notice layers of connections between people and events. This is sadly lacking in most epic fantasy, which tends to focus only on side of the Making History Equation. Authority Worship: I think you should get a mix of everything. There should be noble rulers and corrupt rulers. I do agree that it shouldn't always be those of "noble" blood who are the good rulers. Tell me about it. Eurocentrism: I prefer a cultural mix, and I don't mean different nations in the story that are analogs to real cultures. I mean interesting jumbles of cultural features. [/list] I'd like to see more of this too, but sadly, I doubt we'd get that except in homebrew settings. However, it would make an intriguing thought experiment.
Naderion 05-14-08, 10:16 AM	Elves (and dwarves) are good. - No, they are not. They are neutral and their society promotes goodness more than human society does. As an evil elf, you have to keep a lower profile in elven society and still play by the rules, but they still are always there. And even the good elves aren't free of prejudice and their oppinions about what "neccessary evils" are justified to help the cause of a greater good can often differ greatly from what other people think about it. Orcs and goblins are evil. - Which they are not, at least not inherently. Orcs are, as all mortal creatures neutral. The only difference is, that their society forms many personalties which evolve into an evil alignment, and more often so than it happens in human or elven societies. Even the warriors are not all evil, many are just "on the warpath" as warriors of every race are. Their bad reputation is really resulting from the fact, that those orcs, who leave orcish lands to visit those of other races, are raiders. If an orc is not for raiding, he usually won't risk to travel to human lands, where people think very badly of him. But if adventurer come to orcish lands, there are good chances of not beeing attacked on sight and they might actually stumble on good aligned orcs, who are also not on friendly terms with the raiders. But even those are not your cultivated Sharn-Traders. They respect strength and require strength from others to get their respect, and they have little reservations about attacking and killing outlanders who come to their land and seem to be looking for trouble. Certain People are chosen from birth (or more exactly, long before that) to fullfill a certain destiny. - Many epic fantasy stories center around the premise that the hero is destined to become something, or has a special heiritage that allows him to become something that none else ever could, simply because they are special. A very important aspect of the metaphysical background of my setting is, that there simply is no destiny. The gods are very powerful beings and have very poweful means of steering events into directions of their likeing. But everything anyone ever archieved, was the sole product of his own actions and the actions of his allies and opponents. The outcome of any strugle is solely determined by what choices are made and what actions are taken. If you succeed in the end, you've been lucky, but it could practically everyone who archieved the goal in the end. And an even more important consequence of this is, that not only everything can be changed or prevented, but also by everyone. And this is an important aspect of how heroes and villains think in this world and also a form of either optimism and pessimism that pervades all society. As long as it isn't over, the outcome has not been decided. There's a chance, though maybe a slight one, that you can archive everything, but there's also a certainity, that no higher power will make sure that you do. There are people who have been prohezised to or to become certain things, but they have been chosen by their actions and through their merrit, not by birth. You're not born as a chosen one, but you'll become it. Gods are people and they are near. - It is fun in greek and norse mythology to see the mighty gods strugling with each other and interacting with mortals. But in my world, gods could best be described as philosopical ideas. They do exist and they can take note of what happens and they can change things in the world. But they are no persons, even "beings" would be a bit of a stretch and probably only "entitiy" comes close to what they are. They don't have bodies and not even incorporeal forms or boundaries. They don't think in the traditional sense of the word and do not talk or interact with any mortal creatures. Only the highest of spirits can get a basic idea of what the gods are and interect with them. Avatars exist, but they are in fact not much more than a simple programmed image effect. Everyone knows Magic. - The actual number of people who possess magic is very slim compared to the overall population. But also the number of people who have access to hired spellcasters is not that high. Though there are a lot of villages who enjoy the presence of a friendly priest of druid in or near their community, those spellcasters are usually of 2nd to 4th level. If the militia can count on the assistance of a 5th level wizard, they have a huge advantage over almost any dangers that might befall their village. To actually find a 7th level cleric who would be able to raise dead, could be quite difficult and you can't just hop over to the next town. There are always shops and temples nearby. - I did some research of medieval demography and followed the guideline of making 1/15 of the population live in cities. The result of this is, that even a moderately settled country the size of Brittain has only about 4 cities with more than 5000 inhabitants. And when you're covering only about 20 to 30 miles each day, the next such place could be a weeks travel or more away. And that's when you're currently in one of the settled areas. About 70% of the continent is not settled (that is, by the civilized races), and obviously that's where most of the freaky remains of ancient civilizations of past ages can be found. It's not like sitting in a tavern and decide "hey, let's check out that old castle 2 hours ride away from here". When you go on exploration, it can take weeks or even months, and out in the wilds, none hears you scream. The birds and the squirrels do, but they don't care. :D You know where you are and what you face. - This simply is the result of making things like Ilithids or Gith popular to the wider audience. Player will think that they are cool and want to know more about it. When the characters face them, the players know what they are and assume their caracters will also. When Drizzt or Elminster meets and Ilithid and snarls "Ah, you bastards again" and start chopping, you really get the idea that people know what they are. So because of that, I dumped about 2/3 of the Monster Manual and (usually) don't make any use of monsters from the other books (though there are some very cool ones I like). But on the other hand, I use lots of custom creatures, or at least "reimagine" them or make new stats for them. Even though anyone knows that a nymph is a nymph (though in fact, they are najads and one of the many kinds of nymphs like dryads and oreads) they may assume that it's a CR 7 monster that can attack with it's gaze and voice, they'll soon discover, that that's apparently not what they are currently dealing with. Also, I simply don't comment it when players say they think what's going on.
fodigg 05-14-08, 11:23 AM	I wouldn't even go that far. I'd make that aggression a cultural rather than a biological trait. Make them more like Spartans, samurai, Vikings, Waodani and Zulus than innately stupid and violent. I do want races to be wired differently, so I wouldn't make it entirely cultural in nature, but I would be sure to stretch a race across multiple cultures. For example, I said that my orcs are "aggressive". Instead of having the stereotypical aggressive, thuggish orc in every society, I can instead interpret their aggression through the lens of whatever society I put them in (and include visible exceptions, but that's not what I'm currently talking about). For example, an orc might indeed be the typical thuggish barbarian in a thuggish barbarian culture, but an orc might also be a conniving, well-spoken aristocrat who aggressively undermines political rivals. The kind of politician that works more with crowbars than votes. I also wouldn't create a society that is made up entirely of one race unless it was very small. (ie: a single tribe) And even then I might throw in some humans or half humans if possible. I would have human barbarian tribes just as bloodthirsty as orc barbarian tribes, but they might go about things a little differently. I'm pretty tired of this one too, since it often translates into the Great White Hope (quick, think of a Chosen One - besides Eddie Murphy in "The Golden Child" - who was a woman or a person of color). I'm not entirely sure, but I think that "Leto" (paul muad'dib's son) in the Dune series would look "middle eastern" by way of his mother, a native of the planet Dune. At least, that's how I picture him. That's just one example though, and I do see what you're saying. I think that's a part of eurocentricism though, not something innate to "the chosen one" concept. I honestly prefer a smaller scale story. I'm honestly bored with much of epic fantasy. I'm not sure why. I guess it's because often comes across as too linear and lacking in depth. If you look at RL history and politics, you notice layers of connections between people and events. This is sadly lacking in most epic fantasy, which tends to focus only on side of the Making History Equation. I prefer the "epic" story to be more of a framing narrative for a series of smaller, more intimate stories. People care more about colorful individuals than about large, warring nations. I'd like to see more of this too, but sadly, I doubt we'd get that except in homebrew settings. However, it would make an intriguing thought experiment. You see culture jumbles in some dystopian settings. I'm specifically thinking about the japan-america or chinese-america jumbles you see in settings like Blade Runner, Firefly, or the Shadowrun RPG.
Naderion 05-14-08, 02:52 PM	I think effectively, every setting ever started as a homebrew. ;) I aim for not making any culture appearing like any real world one, but I guess that would get very hard for the one, that's currently based on english/german/french middle ages as a reference starting point. :D
JulesCARV 05-14-08, 03:27 PM	Mysterious, non-Causal, "Zeitgeist-driven" Declines of Civilization This one irks me. Even Asimov (not fantasy, but anyway...), who really seems like the kind of guy who could put together a coherent chain of cause and effect, had a mysteriously declining Galactic Empire in the Foundation series. (Well, Seldon's psychohistory presumably included causal reasons for why things were falling apart, but we readers never really get a sound feel for what's going on.) Then there are Moorcock's mysteriously declining Melnibonéans, all sorts of mysteriously declining elves, etc. If you're going to have a declining or fallen civilization, I want there to be a reason behind it, not some sort of inexplicable zeitgiest. (And no, generic "decadence" doesn't count as a reason in my book, nor does some moral failure (like widespread slavery) that, no matter how reprehensible, does not directly undermine social stability or sustainability.)
fodigg 05-14-08, 03:55 PM	Mysterious, non-Causal, "Zeitgeist-driven" Declines of Civilization This one irks me. Even Asimov (not fantasy, but anyway...), who really seems like the kind of guy who could put together a coherent chain of cause and effect, had a mysteriously declining Galactic Empire in the Foundation series. (Well, Seldon's psychohistory presumably included causal reasons for why things were falling apart, but we readers never really get a sound feel for what's going on.) Then there are Moorcock's mysteriously declining Melnibonéans, all sorts of mysteriously declining elves, etc. If you're going to have a declining or fallen civilization, I want there to be a reason behind it, not some sort of inexplicable zeitgiest. (And no, generic "decadence" doesn't count as a reason in my book, nor does some moral failure (like widespread slavery) that, no matter how reprehensible, does not directly undermine social stability or sustainability.) I thought in foundation it was pretty clearly "lack of engineering expertise".
JulesCARV 05-14-08, 05:24 PM	That seems more like a description of one of the (many) symptoms of the Galactic Empire's decline than an explanation. Come to think of it, there might have been something about the explanation in Prelude to Foundation -- something about centrifugal forces of regional independence movements and oppressive centralized authoritarianism being mutually reinforcing forces that would create a vicious cycle leading to breakdown, maybe? I can't remember -- but it's not clear what was different about Seldon's era and the subsequent centuries that was different from the previous ten millenia or so during which the Galactic Empire seemed to be humming along just fine.
fodigg 05-14-08, 05:30 PM	That seems more like a description of one of the (many) symptoms of the Galactic Empire's decline than an explanation. Come to think of it, there might have been something about the explanation in Prelude to Foundation -- something about centrifugal forces of regional independence movements and oppressive centralized authoritarianism being mutually reinforcing forces that would create a vicious cycle leading to breakdown, maybe? I can't remember -- but it's not clear what was different about Seldon's era and the subsequent centuries that was different from the previous ten millenia or so during which the Galactic Empire seemed to be humming along just fine. It did seem largely based upon the concept of inevitability. The fall would happen no matter what, but the dark ages might not take "as long" if we do things right... In that sense, it seemed to be cause by general entropy, or the application of some sort of "cycle of civilization".
Giradius 05-15-08, 10:12 AM	Racial Determinism I have seen it posted that this is more a problem with alignment, and I agree with that. for races like Orcs, Gnolls, Ogres etc I prefer to think of them as humanoid sapient predators. Because in the real world the only intelligent humanoid species is the omnivorous human being, we have no basis for comparison on the psychological nature of the predator. An intelligent humanoid predator such as an orc would probably behave rather like a lion or a wolf, and this is often how they are portrayed, Orcs have a tribal (pack) social structure, there is often internal power battles as the strongest orcs compete to become the "alpha", they fold and serve evil powers so easily because they are powerful and impressive (evil wizards,dragons,fiends etc) and thus become the alpha male and because this kind of domination by intimidation and fear would not be done by a good aligned character. A race whose entire view of the world is broken down into prey and non prey would seem pretty evil to a non predator, but is it?, i don't think so, a predatory creature that acts in a predatory way is merely fulfilling its instinctive imperatives. Orcs are savage and brutal because their minds are hardwired into predatory behavior, their culture is based around strength, warfare (what else would a predator species base a culture on) and personal might or glory (in order to increase the chance of them becoming the alpha male). With orcs all you have is a race that invented weaponry before agriculture, domesticated the wolf as a hunting animal before the sheep or goat, Orcs aren't evil, they are simply predators, however whatever the label , their actions and temperaments don't change, nor do they need to. Chosen One Syndrome It is a bit boring, and the thing to remember about Dune was that the chosen one prophecy that Maud'dib fulfilled was one that was deliberately planted and sown among the fremen by the bene gesserit sisterhood in order that it could be used for their advantage at some time later. Anyone of Arrakis rulers could have fulfilled "the Mahdi" prophesy with a little planning and the aid of a Bene Gesserit, its likely the only reasons Rabban was not the mahdi was because he was Tyrant and house Harkonnen hates the Bene gesserit sisterhood, Paul belonged to a house that where fair rulers and accepted the bene gesserit sisterhood (as many of the great houses did). The main reason I dislike the chosen one thing is because it perpetuates the idea that you have to be born to greatness rather than be able to earn it through hard work or brilliance, that's one of the reasons I like Conan, he is not a chosen one, but becomes a king through his own means. Epic I disagree with most of you here I think, I prefer the grandiose. In the grand scheme of things, who cares about one little village, one city, in a thousand years it may be there anymore but the kingdom it belongs to might. the small stuff does not interest me, in the same way that I would not go on a quest to rescue Farmer palmers pig which has been stolen by a kobold! If you are talking about adventures within a huge city, political intrigues, conspiracies etc, all that is epic, you are just dealing with the smaller units of the greater whole, you are counting the pennies instead of the pounds. if a city is destabilized then it can be disastrous (especially in a fantasy level setting) it can destabilise the entire region making a whole nations border weak, it can bring down the aristocracy, start a revolution. You would be surprised how a little thing can snowball into something greater, the merchant guild you just helped out become wealthy thanks to your efforts (in rooting out the thieves guild), they in turn build a monopoly and become very powerful (and corrupt), all behind closed doors of course. Authority Worship There is a lot of this but I suspect it due to the class structure of feudal societies (which most fantasy settings have), if you take the forgotten realms nation of Thay, you have a society where the criteria for authority is magical ability not social class, the nobility of Thay are wizards and provided you are intelligent enough anyone can become a wizard. And anyway, there is nothing wrong with respect for authority as long as that authority is deserved. Eurocentricism This is probably due in part to the fact that most of the content of D&D comes from European mythology, complaining about Eurocentricism in D&D is like complaining about Orientalcentrism in martial arts films. western fantasy is largely based on European mythology (dwarves, elves, ogres, wizards, etc) D&D is based on western fantasy, its based on western fantasy because its popular and people like it, globalization is a recent thing, and i suspect that if it had been around then, you wouldn't not be saying this 50 years ago, its only the introduction of things such as anime that have opened up new possibilities for fantasy elements (and even anime has taken some western fantasy elements, vampire hunter D, full metal alchemist, etc) Its Eurocentric because it is the product of European mythology, folklore and history, why do you assume D&D should have a global outlook? especially when you take into account that it is not set in the real world and is usually set in a world that is "Specifically" based on European mythology. if you don't like the European fantasy element in D&D, then play oriental adventures instead and enjoy your rokuro-kubi floating vampire heads, and your bowl headed kappa if that's what your into, but complaining that D&D excludes other world mythologies is like complaining that Journey to west excludes western mythology, or that a chinese epic doesnt have any scottish characters. Another one I would like to add is The superiority of Good This one really gets on my nerves, why do the "goodies" always win, and the "baddies" always lose? the villain has no restrictions on his conduct to inhibit him, the hero does, if the villain wants to kill one person he can destroy the city they live in, the hero doesn't! It is fairly well established that the most evolutionary stable strategy (the strategy a collective of organisms needs to follow to gain sufficient advantage for the individual and avoid wiping itself out) is reciprocal altruism, you scratch my back I scratch yours or visa versa, pure altruism doesn't work because the system is open to exploitation and becomes unstable, pure selfish behavior doesn't work either because it inhibits co-operation. If reciprocal altruism is stable for the collective, then a minority of selfish can thrive and gain the advantage as long as they remain a minority, which villains usually are. It seems to me that this is just another expression of the human desire for natural justice, an attempt to introduce karma or retribution, evil never prospers and yet we know from the real world that it does. I have not come across any novel or story where the main protagonist is a villain, nor have I come across a story where the villain wins, I would love to see it. I find this to be one of the biggest cliches of ALL fiction, not just fantasy.
fodigg 05-15-08, 10:28 AM	The superiority of Good This one really gets on my nerves, why do the "goodies" always win, and the "baddies" always lose? Well...I think that most readers need someone to cheer for. Villains don't see themselves as villains, and for me to really like a character, I have to understand and, to a point, accept their point of view. For example, I hated Mark Millar's Wanted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanted_%28comics%29) (the comic, the upcoming movie looks nothing like the book) where the "protagonist" is, unapologetically a rapist and a murderer who just happens to kill all the other murderers so he can go on his merry way, continuing to murder and rape. And yet I find Niko Bellic, the protagonist of GTA IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gta_4), absolutely compelling. Why should that be the case? Well, the former has very little to appreciate other than "I don't let myself get pushed around anymore", the latter has repeatedly been portrayed as a loyal, driven man, who struggles with his morality even if he ultimately chooses a dark path. He just seems a lot more human. There's a big difference between a well-done anti-hero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_%28comics%29) (or villain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Face)) and "edgier is always better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spawn_%28comics%29)".
Giradius 05-15-08, 11:14 AM	Maybe its just me then! I have always rooted for the villains since I was a kid, He-man never interested me, Skelator was better, Gandalf is boring Saruman is far more interesting. However having said that, I started to read the The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever by Stephen R. Donaldson and didn't finish the book, the character of the title is a leper who shunned by people ,is hit by a car and wakes up in a narnia/middle earth esq setting, he meets a community of people who treat him kindness and acceptance, and one of the first thing he does is rape a young girl who has been showing him around. I tired of the characters constant whining and thoughtless and found the incomprehensible rape of a friendly figure to be enough to make me dislike the character so much hat i put the book down and have not picked it up since. however I read 1984 by George Orwell last year (amazing, i highly recommend it) and formed a liking for Winston smith despite the fact that he said he would throw acid in a child's face and kill innocent people to topple big brother (a sequence they leave out of the film), however I also like the character of O'Brien, and find the entire setting to be amazing, the difference is that O'Brien believes what is doing is for the best, The party is right, its not pleasant, but that's the way the way it. One of my favorite character is Palpatine, and again, everything he does has purpose, he is doing what he thinks he right (given that to him Darkness is light and light is insignificant next to darkness), I can love a villain who is motivated in what they do, if they have a purpose, even demons etc do the things they do because its in their nature, they have a reason for it. Am I really the only one who can sympathise with the villain? can see that perhaps Palpatine might have been sincere in his belief that when he controls everything the galaxy would be better off? that perhaps maybe Big brother and the party believed that "Ingsoc" was the best form of politics for humanity to live by? whether or not they are right is another issue, and to say Palpatine wanted to rule because he is evil and selfish is over simplifying and not looking at motivations, why does he want to rule? maybe he thinks he can do a better job, maybe he thinks he is superior and deserves to rule? one thing that is not often explored, especially in fantasy is reasoning behind the villains actions. Besides the idea that readers need someone to cheer on is fair enough, but why is that person always the hero? why is the villain never the centre of the story (Darth vader as a villain is not central to star wars, but his fall and redemption is), it seems t me the hero has disadvantages, rules to obey, a moral code to follow that is a limiting factor, the villain is not limited in tactics or resources they can draw upon so why does the hero win despite his limitations? he wins because he is good, and the villain is bad!
fodigg 05-15-08, 12:39 PM	Maybe its just me then! I have always rooted for the villains since I was a kid, He-man never interested me, Skelator was better, Gandalf is boring Saruman is far more interesting. However having said that, I started to read the The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever by Stephen R. Donaldson and didn't finish the book, the character of the title is a leper who shunned by people ,is hit by a car and wakes up in a narnia/middle earth esq setting, he meets a community of people who treat him kindness and acceptance, and one of the first thing he does is rape a young girl who has been showing him around. I tired of the characters constant whining and thoughtless and found the incomprehensible rape of a friendly figure to be enough to make me dislike the character so much hat i put the book down and have not picked it up since. however I read 1984 by George Orwell last year (amazing, i highly recommend it) and formed a liking for Winston smith despite the fact that he said he would throw acid in a child's face and kill innocent people to topple big brother (a sequence they leave out of the film), however I also like the character of O'Brien, and find the entire setting to be amazing, the difference is that O'Brien believes what is doing is for the best, The party is right, its not pleasant, but that's the way the way it. One of my favorite character is Palpatine, and again, everything he does has purpose, he is doing what he thinks he right (given that to him Darkness is light and light is insignificant next to darkness), I can love a villain who is motivated in what they do, if they have a purpose, even demons etc do the things they do because its in their nature, they have a reason for it. Am I really the only one who can sympathise with the villain? can see that perhaps Palpatine might have been sincere in his belief that when he controls everything the galaxy would be better off? that perhaps maybe Big brother and the party believed that "Ingsoc" was the best form of politics for humanity to live by? whether or not they are right is another issue, and to say Palpatine wanted to rule because he is evil and selfish is over simplifying and not looking at motivations, why does he want to rule? maybe he thinks he can do a better job, maybe he thinks he is superior and deserves to rule? one thing that is not often explored, especially in fantasy is reasoning behind the villains actions. Besides the idea that readers need someone to cheer on is fair enough, but why is that person always the hero? why is the villain never the centre of the story (Darth vader as a villain is not central to star wars, but his fall and redemption is), it seems t me the hero has disadvantages, rules to obey, a moral code to follow that is a limiting factor, the villain is not limited in tactics or resources they can draw upon so why does the hero win despite his limitations? he wins because he is good, and the villain is bad! No, I don't think it's just you. I just happen to disagree. You make a couple of very interesting points. I'll paraphrase them as I understand them: Villains are often more interesting than heroes. Random violence is not what makes a villain interesting. Villains might come into conflict with one another, and both would see the other as villainous. A villain who has a reasonable motivations for their actions is far more sympathetic. Heroes need not be the character that the reader most identifies with, or the "protagonist" of a story. Villains tend to have a better chance of "winning", and yet often don't. This makes little sense. Heroes win for the simple sake that they are "heroic". I actually agree with you on many of these points. I think we're just viewing it in a different light. My thoughts: I am a strong believer that a good villain often makes a good hero. Villains should be interesting. I find it strange that you used skeletor and saruman as examples when both seem like stale villains to me. They're "typical". If there's one character that has a lineup of great villains, it's Batman: Joker, Riddler, Penguin, Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Bane, Hush, Killer Croc, Two Face, Red Hood, Scarecrow, Ra's al Ghul. They're all distinctive. They all have motivations and "hooks". One of my favorite thing about the batman villains is that they all have a "regular" profession that goes along with their villainous persona. Even joker, the most "evil for evil's sake" villain is also a talented chemist. I don't think there's anything wrong with identifying with the villain, I just happen to think that this makes for a better hero, not a worse one. If you actually want the hero to be slain...well then the hero was simply not done well enough. He-Man and Gandalf? I can see that. - I think my experience with Wanted was the same as you describe with Thomas Covenant. Lack of meaningful motivations, violence for the sake of violence, no reason to care. At that point is just celebrating the violence. That will turn off readers. - On this point, where villains see each other as villainous, we start to introduce the concept of the anti-hero, or the hero trapped between two villains/evils. This is a big component of dystopian fiction, and I'm a fan. I still appreciate a reason to "cheer for" one or both characters, but it's a story that feels a bit more realistic than "forces of good fight forces of evil". That said, if I don't care about any of the characters, then I won't keep reading unless they are very well written and interesting. - Yes, yes, yes. Villains need motivations. I mentioned the Joker as "evil for evil's sake" before. Thing is, that concept is explored in the Joker. It's treated as an aberration. As something terrifying and attempts are made to pick it apart. It's not just accepted and then we move on with the story. It's okay with the Joker, because the joker is not sane. - I agree that villains can be good characters for the reader to identify with, but this might or might not be a good thing. It depends on the story you're telling. If it's a story where neither side is a true "hero" or clearly in the right, then this is a key part of the story. Marvel's Civil War event is one example, another might be the American Gangster movie. (I say "might" because I haven't seen it.) However, if you have a clear villain and a clear hero, but the villain is far more popular, you're stuck. You have to make it feasible for the hero to win or it seems forced. If you try to just make the villain an anti-hero at the hero's side, you run the risk of diluting what made the villain "cool". (see: pretty much every anime ever made). It can be done well, but there needs to be a reason behind it. Make your villains cool, but if you need them to be villains then dammit give the reader a reason to want him to be taken down. - Hmm. Well, what's a better story? The hero overcomes great odds and saves the day at the last moment, or the hero crushes the little guy, the villain? If the villain is weaker than the hero, it's not really that much of a story. Now, I'm not saying that the villain need always lose, just that it makes sense for him to start with more power. Sometimes the villain winning is exactly what makes a story awesome. I mentioned linked to Rorschach earlier when talking about anti-heroes. Well, if you want a kick ass victory by a villain, read The Watchmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen). Read Superman: Red Son (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman:_Red_Son). Also, Batman: The Long Halloween (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Long_Halloween) is another great graphic novel where the hero doesn't really win. If the fantasy genre doesn't explore this possibility, then yeah that's a problem. - If a hero wins just because he's a hero, and not because of his wit, courage, skill, and general ability...then he's not a very good hero. Even Superman, the biggest example of a hero too powerful for his own good, at least has a reason to be victorious. Usually he's just that strong, but at least he still has to struggle, or figure something out, or make a difficult choice. The bad superman stories are those where he wins because "he's Superman" and American flags are waved and yay good guys. Lame. Again, you need to read Superman: Red Son to see him done right. So yeah. I can see why the villain can be attractive, but if he's so attractive that you want him to kill the hero, well then he's either not villainous enough or the hero is simply a weak character. That's a bad story even if the bad guys win. If you're going to have the villain win, then dammit make him a villain! And make his overcoming the hero something impressive and...well...heroic! The best stories are where all the characters have reasonable motivations. Even if they just want a soda, a character should want something, and it should make sense regarding how they behave.
ClockworkRevenge 05-15-08, 12:42 PM	To give you a jump start, here are some of the ideas the blog author mentioned: Eurocentrism Europian style fantasy or GTFO. An RPG that doesnt incorporate classical europian fantasy themes is usually intantly ignored by me. (See: my hatred for non classical vampires, im looking at you Underworld.)
fodigg 05-15-08, 01:03 PM	Europian style fantasy or GTFO. An RPG that doesnt incorporate classical europian fantasy themes is usually intantly ignored by me. (See: my hatred for non classical vampires, im looking at you Underworld.) Themes or application of said themes? You can have 'classical themes' and not eurocentricism.
SilvercatMoonpaw 05-15-08, 05:46 PM	Hmm, what to say, so many good things have already been said. Plus we've even gotten some thread drift with that villain thing, I'd hate to say anything that might add to it. …………………………Ah, what the hell. Racial Determinism With D&D my main complaint here is alignment, and since that's been discussed to death I'm not going to touch it. But I do have a few issues with some other reasonings used: "they're alien and unknowable" or "I've reasoned their inborn personality tendencies based upon logic". I don't like both of these for the same reason: humans have spent a long time trying to figure out why we have the personality tendencies we do and we still don't get it. Personally I find that there are certain things people have in their personalities that defy all my ability to understand. So why do we think: A) that if certain humans can't understand an alien mind that it's completely unkowable. B) that we can predict anything about how some ficitonal species will behave. I kinda like it when fictional species behave just like humans: we're weird enough to stand in for anything. Chosen One Syndrome As the old meme goes: "Who the $@&%! keeps choosing you people?" Seriously, I have no objection to their being some sort of "Chosen One". What I really hate is when the "special person" turns out to have the "right stuff" or do the "right thing" without any explanation. And then it still irks me if the explanation is "they have the hidden power of the bloodline of Goongama, the only power that can pierce the evil magic of Warlord Badooda" or whatever. (And then it still irritates me when they start out falling all over themselves but then train up to hero status in a short time, though this actually seems to be a symptom of "awesome hidden power".) I like my chosen ones to have some skills to recommend them. Preferably someone chooses them after seeing said skills in action (and not that they were simply chosen already and developed the skills in the meantime). Epic I find epic to be annoying mostly because after a while I just get tired of people gripping about whatever the big problem is. I actually like stories where there isn't one big problem to overshadow everything. Authority Worship I don't encounter this. Eurocentrism I don't find this to be much of a problem, but it's mainly because I actually like it when someone uses cultural elements without thinking: it means they aren't being too serious about their story. A fairy-tale kingdoms rendered in bad faux-medievil trappings is generally just a lot more fun then one done with an eye to historical accuracy, and this applies across cultures. Villains If you want a story abut villains try 8-bit Theater (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=010302). Pretty much all its got is villains. Really, I sometimes can't stand villains having motivations. If I'm supposed to feel sorry for them why would I want to see them fail? Of course, I really can no longer stand anyone going on about their tragic backstory because after I hear the 15,000th one, even if we only get one per movie or TV series, I just start to see all of them as just whining. Really, these days I root for the less whiny guy. Can we go back to the days when you liked the villain not because you felt sorry for him because he lost his whole family but because he was persistant enough to keep trying to take over the world despite obviously having less than half a chance?
arjomanes 05-18-08, 04:10 AM	Am I really the only one who can sympathise with the villain? can see that perhaps Palpatine might have been sincere in his belief that when he controls everything the galaxy would be better off? that perhaps maybe Big brother and the party believed that "Ingsoc" was the best form of politics for humanity to live by? whether or not they are right is another issue, and to say Palpatine wanted to rule because he is evil and selfish is over simplifying and not looking at motivations, why does he want to rule? maybe he thinks he can do a better job, maybe he thinks he is superior and deserves to rule? one thing that is not often explored, especially in fantasy is reasoning behind the villains actions. I feel the 'villain wins' story has been done often enough through history. Shakespeare's tragedies end up with the hero losing, due to his own failings of judgment or morality, though often the villain goes dow with him. Frankenstein follows a story of a monster who wars with his own nature and the misconceptions of society. The Wicked Day by Mary Shelley tells the story of Mordred, who killed Arthur. You could also read Wicked, where the protagonist isn't only the villain, but where the entire concept of good and evil is explored. (Don't watch the musical to get this; the musical was changed and simplified to make the witch merely misunderstood instead of evil.) Personally I prefer well-rounded characters, whether they are 'heroes' or 'villains' or 'everymen'. I appreciate the comments about the Batman series. Many of the villains are explored very well. I also think that Batman can be seen more as an anti-hero than a hero in many instances. He's a very messed up individual as well. There are two basic stories: comedies and tragedies; the protagonist wins or the protagonist loses; there are degrees to which the story is a comedy or tragedy. The protagonist defeats the enemy, but loses everything, or the protagonist changes into a corrupt individual, but becomes successful, etc. The protagonist can be a hero, an anti-hero, or even a 'villain'. But primarily the story is about the protagonist and his actions and outlook, and reader bias, determine whether the reader considers him a hero or villain. You'll find that much modern, post-modern and romantic-era fiction explores the idea of a flawed hero. I think it's been explored somewhat in fantasy literature; less so in Tolkien or CS Lewis who had definite ideas of good and evil. Nonetheless, I agree that D&D can often use archetypes and tropes as a crutch, but that isn't always the case.
fodigg 05-19-08, 12:14 PM	There are two basic stories: comedies and tragedies; the protagonist wins or the protagonist loses; What was the line from Stranger Than Fiction? "At the end of a comedy the character gets married, at the end of a tragedy he dies a horrible death"?
Naderion 05-19-08, 12:36 PM	"If someone falls down, it's a drama. If he stands up, it's a comedy. If he doesn't, it's a tragedy."
Bosh_Vant 06-10-08, 02:48 AM	Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall through an open sewer grate and die. - Mel Brooks I can not state furvently enough with my agreement with the recomendation of Wicked. However I felt that it did not have Ephabla as the "Evil" charicter, but instead opened up the question of if that word means anything at all other than the spin that is popularly accepted. It could be said that it is an evil act when she kills her helpless retired old school marm in her sleep (or is she dead already) - who was working for the Wizard as a spy the entire time. But on the other hand it could be seen as a long over due dispensation of justice. The entirety of that book is about how much the term "Evil" is influneced by prespective. On the Chosen one ... One way that I would LOVE to use this in a story is have the next likey king be the Magically chosen one. We never said WHO chose him now did we. The question is can the player charicters stop this chosen one, and his monstrous backers, as his unatural powers grow into a nightmareish bloom? (Yep I'm thinking Damien or some such.)