D&D General Doing Tragedy in D&D

[Hussar]

D&D does reluctant heroes just fine. I’m not sure why you think it doesn’t. “You meet in a tavern” isn’t compulsory you know - it isn’t even in the rules. Escaped prisoners, shipwrecked travellers, people whose village has been destroyed by monsters - all very common ways to start a D&D campaign.

And absolutely none of those are "reluctant heroes" who just want to stay home and not adventure. Good grief, I'm running Out of the Abyss right now and it starts with everyone as captured by the drow from various places. And, surprisingly enough, not a single player brought a character to the table who said, "Well, I guess I'm a slave now. Guess I'll be the best slave I can be."

The whole point of this little sidebar is your claim that players will bring characters to the table who aren't adventurers and who won't voluntarily go into danger. All things that are 100% NOT supported by anything in the actual text of the game.

 

[GrimCo]

At my table, first and most important rule is - don't be A-hole. Bringing in character that actively avoids going with the program is A hole behavior no matter what veneer of "i'm just roleplaying my character" player puts on. Wanna play that "i just wanna stay home" character? No problemo bucko. Congrats. Your character sits at home and does his thing. I, as a DM, am going to ignore it for the rest of the session and focus on characters that go on adventure. If i'm in the good mood, maybe i will give you one opportunity to catch up after about hour or so (yes, if adult player is gonna act like my 4y old when i don't buy him candy cause he didn't put away toys like we agreed, he/she will get same treatment).

If we all agreed at session zero what we are playing, bringing character that fits into campaign and has built in motivation to go with the agreed upon adventure is basic decency.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And absolutely none of those are "reluctant heroes" who just want to stay home and not adventure. Good grief, I'm running Out of the Abyss right now and it starts with everyone as captured by the drow from various places. And, surprisingly enough, not a single player brought a character to the table who said, "Well, I guess I'm a slave now. Guess I'll be the best slave I can be."

The whole point of this little sidebar is your claim that players will bring characters to the table who aren't adventurers and who won't voluntarily go into danger. All things that are 100% NOT supported by anything in the actual text of the game.

You don’t understand the reluctant heroes trope. The reluctant hero would much rather be at home, but they do what they have to do because they have no choice. It may be that the player in question was being an a-hole, but it might be that they were looking for the DM to provide them with a motivation other than phat loot.

 

[Umbran]

But, "tragic" and "tragedy" as in the genre fiction "tragedy" are not the same words. You're right that a heroic sacrifice can certainly be tragic, but, it's not fulfilling the genre definition of tragedy. That's what people keep confusing.

Oh? Do you*really* want to get into dueling definitions here?

"What is tragedy in literary terms? Tragedy in literature is defined as a genre that focuses around a noble character who struggles against strong external challenges. This character will usually suffer greatly and fail as a result of their own flaws."

"Tragedy in Literature: a story wherein the main character is either dead at the end or would be better off dead."

"A tragedy is a genre of drama based on human suffering and, mainly, the terrible or sorrowful events that befall a main character or cast of characters."

What is required for tragedy is suffering and sorrow. Failure is nice, but not strictly required if the end is sad enough.

Sturm suffers and dies at the hands of the mother of his child, in large part due to his excessive beliefs in duty and honor, which were in turn based in his own lie that he a was a knight at all!

While he did succeed at buying Laurana time, his death still fits in the "literary sense of tragedy" bucket.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Oh? Do you*really* want to get into dueling definitions here?

I don’t think you can discuss tragedy without discussing what the term means. And there do seem to be quite a few people who don’t know the difference between literary tragedy and grimdark.

 

[Umbran]

I don’t you can discuss tragedy without discussing what the term means. And there do seem to be quite a few people who don’t know the difference between literary tragedy and grimdark.

Sure. But that needs to come with the (dare we say tragic) reality that such discussion may explore the idea of tragedy, but isn't going to end in consensus.

 

[Hussar]

Oh? Do you*really* want to get into dueling definitions here?

"What is tragedy in literary terms? Tragedy in literature is defined as a genre that focuses around a noble character who struggles against strong external challenges. This character will usually suffer greatly and fail as a result of their own flaws."

"Tragedy in Literature: a story wherein the main character is either dead at the end or would be better off dead."

"A tragedy is a genre of drama based on human suffering and, mainly, the terrible or sorrowful events that befall a main character or cast of characters."

What is required for tragedy is suffering and sorrow. Failure is nice, but not strictly required if the end is sad enough.

Sturm suffers and dies at the hands of the mother of his child, in large part due to his excessive beliefs in duty and honor, which were in turn based in his own lie that he a was a knight at all!

While he did succeed at buying Laurana time, his death still fits in the "literary sense of tragedy" bucket.

I totally disagree. Sturm's death was not in any literary sense a tragedy. He died a hero, performing a heroic sacrifice (note, the "mother of his child" part was retconned in a LOT later). This was not some failure at all. This was the perfect end to this character. This character never fails. His death is not meaningless in the least. This was a heroes end. This was not a tragedy at all. Heck, even by your own definition, what great suffering did Sturm suffer? What "terrible or sorrowful events" befall him?

This is straight up heroic fantasy. This isn't even remotely tragedy.

Like I said, something can be tragic in the real world sense of being very sad without being part of the tragedy genre. If our only criteria for tragedy is "Well, isn't that really sad?" then, sure, you can do tragedy in D&D pretty easily. But, no, I strongly disagree with your example.

 

[Umbran]

Sure. But that needs to come with the (dare we say tragic) reality that such discussion may explore the idea of tragedy, but isn't going to end in consensus.

Which brought me around to realizing that there's a difference between tragedy and pathos.

To quote Arthur Miller:

"There is a misconception of tragedy with which I have been struck in review after review, and in many conversations with writers and readers alike. It is the idea that tragedy is of necessity allied to pessimism. Even the dictionary says nothing more about the word than that it means a story with a sad or unhappy ending. This impression is so firmly fixed that I almost hesitate to claim that in truth tragedy implies more optimism in its author than does comedy, and that its final result ought to be the reinforcement of the onlooker's brightest opinions of the human animal.

For, if it is true to say that in essence the tragic hero is intent upon claiming his whole due as a personality, and if this struggle must be total and without reservation, then it automatically demonstrates the indestructible will of man to achieve his humanity.

The possibility of victory must be there in tragedy. Where pathos rules, where pathos is finally derived, a character has fought a battle he could not possibly have won. The pathetic is achieved when the protagonist is, by virtue of his witlessness, his insensitivity, or the very air he gives off, incapable of grappling with a much superior force.

Pathos truly is the mode for the pessimist. But tragedy requires a nicer balance between what is possible and what is impossible."

So, if you are a witless and weak and always make the wrong choices, we are probably looking at pathos. If there is a fundamental admirable strength to you, and you end badly despite that, that's tragedy.

 

[Hussar]

So, if you are a witless and weak and always make the wrong choices, we are probably looking at pathos. If there is a fundamental admirable strength to you, and you end badly despite that, that's tragedy.

I wouldn't argue against that. Seems about right.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm saying that the kind of power that a D&D PC or group of PC's can have at higher levels will make tragedy much, much harder to pull off. As the example goes, Hamlet stabs behind the curtain. Oops, one Revivify spell later and tragedy averted. That only requires a 5th level party. By 15th level, that same party can literally petition a god for mulligans.

Part of what this means to me is that the tragic arc needs to still be an arc of D&D-scale power. It's not that Juliet drinks poison, it's that Juliet makes a pact with Nerull and rises as a mindless zombie for her former love to slay or something. Mere murder is insufficient!

It also means the scale of tragedy might be more vast. At 15th level, you're dealing with world-shaking threats. Juliet doesn't just rise as a zombie, she dooms the entire world to rise as zombies. Our Walter White commits war crimes. Our Citizen Kane isolates itself from the entire multiverse and can't be saved when it's clear this is killing the world.