Well, I'll be dipped in dogshit!

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by The Old Geezer at 2004-11-11 07:29:47
Converted from Phorums BB System

"Take a character that looks like a hero (fair complexion/shining armor, or noble-looking/shiny metallic dragons) and turn them into a villain once or twice, and you create memorable characters by using contrast. But when it becomes a rule, rather than the exception to the rule, you start to sever the ties to mythology that most people associate with this genre (and this game). "

Congratulations - SERIOUSLY!

You have just clearly and trenchantly stated why 99 44/100% of all "dark gritty postmodern fantasy" sucks intergalactic moose cock - instead of "the old cliches of fantasy" you have "the new cliches of fantasy" - cowardly greedy knights, venal priests, stupid wizards, wanton princesses - because the authors have fuck-all notion of mythology.

I only wish you'd get the recoginition for this that you deserve.

-- Old Geezer

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2004-11-11 10:39:15
Converted from Phorums BB System

Ace Calhoon made that observation. I'm giving him all the recogination I can. His insights and ideas are helpful and insightful, as are all of the observations from the other world builders.

Charlie Dunwoody

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by The Old Geezer at 2004-11-11 13:09:15
Converted from Phorums BB System

Well, as the Australians would say, "good on Ace, then"!

And good on you as well for giving credit where due.

-- Old Geezer

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by NotMousse at 2004-11-12 05:59:42
Converted from Phorums BB System

Hey!

...there's nothing wrong with wanton princesses.

Though I have a preference for more rounded characters I admit having a template fitting character is much preferable to the 'I'm k3wl because I'm different!' types.

BTW is an intergalactic moose cock of higher CR than an underground warmoose?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by The Old Geezer at 2004-11-12 07:10:15
Converted from Phorums BB System

Depends on if you have the "Lovelace" feat.

-- Old Geezer

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by nihtgenga at 2004-11-12 23:34:59
Converted from Phorums BB System

With one minor exception I pretty much agree with you, but the point is that a high fantasy setting dilutes mythology anyway. Familiarity breeds contempt. In ancient Greece there were dozens of monsters roaming around but they are also rare and singular. One Minotaur, one Hydra, Pegasus was an only child. There were 3 gorgons but only one of them was Medusa. There are no monsters in Greece today because they were all exterminated by ancient heroes.
If you ran into a goblin in the forest it was one goblin or a small family at the most. There was never really an army of them until the modern concept of high fantasy appeared. On top of that the monster was generally unkillable without magic or trickery.
Norse myths had races of goblins, dwarves etc but only gods encountered them most of the time.
Meeting one Lawful Good Gold dragon is mythology. Meeting one every 2 days is cliché.

The minor exception I mentioned? The 'knight in shining armour' was the exception not the rule. Most Round Table knights were just as flawed as anyone else, the King took a very biblical view to a generation of first borns, and the great Merlin was a useless bastard. Who would want to play Galahad anyway? The best characters don't do good things because they are heroes and that is what heroes do. They do them because they WANT to be heroes and the WANT to do the right thing, as they understand it.
Greek and Norse gods were often selfish, dumb and generally very human. Applying alignments to them wouldn't be a faithful representation of them barring a few exceptions. Usually the only sin the gods considered punishable was hubris.

In the last 4 worlds I created, non-human PC's were not allowed (made plenty of human races for variety). Non-humans were alien and when you met a monster it was a surprise. I apply the CoC ideal to all worlds these days, it makes mystery and the myth more relevant.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ace Calhoon at 2004-11-13 23:07:49
Converted from Phorums BB System

"With one minor exception I pretty much agree with you, but the point is that a high fantasy setting dilutes mythology anyway."

True... Modern fantasy mixes pure mythology with a lot of other literary styles (well, mostly Tolkien's). But the mythic aspect is an important part of it.

"In ancient Greece there were dozens of monsters roaming around but they are also rare and singular. One Minotaur, one Hydra, Pegasus was an only child. There were 3 gorgons but only one of them was Medusa. There are no monsters in Greece today because they were all exterminated by ancient heroes."

But there were many gods, and races of non-humans (i.e. "monsters") are fairly common (i.e. the titans). The Celts believed in a lot of faeries, the Japanses believed that *everything* had a spirit that affected it. That being said, one of the concepts that has been grafted on to fantasy has been the concept of meta-human races and armies of monsters. This comes from some issues we have in the modern world, as nearly as some experts can tell.

"Meeting one Lawful Good Gold dragon is mythology. Meeting one every 2 days is cliché."

That depends. Meeting a Gold Dragon who's exactly like every other gold dragon is cliché, but if they're truely different characters it isn't. Sort of like the difference between meeting two "Greek gods" and meeting "Zeus and Ares."

"The best characters don't do good things because they are heroes and that is what heroes do. They do them because they WANT to be heroes and the WANT to do the right thing, as they understand it."

Very true. But there is still often a line (albeit sometimes a slightly blurry one) between major concepts, such as good and evil. Heracles was clearly good and the hydra evil, even though Heracles had committed some not-so-nice acts himself.

"Applying alignments to them wouldn't be a faithful representation of them barring a few exceptions."

You can never define a character solely by alignment, because very few characters conform to it 100%. The alignment indicates what the character tends towards; where they deviate is what makes them three-dimensional. The trick to it, in an alignment-driven system, is choosing an alignment that they don't deviate from too much.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by nihtgenga at 2004-11-15 01:17:38
Converted from Phorums BB System

This is an entire forum discussion in its own right. And I'm not really disagreeing with you.

The problem with comparing gold dragons and greek gods is the fact that the greek gods were not all the same alignment or just a group of gods. All the greek gods were individuals. When you are dealing with dragons as a 'race' instead of 'one' symbolic dragon you are starting to talk about personalising each dragon. At that point the mythological elements such as always the same alignment becomes sterotyping, not symbolic.

I hate debating things like this over email (lousy typist), so I'll leave this here. Will be watching to see how things progress here. Having fun.

Cheers

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ace Calhoon at 2004-11-16 10:58:03
Converted from Phorums BB System

"The problem with comparing gold dragons and greek gods is the fact that the greek gods were not all the same alignment or just a group of gods."

True, that was probably a bad example. The key idea, however, is that para-normal entities aren't always singular creatures (see the references to titans, faeries, and other spirits).

"At that point the mythological elements such as always the same alignment becomes sterotyping, not symbolic."

This is a very fine, and ill-defined line. I would never say "all humans should be the same alignment," or even "all elves should be the same alignment." But dragons in 3.x have been portrayed as something more than flesh and blood, as having a connection to elemental aspects of D&D's planes. The goal here is to play on that connection, to have their societies represent a concept (mythological citation: the Seelie and Unseelie courts of Celtic culture), rather than the individuals themselves. The trick comes in the mixture of myth (pure represenation) and fantasy (occasional exceptions exist).

But of course I'm no James Frazer... This is just the way I happen to look at this topic.

"Will be watching to see how things progress here. Having fun."

Just so long as I don't ruin it for you ;)

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Jethrow at 2004-12-16 23:49:54
Converted from Phorums BB System

Ace, nihgtgenga, very much enjoying your posts. Insightful, well put. Look forward to more from you guys.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Joshua Dyal at 2005-02-15 12:06:28
Converted from Phorums BB System

Who said fantasy has to be based on mythology?

I mean, there's something to be said for, essentially, "reversing stereotypes isn't much better than the stereotype itself" but it's not particularly ground-breaking to note that. Well-rounded characters are naturally more interesting anyway. And well-rounded settings, as opposed to rip-offs of mythology, are as well.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-02-16 04:19:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

I can see both of your points. I think the goal of any person or group creating a fantasy world is to create a mythology that fits for that world. Whether based on real life myth or a combination of various sources for inspiration, any world needs to seem logically consistant with its own created mythology.

The danger, for me anyway, in creating a new world is getting too wound up in the toys: prestige classes, rules, classes etc. that really have nothing to do with the mythology or history of the world. Those rule elements should serve the story and not the other way around. I think some otherwise decent worlds for D20 suffer from trying to create a story to fit the rules.

Charlie