Conan vs Lord of the Rings

[hong]

So anyway, getting back to the "Why Conan?" question, the following quotes from the Ninja HERO sourcebook (of all places) come to mind:

In American Viewpoint adventures, the heroes encounter a situation they must resolve, and their martial arts abilities allow them to resolve it. ... generally the heroes are a society of equals, as befits Western democratic traditions. ... Usually [the villains] are so lacking in honor that the heroes can be very flawed human beings and still contrast favorably with the villains.

American Viewpoint adventures have a great deal in common with the Dark Champions genre, such as their strong emphasis on vigilantism and concepts like "justice, not law". Frequently, the hero of an American Viewpoint adventure must oppose both the villain and the authorities (represented by the police and/or government) to accomplish his goals. He "bucks the system", so to speak, because the system isn't working or hampers his ability to fight crime. By taking the law into his own hands, the hero of an American Viewpoint adventure eliminates crime and criminals using his martial skills, and in the end the authorities "look the other way" when the hero exposes the criminal's deeds.

Running an American Viewpoint adventure is usually fairly simple. ... just create a foe whose actions are so heinous the heroes _have_ to act... and then turn them loose. If the PCs react by ignoring their superiors, ignoring the law, and pretty much doing what they want, then they're behaving perfectly "in character" for an American Viewpoint adventure.

-- Ninja HERO, p.67

Now take out the references to crimefighting and martial arts, and you have a good summary on the mindset of an American Viewpoint pulp action adventure. Offhand, I can't remember the last action movie, of whatever time period, that didn't feature a hero who bucks the system. The viewpoint is all about a celebration of individualism, as opposed to abstract ideals like "king and country", or "the greater good", or "the glory of God" or whatever.

I'm also reminded of what a sportswriter said about the difference between Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson, back when Tyson was world champion. Ali was the greatest, and that was something Tyson would never be. Instead, he was the baddest. If he inspired anyone, it was because of his ruthlessness and fighting skill, not because he'd adopted any cause. (Whether or not you agree with these labels, it's not a bad one-word summary of what their public personas are about.)

People who want to play Conan don't want to be the greatest. They don't want any sort of morality or abstract cause restraining their actions. They just want to be the baddest. And RPGs, being basically a vehicle for power fantasies for most people, are an excellent way of indulging that wish.

Personally, I think you can be both the greatest _and_ the baddest. But then I've never been that enamoured of baby oil.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Hyborian Age adventuring is nice for D&D gaming because, as others have said, it encourages a "kick-in-the-door" style of play, allows for PCs that honestly embrace the motivations that many D&D players already find near and dear to their hearts (kill the monsters! get their stuff!), and, to be honest, doesn't require particularly much scripting. I'd be rather aghast at a sincere argument that REH's Conan stories involve better writing than LotR. To begin with, REH's villains just aren't so interesting; evil wizard/evil priest, ho hum. Thoth-Amon, Xaltotun, or Nemeas don't have any real background or motivations, and don't have any particular metaphorical context. Sauron, OTOH, represents absolute Evil, the reflection of all that is dark within the hearts of Men, the personification of cunning, careless industrialization, despair, cynicism, pitilessness. JRRT likewise imposes a universe of serious and subtle thematic and logical interaction, where characters are motivated by deeds and words thousands of years in the past, where the landscape itself reacts to the presence of Good or Evil, and where even the smallest person can change the course of history, not by force of arms, but by a willingness to prize love, friendship, and compassion over Power. None of this is to say that I don't like the Conan stories; rather, I think that they sometimes make better fodder for D&D adventuring than stuff like LotR because it's easier for DMs to spin adventuring ideas out of them.

IOW, and to bring us back to the beginning post, it all boils down to gaming philosophy. The fact is that I quite enjoy combining elements of pulp fantasy, Tolkienesque subtlety, language, and world-building, and Moorcockian plane-hopping and meddling godlings into my campaign. [Incidentally, Iron_Chef, my (non-ME) campaign occurs in the Realms, and I've never had a problem with Fzoul, Manshoon, and Elminster acting as "obstacles" to the PCs' achievements; given that the first two are arch-villains, and the third is a sort of narrative Macguffin, I don't really see how they're anything but campaign tools rather than obstacles.)

 

[Krieg]

"Evil will never win, because Evil is dumb." or something like that.

Ironically enough the actual quote is (click on the quote for a .wav)...

Now you see that Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb!

---Rick Moranis as Dark Helmet in Spaceballs.

 

[DaveStebbins]

Conan vs. LotR

I think JRRT focused on history, setting and story (in that order), while Howard focused on action, his main character and setting.

If you are just looking at the settings as potential places to put a campaign, I think they are both rich tapestries which have their own unique advantages and drawbacks. Choosing one over another is largely a matter of personal and player/campaign preference.

But to get there, you have to be willing to ditch some of the non-setting viewpoints within the writing (e.g. the way Howard is always focused on Conan and Conan's way of doing things, and the way JRRT's writing can be, for some, very boring).

-Dave
I think this made more sense when it was in my head, so please forgive the translation if I did a poor job.

 

[Tonguez]

. To begin with, REH's villains just aren't so interesting; evil wizard/evil priest, ho hum. Thoth-Amon, Xaltotun, or Nemeas don't have any real background or motivations, and don't have any particular metaphorical context. Sauron, OTOH, represents absolute Evil, the reflection of all that is dark within the hearts of Men, the personification of cunning, careless industrialization, despair, cynicism, pitilessness. JRRT likewise imposes a universe of serious and subtle thematic and logical interaction, where characters are motivated by deeds and words thousands of years in the past, where the landscape itself reacts to the presence of Good or Evil, and where even the smallest person can change the course of history, not by force of arms, but by a willingness to prize love, friendship, and compassion over Power. None of this is to say that I don't like the Conan stories; rather, I think that they sometimes make better fodder for D&D adventuring than stuff like LotR because it's easier for DMs to spin adventuring ideas out of them.

Although individually each Conan 'villain' be seem to lack background taken overall and with the whole 'history' of REH's universe (back through King Kulls Valusia and before) I think Conan (especially if the Marvel versions are used)provides a great tapestry upon which to weave an adventure - the serpent men, the Black ring (with its arrogant power hungry wizards) and its warring kingdoms -these have as much 'flavour' and mythic proportions as big ol' flaming eye-ball and the company of the Ring

The difference was the REH was writing action pulp not imagined history and so didn't go into all that boring detail. The story was focussed on one simple man - Conan is a peasant warrior, a simple, no nonsense man who by wit and strength rises to become a king despite the odds and opposition.
'History' is present in Conan and can be extrapolated between the years when the oceans drank Atlantis and the gleaming cities, and the years of the rise of the sons of Aryas

And the Hyborian age doesn't just feature Conan - Red Sonya was transported into the age (yeah I know this was post REH) but its still part of the 'universe' and you could easily run a game featuring the Crimson company or Belit and her crew before Conans arrival on the scene. Conan was simply the greatest hero in an age of heroes

 

[Vahktang]

People who want to play Conan don't want to be the greatest. They don't want any sort of morality or abstract cause restraining their actions. They just want to be the baddest. And RPGs, being basically a vehicle for power fantasies for most people, are an excellent way of indulging that wish.

And people like that misunderstand Conan (and Cyberpunk, BTW)
Conan was the baddest. But he didn't try to be.
He did the right thing.
He killed the evil. Freed the girl. Made a kingdom where the commoners were better off than they were before. That sort of thing.

To begin with, REH's villains just aren't so interesting; evil wizard/evil priest, ho hum. Thoth-Amon, Xaltotun, or Nemeas don't have any real background or motivations, and don't have any particular metaphorical context.

I must have read different Conan stories.
(Or maybe I'm reading more into Conan stories than what is actually there.)
Thoth starts off as a low level wizard type until he finds the iron ring. Character development.
OTOH:

Sauron, OTOH, represents absolute Evil,

'Yeah, I get it. You're eeevil.'


Finally, I've always wanted to 'Red Nails' as a dungeon.

More later,

Vahktang

 

[Dark Jezter]

I'd be rather aghast at a sincere argument that REH's Conan stories involve better writing than LotR.

I actually prefer REH's writing style over Tolkien's. REH dosen't make it a point to mention every rock, tree, and stream that his characters encounter as they travel across the country, nor do his characters abruptly burst into song every few pages.

It's also my opinion that REH is better at describing his characters than Tolkien is, and REH is much, much better than Tolkien at describing combat.

Of course, both of them are great authors. I just like REH more.

To begin with, REH's villains just aren't so interesting; evil wizard/evil priest, ho hum. Thoth-Amon, Xaltotun, or Nemeas don't have any real background or motivations, and don't have any particular metaphorical context. Sauron, OTOH, represents absolute Evil, the reflection of all that is dark within the hearts of Men, the personification of cunning, careless industrialization, despair, cynicism, pitilessness.

It puzzles me that you bash REH's villains while trumpeting Sauron. Last I checked, Xaltotun, Thoth-Amon, Ascalante, Khemsha, etc. Actually appeared and had speaking roles in the book, rather than appearing only as a scary red eye in the sky.

I love the LotR stories and have read them several times over the years, but I'll admit that Sauron is kind of a "ho-hum" villain.

 

[Frost]

I think it's kind of odd to debate which author is "better." Really, it's all a matter of taste. Personally, I enjoyed both. The ironic thing is, though, when I started reading JRRT, I thought, "Wow, he could do without some of these details" and when I started reading REH, I thought "Wow, he could do with some more details." Both writers obviously have their strengths and weaknesses.

For me, I always saw D&D as a kind of middle-ground between the two. You have the elves, dwarves, halflings, etc of the Tolkien books, but then you have the grittiness of the Howard material, such as assassians and thieves (well, now they're rogues. ).

At least that's how D&D always came across to me...

 

[ruleslawyer]

Ack.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Double ack.