D&D 5E Existentialist Sword and Sorcery

[Yora]

Not necessarily more pessimistic, but that's why the underlying existentialism shines through the most. There is no grace, there is no salvation.

You see much more bootstrapping than forces of destiny at work. (With entropy being the only destiny.) Elric is a bit of an exception, but then, Elric is always the exception.

 

[Steampunkette]

@Remathilis

Take Tyr, as an example. In Dark Sun you can try to eke out a living for another day, gather a tiny bit more wealth and pleasure for yourself. Or you can work with a Templar-Traitor and use the Heartwood Spear to kill one of the Sorcerer-Kings and free the city from his oppressive reign in order to open up the possibility of Democracy.

You can be the Mad Max character roving from community to community just trying to live your life and wind up saving the people from Immortan Joe or Master Blaster. With no more will to accomplish these tasks than to just have another day alive in a desert wasteland, trading your effort for the supplies you need.

Sword and Sorcery characters can be -Amoral- warriors who do good and evil in equal measure. Or Antiheroes who do terrible things for good causes. Or be outright heroes trying to heal the world, or at least their little corner of it.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. Heck! It wasn't for Conan!

You know -how- he winds up with the Crown of Aquilonia? He -LIBERATES- the nation from the Mad King Numedides and the evil sorcerer Thulandra Thuu! He builds up an army and fights against Aquilonia with the express intent of overthrowing the corrupt, decadent, and wicked king. And when he finds the banners of the Royal Guard on the battlefield he steals away in the night (With a column of men) and attacks the severely undermanned city of Tarantia.

He bursts into the throne room sending Thuu to escape when he realizes he's outnumbered, then winds up choking Numedides to death when the king begs for his life then tries to stab Conan with a poisoned dagger.

But even Conan, the Barbarian, The Cimmerian, the Destroyer, the Amoral Antihero so many people love and adore... Becomes the Liberator and King Conan of Aquilonia. And then gets bored out of his gourd by the tedium and minutiae of running a kingdom. But at least he saved it!

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Folks,

The OP has been very patient with you all. So, it is time to recognize - exactly how racist/misogynist/etc these folks were is a topic for another thread.

If you really must discuss those things, do it elsewhere - keep this thread to the discussion of the philosophy and theme requested in the OP, please and thank you.

 

[Yora]

The most interesting thing about King Conan in The Phoenix on the Sword is that he doesn't lament that the people don't love and respect him. He doesn't care about that, he didn't do it for his glory. What really frustrates him is that they start praising the old king they suffered under as their way to express their unhappiness with his rule.

@Remathilis

Take Tyr, as an example. In Dark Sun you can try to eke out a living for another day, gather a tiny bit more wealth and pleasure for yourself. Or you can work with a Templar-Traitor and use the Heartwood Spear to kill one of the Sorcerer-Kings and free the city from his oppressive reign in order to open up the possibility of Democracy.

That's a great example. The sorcerer kings claim that they are divine and destined to rule, but Kalak getting killed by a slave with a spear is a conclusive practical argument that they are not.

 

[Steampunkette]

The most interesting thing about King Conan in The Phoenix on the Sword is that he doesn't lament that the people don't love and respect him. He doesn't care about that, he didn't do it for his glory. What really frustrates him is that they start praising the old king they suffered under as their way to express their unhappiness with his rule.


That's a great example. The sorcerer kings claim that they are divine and destined to rule, but Kalak getting killed by a slave with a spear is a conclusive practical argument that they are not.

I meeeeeeeeeeean...

To be fair...


Not only did Kalak rule for a long time (As he was "destined" to) the Heartwood Spear was a powerful Halfling Artifact which combined the life-force of Nok and the Last Tree -expressly- for the purposes of killing a Sorcerer-King... and it actually -didn't-. Rikus, Sadira, Agis of Asticles, and the High Templar Tithian had to chase Kalak through the Rainbow Pyramid in order to finally put an end to the gravely wounded and extremely weakened Sorcerer-King who was in mid-transformation from Human to Dragon (Which is when the Sorcerer-Kings are at their most vulnerable)

So, y'know... It wasn't -Just- some slave with a spear.

 

[Yora]

That must have been from the later sources then, I guess.

I always felt that most additions to the original box were steps in the wrong direction, drifting into Epic Fantasy.

 

[Steampunkette]

That must have been from the later sources then, I guess.

I always felt that most additions to the original box were steps in the wrong direction, drifting into Epic Fantasy.

Nnnope... Same month, even.

Troy Dennings' first book of the Prism Pentad, The Verdant Passage, was released in October 1991, right alongside the Box Set for Dark Sun.

And the adventure included in the box "Freedom" recounts a -portion- of the events of that book. Specifically Rikus, Tithian, and the others attacking Kalak as he starts to defile the entire arena to fuel his draconic transformation. Your task is to escape and save as many others as possible. But at the end of it Tithian declares Rikus the new king.

The adventure itself -explicitly- tells the DM to read the Verdant Passage -before- running the encounter at the Arena because of the massive spoilers for the book involved.

 

[Composer99]

So to me, the greater divide is between an optimistic view of the world (one rooted more in Christan views of grace, fall and redemption) and a pessimistic view (where no greater cause than oneself is possible, so people is free to live as good or as wickedly as they wish).

I would reckon that the optimism/pessimism in different grades of fantasy is not necessarily about the moral codes or behaviour of the characters in the setting, but, as you yourself pointed out, about the nature of the setting itself.

In an epic fantasy setting, provided the world/society is fallen or declined from a previous brighter age, there is the prospect of restoration. Perhaps not to the greatest heights of elder times - in Lord of the Rings, Aragorn's restoration of Gondor is clearly still not a restoration to the power of ancient Numenor, for instance - but nevertheless, an increase in peace and prosperity, and a ridding the world of great evil. In such a setting without a previous brighter age, the prospect is not of restoration, but instead progress, both in the material and metaphysical senses. That is the optimism of the setting.

In a sword & sorcery setting, whether or not the world/society is fallen or declined from a previous brighter age, there is no prospect of restoration or progress, except either in small areas, over brief time periods, or both. The world could be dying, à la Vance, or the eldritch horrors could be unfathomable, à la Lovecraft, or societies could exist in a more-or-less permanent cycle of rise and fall, with societies at each stage in the cycle clearly paying some price for whatever benefits they have - whether that's being forced to subsist in a harsh and unforgiving environment or in a state of decadence/corruption. That is the pessimism of the setting.

That difference also informs the cosmic forces at work in the setting. The cosmic forces of epic fantasy include ones that are, however hands-off, unabashedly benevolent. Such forces are feeble, ailing, or simply non-existent in swords & sorcery, and in their place are those that are indifferent or malevolent.

 

[Remathilis]

Sword and Sorcery characters can be -Amoral- warriors who do good and evil in equal measure. Or Antiheroes who do terrible things for good causes. Or be outright heroes trying to heal the world, or at least their little corner of it.

Oh for sure, people can still choose to be good, evil, or something in between. A person can fight to make his or her general surroundings a better place, but they do so in an attempt to hold back further entropy rather than restore what once was. I view it more as the cosmic forces of Good and Evil aren't on anyone's side. There is no Gods of Light aiding your quest, no force of Ultimate Darkness that stands in your way. You may kill cultists or sorcerers or even beings of unfathomable power, but in the end your actions don't shift the cosmic scales in any one direction. You aren't restoring the One True King, banishing the Lord of Darkness, or ushering in the New Age. You are staving off catastrophe for you and what you hold dear for a little while longer.

But even Conan, the Barbarian, The Cimmerian, the Destroyer, the Amoral Antihero so many people love and adore... Becomes the Liberator and King Conan of Aquilonia. And then gets bored out of his gourd by the tedium and minutiae of running a kingdom. But at least he saved it!

And this is where the differences imho lie. Compare Conan to Aragorn. Aragorn comes from a noble line of kings, he is just and good, and his rule ushers in a new age of Man, he is all but handed what he needs to rule by the circumstances of the universe, he need only find it within himself to take that responsibility. Conan is given no such lineage, his rule ushers in no golden era, nothing is restored, and at best he holds back the darkness in his realm for a little while before again finding himself a vagabond and adventurer. Even though both begin their tales as wanderers and end them as kings, its very easy to say the Universe is rooting for Aragorn and is at best ambivalent about Conan.

 

[Remathilis]

I would reckon that the optimism/pessimism in different grades of fantasy is not necessarily about the moral codes or behaviour of the characters in the setting, but, as you yourself pointed out, about the nature of the setting itself.

In an epic fantasy setting, provided the world/society is fallen or declined from a previous brighter age, there is the prospect of restoration. Perhaps not to the greatest heights of elder times - in Lord of the Rings, Aragorn's restoration of Gondor is clearly still not a restoration to the power of ancient Numenor, for instance - but nevertheless, an increase in peace and prosperity, and a ridding the world of great evil. In such a setting without a previous brighter age, the prospect is not of restoration, but instead progress, both in the material and metaphysical senses. That is the optimism of the setting.

In a sword & sorcery setting, whether or not the world/society is fallen or declined from a previous brighter age, there is no prospect of restoration or progress, except either in small areas, over brief time periods, or both. The world could be dying, à la Vance, or the eldritch horrors could be unfathomable, à la Lovecraft, or societies could exist in a more-or-less permanent cycle of rise and fall, with societies at each stage in the cycle clearly paying some price for whatever benefits they have - whether that's being forced to subsist in a harsh and unforgiving environment or in a state of decadence/corruption. That is the pessimism of the setting.

That difference also informs the cosmic forces at work in the setting. The cosmic forces of epic fantasy include ones that are, however hands-off, unabashedly benevolent. Such forces are feeble, ailing, or simply non-existent in swords & sorcery, and in their place are those that are indifferent or malevolent.

Yes! THIS! This is what I was fumbling to say.