D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[doctorbadwolf]

There are always folks who "don't care" but want to push things one way or another anyway. It's one of the absolute strangest things people do, that I can think of.

 

[Maxperson]

But they aren't "rebels against Gondor". They don't live in a land controlled by Gondor. If they hate both sides, why would they fight against Gondor and help the Haradrim win? Why would the inhabitants of Harondor hate the Men of Gondor for defending their own country from conquest by their mutual enemy if they themselves hadn't been stirred up by the emissaries of Sauron? I would think the Harondorians would want Gondor to come back and defend them from the Haradrim as they had in the past. Unfortunately, all Gondor could do at the time was to hold its southern border. A similar invasion of a Haradrim army crossing the Poros had happened almost 1000 years earlier, which seems to indicate that it had been some time since Gondor had been in possession of South Gondor. We know with certainty, however, that it had already been lost sometime before the Battle of the Crossings of Poros in 2885.

They would fight Gondor for killing and raping them. They would fight Gondor for burning their homes. They would fight Gondor for destroying their crops and stealing their food. That's what happens to the locals when two powers fight in your land.

 

[Maxperson]

This right here is a pretty good example of the type of divide I was talking about up-thread.

Fun fact: Did you know that there is not a single successful rape in all of Tolkien's writing? (Definitely in the published stuff, and I'm pretty sure not in his notes and drafts either.) And even attempts are extremely rare and only committed by thoroughly depraved individuals.

The "settings transcend the books" side would say, "But of course the soldiers on both sides were committing rape regularly! That's what happens in a war--it's just realistic! Anything else would be so ridiculous as to strain suspension of disbelief!"

The "books set the parameters" side would say, "Casual rape is not part of the palette that defines Middle-Earth, and it is definitely not on the table for the armies of the 'good guys.' If you put it in, then you take away part of what makes Middle-Earth unique!"

I don't know if there is a compromise to be had here. All you can really do is make sure you don't play at a table with people on the "other side."

It's not really a divide. It's only a matter of what sort of realism you play with. Even the staunchest defender of canon is going to allow a city to have a baker, even though settings don't write bakers into canon. A setting is only bare bones. Everybody fills stuff in via realism.

 

[Hriston]

They would fight Gondor for killing and raping them. They would fight Gondor for burning their homes. They would fight Gondor for destroying their crops and stealing their food. That's what happens to the locals when two powers fight in your land.

Rebellion is fighting against the rulers of your own land. Fighting against the rulers of a neighboring land is an act of aggression if unprovoked (which describes what the Haradrim are doing), or an act of self defense if your home is invaded (which describes what Gondor is doing). Neither is rebellion. The locals of Harondor cannot be "rebels against Gondor" in 2885. Gondor does not rule them, nor is it attempting to do so.

 

[jayoungr]

They would fight Gondor for killing and raping them. They would fight Gondor for burning their homes. They would fight Gondor for destroying their crops and stealing their food. That's what happens to the locals when two powers fight in your land.

Says real-world history (unfortunately). Says Tolkien, who was deliberately writing about an imagined age when people lived up to their ability to be better than that? Which he was writing partly as a way of dealing with the horrors of his experience in World War I? Not so much.

It's not really a divide. It's only a matter of what sort of realism you play with. Even the staunchest defender of canon is going to allow a city to have a baker, even though settings don't write bakers into canon. A setting is only bare bones. Everybody fills stuff in via realism.

I don't think I agree. Everybody fills in stuff via logic, but that's not the same as realism IMO. A lot depends on what your starting references are. One side compares the likelihood of there being bakers (or rapists) to what is likely given the history of our world, and the other side compares that likelihood to whether it would fit what we know of the fictional world as described in the source material.

Now, yes, both those approaches have to refer to our world eventually (or, in the case of things like magic, extrapolate from it). It's the only common point of reference we all have, after all. But one approach says the whole of our world's experience is fair game for applicability, and the other applies a filter based on the fictional world first.

In the case of Tolkien, he actually mentions people eating bread on numerous occasions, so bakers make sense. But let's say I was running a game set on Jakku as seen in The Force Awakens; there we see Rey make her own instant bread, so the existence of a professional baker is less likely, and if there is one, then I'd guess his/her products would be more of a luxury item. And in a fictional town where rice was the staple, I probably would say there were no bakers.

 

[Maxperson]

Says real-world history (unfortunately). Says Tolkien, who was deliberately writing about an imagined age when people were capable of being better than that? Not so much.

Tolkien had some thoughts on elves and the crime of rape. In the original version of one Silmarillion story, "Eöl found...the sister of King Turgon astray in the wild near his dwelling, and he took her to wife by force: a very wicked deed in the eyes of the Eldar." (Quendi and Eldar essay, footnote 9, War of the Jewels, HME) Indeed. Eöl seems to have been Tolkien's #1 Evil Elf character, using poison, friendly with Dwarves, bad-tempered and secretive, trying to kill his son.

So it seems rape was something he considered and made sense for his world, he just changed his mind on using is, probably due to the era he wrote in.

I don't think I agree. Everybody fills in stuff via logic, but that's not the same as realism IMO. A lot depends on what your starting references are. One side compares the likelihood of there being bakers (or rapists) to what is likely given the history of our world, and the other side compares that likelihood to whether it would fit what we know of the fictional world as described in the source material.

In the case of Tolkien, he actually mentions people eating bread on numerous occasions, so bakers make sense. But let's say I was running a game set on Jakku as seen in The Force Awakens; there we see Rey make her own instant bread, so the existence of a professional baker is less likely, and if there is one, then I'd guess his/her products would be more of a luxury item. And in a fictional town where rice was the staple, I probably would say there were no bakers.

Bread could be imported, so seeing bread eaten doesn't mean baker or not baker. Even if we see bread at some point on Coruscant, that doesn't mean baker or no baker logically. It just means bread is available somehow. However, realistically, a planet like Coruscant will have many bakers.

 

[jayoungr]

Tolkien had some thoughts on elves and the crime of rape. In the original version of one Silmarillion story, "Eöl found...the sister of King Turgon astray in the wild near his dwelling, and he took her to wife by force: a very wicked deed in the eyes of the Eldar." (Quendi and Eldar essay, footnote 9, War of the Jewels, HME) Indeed. Eöl seems to have been Tolkien's #1 Evil Elf character, using poison, friendly with Dwarves, bad-tempered and secretive, trying to kill his son.

Yes, and he also allowed an "out" for whether Aredhel was actually raped by mentioning that it was also said she was not unwilling and that she was happy with Eöl at first. So that's not conclusive proof.

Eöl is also one of the worst characters in the setting, definitely not supposed to be one of the "good guys." Remember I said above that even attempted rape is only committed by the thoroughly despicable in Tolkien's work.

And finally, JRRT did not prepare that story for publication himself.

So it seems rape was something he considered and made sense for his world, he just changed his mind on using is, probably due to the era he wrote in.

Oh, there were plenty of ways of using it in the era he wrote in, just with euphemism. And I never said that he didn't allow for the possiblity that someone might consider rape. What I said was that it was extremely rare, never happened successfully that we know of, and was only even considered by very bad people. Which is a far cry from saying the armies of the good guys would casually rape the locals any time they happened to be fighting in Harondor.

Bread could be imported

One of the times bread is mentioned as being eaten is during the siege of Minas Tirith (Faramir has some after the nazgul chase him into the city). Where would they be importing their bread from? And who would have baked the bread they import?

However, realistically, a planet like Coruscant will have many bakers.

On what do you base that assumption? Why not assume that "instant bread mix" is readily available and everybody makes their own?

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, and he also allowed an "out" for whether Aredhel was actually raped by mentioning that it was also said she was not unwilling and that she was happy with Eöl at first. So that's not conclusive proof.

Eöl is also one of the worst characters in the setting, definitely not supposed to be one of the "good guys." Remember I said above that even attempted rape is only committed by the thoroughly despicable in Tolkien's work.

And finally, JRRT did not prepare that story for publication himself.

Took her to wife by force can only mean one thing. He back peddled later with that out. It's impossible to take a willing person by force.

Oh, there were plenty of ways of using it in the era he wrote in, just with euphemism. And I never said that he didn't allow for the possiblity that someone might consider rape. What I said was that it was extremely rare, never happened successfully that we know of, and was only even considered by very bad people. Which is a far cry from saying the armies of the good guys would casually rape the locals any time they happened to be fighting in Harondor.

Humans aren't elves. They are in LotR very foul fairly often.

One of the times bread is mentioned as being eaten is during the siege of Minas Tirith (Faramir has some after the nazgul chase him into the city). Where would they be importing their bread from? And who would have baked the bread they import?

Rohan, another Gondorian city, a town somewhere that only has bakers that make bread for all of Gondor. When canon doesn't say, it's all open

Realistically, though, Minis Tirith would have bakers.

 

[Corwin]

For a week now, everytime I see the title of this thread, I can't help but think...



Sorry. Could resist no longer.

 

[jayoungr]

He back peddled later with that out.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Why do you think he bothered to put the "out" in, if not to cast doubt on whether it was rape or not?

Anyway, let's say he did originally intend it to be rape and then change his mind--which I actually consider to be quite likely. What this tells me is that in creating that world, Tolkien made a conscious decision that he didn't want the rape in that story. Which he then sticks to in the rest of his writing.

Humans aren't elves. They are in LotR very foul fairly often.

And yet there are no recorded instances of rape committed by a human in Tolkien's writing. Yet you assume entire armies of the good guys are doing it on a regular enough basis to create an entire population full of people who hate them. This is based on real-world behavior, which is fair, but I don't think you can say it's reflected in the books.

Realistically, though, Minis Tirith would have bakers.

Well, we agree on that.