"Oddities" in fantasy settings - the case against "consistency"

[AbdulAlhazred]

Appendix A says that "grievous . . . was the parting of Elrond and Arwen, for they were sundered by the Sea and by a doom beyond the end of the world", that "Arwen became as a mortal woman", and finally that Arwen "laid herself to rest upon Cerin Amroth; and there is her green grave, until the world is changed".

You are correct that "At the Grey Havens dwelt Cirdan the Shipwright, and some say he dwells there still, until the Last Ship sets sail into the West." Appendix A also notes that "In the days of the Kings most of the High Elves that still lingered in Middle-earth dwelt with Cirdan or in the seaward lands of Lindon." But Appendix B says that "after the passing of Galadriel in a few years [after the War of the Ring] Celeborn grew weary of his realm and went to Imladris to dwell with the sons of Elrond." I can't find anything in Appendix B that talks about Celeborn taking ship, and I can't find this either in the section of Unfished Tales on Galadriel and Celeborn.

The only Fourth Age ships mentioned in Appendix are the one that took Sam, and then after the death of Aragorn the grey ship build by Legolas in Ithilien that carried him and Gimli "down Anduin and so over Sea".

As is Cirdan's continued dwelling in the Havens.

This may be so. It doesn't make the case for consistency, though. It's part of the case against it!

Well, the "established lore" is what has been written and published, and so in a sense it can't contradict itself: it is what it is. But "things we don't understand" (eg the relationship between, and timelines pertaining to, Galadriel and Celeborn) don't have some objective existence that we strive to uncover: there is no objective reality here that anchors our inquiry.

The fiction is written and our "understanding" flows from that. Consistency to prior "rules" or conceptions doesn't seem to be a particular constraint on JRRT's work.

As I posted upthread, the corruption could - considered in the abstract - manifest in any number of other ways, and from the point of view of setting consistency any would do as well as any other, and indeed consistency might be increased if the Ring either made Gollum more like a Nazgul, or obliterated him with its power.

Pointing out that certain things are exceptions or exceptional doesn't seem to me to refute the case against consistency. It helps make it out.

There's an argument, in my view, that the whole of the Ent "arc" is an instance of this. Fangorn is full of these ancient peoples, and Celeborn and Galadriel live barely a stone's throw from them, and yet Treebeard (Bk VI, ch VI) laments that "It is long, long since we met by stock or by stone"; and earlier (Bk II, ch VIII) Celeborn warns the Fellowship not to "risk becoming entangled in the Forest of Fangorn. That is a strange land, and is now little known." Yet is seems that he and Galadriel know that Ents live there!

But magic - and especially sorcery, the use of spells - is exactly whatever the story needs it to be, and no more. There is no consistent conception that I can see of what sorcery is, or how it works, or what effect it can have. (This contrasts, for instance, with A Wizard of Earthsea.)

The latter.

To put it even more forcefully: Tolkien himself was NOT obsessed with consistency! In fact it is a matter of record that he wrote and rewrote, sometimes multiple times over, much of his personal foundational lore. During that process he would write a story, and then another one that wasn't consistent with the first, and the rewrite one or both of them, possibly in a more consistent form, and then repeat the whole process again and again. AT NO POINT did he end up with a consistent corpus! If you read the material published in The Silmarillion and in Unfinished Tales, and compare it with LotR and its Appendices, and other collected material there's all sorts of discrepancies. Tolkien himself attributed them, post hoc, to unreliable narrators, mistranslation, revisionism, etc. Christopher Tolkien spent YEARS, no DECADES, laboriously cataloging and studying his father's notes and trying to piece together the most consistent versions of various material, and even resorted to editorial fixes aimed at making sense of some of it. One of the major points of Unfinished Tales and then The History of Middle Earth was actually to publish many of these alternate texts and fragmentary incoherent pieces. They establish thoroughly that there IS NO COHERENT MIDDLE EARTH! Not in Tolkien's mind, it is merely an exercise in creative writing, language construction, and a kind of analysis of the process of myth making. None of this detracts from his classically popular fantasy works in any way, it simply shows them for what they are, imaginings not bound to any of the rules of real world events or history.

In that light, your (Pemertons) assertions about Gollum and the effects of the One Ring on him are obvious and simply illustrative of a truth which the man's works abundantly illustrate. Tolkien could have depicted any sort of effect of the Ring, the one he chose was PURELY chosen for its utility in telling a specific story. Even The Hobbit amply illustrates all this, as in 1937 when the book was published the version of the incident with Gollum and the Ring was substantively different from the one presented in later editions! At the time, if you read the original text, it's pretty clear that Gollum is a fairly insignificant figure, serving to illustrate Bilbo's cleverness and little more. The history of the One Ring had not, at that time, even been conceived by Tolkien! Later he used this incident as a jumping off point for LotR, and in his usual habitual way rewrote the incident with Gollum slightly to make it more consistent with the rest of the story! ONLY NOW did Gollum become this ancient creature, bearer of the terrible power of the One Ring. In 1937 he was just a boogyman with an invisibility ring and some nasty habits. We don't really know what in fact Tolkien thought he was, twisted hobbit, strange cave dweller, etc.

 

[pemerton]

I understand there are plenty of games where a character like Gollum would be an issue. But I think what has been happening in a lot of this discussion is constraints around character creation that happen in games like D&D with class selection, and in a lot of other games (i.e. there are certain types of characters the system lets you make, but there are things in the game you can't be), with setting consistency. And those are two different things.

I think everyone in this thread understands there are games where things like this operate in a completely different way



I don't play D&D most of the time. But a lot of the OP seems to be speaking about games like that where there are these constraints (for games where it is allowed, it is kind of a non-issue).

The OP references on FRPG - Burning Wheel - and one fantasy work/setting - LotR/Middle Earth. So I'm not sure how you infer that it is primarily commenting on D&D.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The OP references on FRPG - Burning Wheel - and one fantasy work/setting - LotR/Middle Earth. So I'm not sure how you infer that it is primarily commenting on D&D.

I get you are talking about Burning Wheel. My point is you are making a general point about people overrating setting consistency (particularly around character concepts) which feels like it would be directed more towards game like D&D (otherwise I am not sure why you are making the point if the whole conversation is about burning wheel, where this is aparrently a non-issue).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I find it to be much easier (and ultimately more rewarding) to engage with elements that are found/developed over the course of play, rather than before the game begins. Working with what's there strikes me (and most of the players I've known) as being more rewarding than having most everything they want granted right from the get-go.

There's no either/or choice though! We can have both! And I agree, they are BOTH great things.

Backstories might not be about accomplishment per se, but if you're starting off by being able to flout the conventions that everyone else has to work within, well...that's effectively the same thing. If you're the last mage in a setting with no magic, then in terms of your impact on the setting and the NPCs who inhabit it, you might as well be a high-level character. I mean, if no one could use magic, and suddenly someone came along who inarguably could, there's a case to be made that at least the local part of the game world would revolve around them to at least some degree, simply because of what they are.

Does the whole world revolve around Aang (The Last Air Bender)? I mean, sure, the FATE of the world, at least its future direction, seems to involve whatever he does, or what happens to him. OTOH he's not instantly singled out wherever he goes, most people don't even seem to know who he is, although some of them are pretty aware of what an Avatar is. Not only that, but in the course of his adventures the action is in no way totally dominated by the actions of Aang himself. He's a potent force, but his companions time and time again do things that are just as significant for the outcome of the story as whatever Aang himself does. That group could be a perfectly viable party in an RPG. Nor does the this 'Last Mage' concept necessarily entail said character being more effective than the others. Simply because a trait of one PC ties into what might become a major theme of the game is not depriving the other PCs of relevance, effectiveness, or playability in ANY WAY at all!

Which is, in my experience, why players want to overturn convention a lot of the time. Even if the GM doesn't decide to take their character's inherent qualities and turn them into the basis of the campaign, those same qualities are often things that mark their characters as being "above and beyond" everyone else, and the player tends to expect that to come up with regard to what they do. Said last mage is going to be able to show off that they're the last mage wherever they go, and will likely know that will color their interactions with every other character they encounter.

This is all, at best, a stretch and theoretical. It also isn't a coherent point of view in that whatever traits a character has, in a fictional sense, are not translated directly into actions and abilities in any straightforward way. If the GM (or the other people at the table) let a player walk all over them it is not the fault of what character they were allowed to play.

I do agree that these are things which should all be reconciled in the group before play starts. I just don't think that reconciliation necessarily means that the player should necessarily be given (some degree) of what they want. I know that there's a school of thought that GMs shouldn't say no (i.e. "yes or roll for it"), but it's not one that I subscribe to.

More is the pity if you ask me!

 

[Laurefindel]

I think this thread suffers from people having different definitions of “consistency”, whereas some use it as “constancy” or “conformity”, while others use it as “coherence” or “compatibility”.

The case of the “last mage” for example, is IMO a quite consistant element of a setting, or else is integrated with consistency. The fact that they are the “last” proves that they are willing to be consistent, with everything that comes with being the last one.

For me, consistency is a vital element of a setting, story, or play. It doesn’t mean that all player-characters need to conform to all elements of the setting; on the contrary, protagonists are almost always different in some way. That’s why we tell their story.

 

[pemerton]

If you're the last mage in a setting with no magic, then in terms of your impact on the setting and the NPCs who inhabit it, you might as well be a high-level character. I mean, if no one could use magic, and suddenly someone came along who inarguably could, there's a case to be made that at least the local part of the game world would revolve around them to at least some degree, simply because of what they are.

There are any number of possibilities around the last mage. (As @hawkeyefan notes.)

And suppose that local events do revolve around them. What is objectionable about that?

Said last mage is going to be able to show off that they're the last mage wherever they go, and will likely know that will color their interactions with every other character they encounter.

And why would this be a problem? It seems to be part of the point of playing the last mage.

The fact that Thurgon is a knight of the Iron Tower, and (in some sense at least) the last knight, colours just about everything that happens to him.

So no actual conventions of the setting were overturned. And yet it sounds like you had sessions of play that were dynamic and engaging...which tells us that conventions really aren't the enemy of such things after all.

I don't know what you mean by "conventions of the setting". It's not a phrase that is used in the OP, and to me it suggests genre rather than internal logic of the fictional world.

When I created Thurgon, I created an order of knights that hitherto had not been conceived as part of the setting - the Knights of the Iron Tower - with a history that included their downfall, such that Thurgon is the last knight. These knights bring with them a god to whom they are (and hence Thurgon is) devoted - the Lord of Battle. Thurgon also bring with him a family, and a family estate with its own history and its own trajectory towards downfall.

The hitherto established elements of the setting were not treated as constraints. The improbability of this person being the last knight was not treated as a constraint.

I’m using the term “consistent” to mean “systematic; logically coherent.” I have a fairly permissive view of “consistent.”

You’re using it to mean “a place for everything, and nothing out of place.” This seems quite rigid.

As the OP sets out, I watched the film and it prompted a thought: that LotR, frequently praised for its rich and deep fantasy setting, (i) asserts general rules about how the world works (around the natures of the different peoples, their aftterlives, the histories and historical trajectories, etc) yet (ii) is replete with departures from these norms.

Of course many, perhaps all, of the departures from norm can be "retrofitted" in - all that takes is a few strokes of the storyteller's pen. The same will be true in FRPG play.

Hence why the OP rejects the idea of constraining the introduction of imaginary elements by reference to a consistency with prior setting norms.

 

[Alzrius]

There's no either/or choice though! We can have both! And I agree, they are BOTH great things.

Sure, we can, I just find one more worthwhile than the other.

Does the whole world revolve around Aang (The Last Air Bender)? I mean, sure, the FATE of the world, at least its future direction, seems to involve whatever he does, or what happens to him. OTOH he's not instantly singled out wherever he goes, most people don't even seem to know who he is, although some of them are pretty aware of what an Avatar is. Not only that, but in the course of his adventures the action is in no way totally dominated by the actions of Aang himself. He's a potent force, but his companions time and time again do things that are just as significant for the outcome of the story as whatever Aang himself does. That group could be a perfectly viable party in an RPG. Nor does the this 'Last Mage' concept necessarily entail said character being more effective than the others. Simply because a trait of one PC ties into what might become a major theme of the game is not depriving the other PCs of relevance, effectiveness, or playability in ANY WAY at all!

It's been a long time since I've watched A:TLA, but as you noted here, the entire world (and certainly the narrative of the show) does indeed revolve around Aang. He's not immediately identifiable wherever he goes, but that does seem to change over the course of the series as more and more stories of his exploits get out; certainly he's what drives the plot, and is the character whose exploits the entire story hinges around.

In fact, Aang is a pretty accurate representation of what happens when one character is set up as the most special person in the party. Sure, Sokka gets a few minor arcs, but I doubt that most people would prefer to play him over Aang. It might make for a decent show to be watched, but the disparity in importance is one that I can see making for a relatively poor gaming experience (presuming that the show characters are used). It's one of those "all Jedi or no Jedi" things.

This is all, at best, a stretch and theoretical. It also isn't a coherent point of view in that whatever traits a character has, in a fictional sense, are not translated directly into actions and abilities in any straightforward way. If the GM (or the other people at the table) let a player walk all over them it is not the fault of what character they were allowed to play.

I don't believe it is a stretch, and it's certainly not theoretical; I've seen it happen! Likewise, I disagree that it's "not coherent" to view that there can be character traits that aren't translated directly into actions and abilities. If a PC wants their character to be the first-born son of the king, then I don't think that D&D 5E has any way of directly translating that into a character ability, but it's still something you'd expect to come up when they're in their father's kingdom, dealing with foreign officials, etc.

That said, I agree about not letting someone else walk all over you, which is why I think it's better to disallow convention-altering character ideas when they're proposed.

More is the pity if you ask me!

Which is why I didn't.

 

[Alzrius]

There are any number of possibilities around the last mage. (As @hawkeyefan notes.)

And suppose that local events do revolve around them. What is objectionable about that?

That it makes the rest of the party supporting cast while that character is the one whom the rest of the campaign revolves around. Which is fine if the rest of the group doesn't care, but in my experience a lot of players don't like to be told right off the bat that they're going to be operating as satellites in another player's orbit.

And why would this be a problem? It seems to be part of the point of playing the last mage.

And how do you think everyone else at the table feels during the umpteenth instance of the spotlight being trained directly on the other player's character, simply because of his backstory?

The fact that Thurgon is a knight of the Iron Tower, and (in some sense at least) the last knight, colours just about everything that happens to him.

And how is that inconsistent with the setting?

I don't know what you mean by "conventions of the setting". It's not a phrase that is used in the OP, and to me it suggests genre rather than internal logic of the fictional world.

Let me rephrase that, then: what exactly about your character overturns the idea of "nothing out of place" in the setting?

When I created Thurgon, I created an order of knights that hitherto had not been conceived as part of the setting - the Knights of the Iron Tower - with a history that included their downfall, such that Thurgon is the last knight. These knights bring with them a god to whom they are (and hence Thurgon is) devoted - the Lord of Battle. Thurgon also bring with him a family, and a family estate with its own history and its own trajectory towards downfall.

The hitherto established elements of the setting were not treated as constraints. The improbability of this person being the last knight was not treated as a constraint.

I don't know what you mean by "constraint," as that isn't a term used in the OP, and to me suggests that you're talking about things you can't do at all versus things you can't do because of aspects of the setting. From what I can tell, there's absolutely nothing in Thurgon's backstory that overturns the idea of "a place for everything, and nothing out of place," which itself isn't really a good definition for what constitutes "consistency" anyway.

 

[pemerton]

It’s in the Prologue: a Note on the Shire Record.

This says that "though Elrond had departed [Rivendell], his sons long remained, together with some of the High-elven folk. It is said that Celeborn went to dwell there after the departure of Galadriel; but there is no record of the day when at last he sought the Grey Havens, and with him went the last living memory of the Elder Days in Middle-earth."

This doesn't tell us that Celeborn sailed with Cirdan; that they both took the Last Ship is inference. Nor does it tell us in what year either of them sailed, although again it seems to be implied that it is after Findegil complied the authoritative copy of the Red Book in FA(IV) 172.

 

[pemerton]

That it makes the rest of the party supporting cast while that character is the one whom the rest of the campaign revolves around. Which is fine if the rest of the group doesn't care, but in my experience a lot of players don't like to be told right off the bat that they're going to be operating as satellites in another player's orbit.

But in the actual example, there are three PCs: the last mage; the cult priestess sworn to protect and then sacrifice him; and the Lord High Inquisitor who is the brother of the last mage. All are related. You can't say, from this description, that anyone is the "main character and the others "supporting cast".

And how do you think everyone else at the table feels during the umpteenth instance of the spotlight being trained directly on the other player's character, simply because of his backstory?

I think that @hawkeyefan has already made the point that all the PCs may be built - mechanically and in terms of backstory - such that all are central objects of attention during play.