Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8340477" data-attributes="member: 42582">One doesn't want to collide with board rules, but it's pretty hard to ignore the theological character - and not abstract/intellectual but committed theological character - of a lot of romantic/high fantasy. Whereas REH Conan (and it seems to me, admittedly on a thinner evidence based, Moorcock and Vance) seem essentially atheistic.Weaker high fantasy can bowdlerise this, of course - and maybe a lot of D&amp;D falls into that territory. And likewise I think some weaker S&amp;S bowdlerises in the other direction (I'm thinking of eg RPG-y stuff that takes the Cthulhu Mythos but gives it a type of evil theistic or &quot;hostile-providential&quot; reading).[USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER]'s suggestion that D&amp;D &quot;turned&quot; with DL is undercut, to a degree, by the earlier introduction of paladins. I think in S&amp;S-oriented D&amp;D they really have to go. Likewise clerics in the traditional sense. Likewise, I would say, druids and rangers - because these imply the possibility of a type of holistic integration of humanity and nature which I think conflicts with the &quot;existentialist&quot; (if that's not going too far) strand in S&amp;S.Wizards and of course warlocks are fine. And maybe bards. (I don't have enough of a handle on contemporary sorcerers to comment on them. I think 4e ones would be fine.)I don't think it's a coincidence that this comes close to (not identical to) the Dark Sun class list!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8340477, member: 42582"] One doesn't want to collide with board rules, but it's pretty hard to ignore the theological character - and not abstract/intellectual but [I]committed[/I] theological character - of a lot of romantic/high fantasy. Whereas REH Conan (and it seems to me, admittedly on a thinner evidence based, Moorcock and Vance) seem essentially atheistic. Weaker high fantasy can bowdlerise this, of course - and maybe a lot of D&D falls into that territory. And likewise I think some weaker S&S bowdlerises in the other direction (I'm thinking of eg RPG-y stuff that takes the Cthulhu Mythos but gives it a type of evil theistic or "hostile-providential" reading). [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER]'s suggestion that D&D "turned" with DL is undercut, to a degree, by the earlier introduction of paladins. I think in S&S-oriented D&D they really have to go. Likewise clerics in the traditional sense. Likewise, I would say, druids and rangers - because these imply the possibility of a type of holistic integration of humanity and nature which I think conflicts with the "existentialist" (if that's not going too far) strand in S&S. Wizards and of course warlocks are fine. And maybe bards. (I don't have enough of a handle on contemporary sorcerers to comment on them. I think 4e ones would be fine.) I don't think it's a coincidence that this comes close to (not identical to) the Dark Sun class list! [/QUOTE]

Verification