D&D 5E Existentialist Sword and Sorcery

[Sithlord]

I read everything Howard wrote that I know exists and I can’t draw those conclusions. Lovecraft yes but Howard no. Maybe there’s some letters or other things he wrote.

 

[Remathilis]

Or embrace the camp with scantily clad good guys and swarthy heroes.

I think there might be something to this. You could certainly do S&S without the overt racial and sexist overtones. Conan and Red Sonja were essentially the same amount of clothing in traditional depictions of both, and you could easily modify most of the classic cultures found in S&S to be more egalitarian in depictions of race/skin tone. The only thing stopping it would be 60 years of cover-art conventions.

Not to say that S&S didn't have problems in the past with some of those tropes, but more to say that those tropes can be modified and inverted without giving up thewy barbarians and chainmail bikinis.

 

[Yora]

The worst thing I actually noticed myself was how the very few women in the early Elric stories could pretty much be replaced by an expensive vase. The hero and antagonists occasionally talk about them as having high value, but they are not actually characters with any discernible traits or ever do a single thing.

 

[Sithlord]

The worst thing I actually noticed myself was how the very few women in the early Elric stories could pretty much be replaced by an expensive vase. The hero and antagonists occasionally talk about them as having high value, but they are not actually characters with any discernible traits or ever do a single thing.

Not everyone is a central character in a story. Many men work from home.

 

[ph0rk]

The worst thing I actually noticed myself was how the very few women in the early Elric stories could pretty much be replaced by an expensive vase. The hero and antagonists occasionally talk about them as having high value, but they are not actually characters with any discernible traits or ever do a single thing.

This was true of Asimov's early stories, too. It doesn't mean it is a necessary or defining feature of the genre (whether that genre is science fiction or sword and sorcery).

I'd argue that Song of Ice and Fire has many elements of S&S, and it seems to have avoided that problem entirely, while also displaying a brutally misogynistic culture.

 

[Steampunkette]

I read everything Howard wrote that I know exists and I can’t draw those conclusions. Lovecraft yes but Howard no. Maybe there’s some letters or other things he wrote.

I included excerpts from some of his letters and his girlfriend's Biography about it. It's on Page 1 of this thread.

There's a hell of a lot more of it out there.

Also on Page 1 of this thread: I don't want this thread devolving into a pointless argument about the sexism and misogyny of Howard and Lovecraft, or the genre.

So please stop.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You are very right!

How we handle our existentialist crises is what makes our life go in whatever direction it winds up going after those points. Whether we collapse into a sense of abject despair knowing that all of our decisions are ultimately meaningless in a form of paralytic nihilism, or we turn our lives in a different direction, often inwardly to recognize the inherent worth of ourselves against the backdrop of our lives as a structure for personal meaning.

Others flock to religion, seeking an external source of positivity and meaning to the chaos of life and death. And in a fantasy world they can be be assured that that religion is accurate!

And in the case of the Queen of the Black Coast, as you just referenced, hedonism is a marvelous escape from existential crisis! People fling themselves into their lives, into foods when they wish, sex with whom they care for, and no further consideration given toward anything. Which when done on a societal level... hits Robert E Howard's existential corruption through civilization!

When you turn from the person that you were into the person that you will be and lose some important aspect of the true self in the rampant decay into decadence. Because even Conan, with the jeweled crown of Aquilonia weighing heavy upon a troubled brow, is not immune to losing himself and all that he was.

Huh. I came back to this thread to ask, “What is a story with all the tropes of Sword and Sorcery except the pessimism?” And this was what I find!

 

[Steampunkette]

Huh. I came back to this thread to ask, “What is a story with all the tropes of Sword and Sorcery except the pessimism?” And this was what I find!

It's like that!

Existentialism can lead to Nihilism. But Nihilism can be freaking -wild-. It's all dependent on which direction you walk from the crisis.


Also. "Crisis" in the sense of an Existential Crisis is less like... an emergency? More like a crisis of Faith. A crossroads. A time to question what is and isn't real, what matters and doesn't. To strip away that which doesn't matter and find your truth... Or become mired in self-doubt.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's like that!

Existentialism can lead to Nihilism. But Nihilism can be freaking -wild-. It's all dependent on which direction you walk from the crisis.


Also. "Crisis" in the sense of an Existential Crisis is less like... an emergency? More like a crisis of Faith. A crossroads. A time to question what is and isn't real, what matters and doesn't. To strip away that which doesn't matter and find your truth... Or become mired in self-doubt.

Well now I want a whole album of that….

 

[Remathilis]

So this is my layman's look at things,

Classical Fantasy (Tolkien et. all) holds the world was in a state of grace and has fallen from that grace, and it is the work of heroes to restore that grace. Whether that was a more enlightened era, a time of closeness with the Creator, or simply Innocence, the world as it is now no longer reflects that more perfect world and it is up to Just and Noble heroes to retore Eden/Camelot/whatever by banishing the darkness that has corrupted it.

S&S assumes the world never was in that state of grace, or if it was, it can never return to it, so there is no Camelot to fight for. At the lighter end, you have people who are attempting to make it through life however they can, at the darker end, you get people doing what they can to eke out a few more moments aginast an almost assured destruction.

So, while CF paints the world in the opposing teams of good and evil, S&S fights for no higher cause than itself. It is possible for people in CF to be selfish or S&S to be noble, but they are the exceptions to the rule. Eventually, the selfish CF character picks a side in the cosmic fight (or fades from relevance) and the noble S&S either dies a hero or lives long enough to become disillusioned (or the villain to complete the phrase).

I think it is in this light that D&D's S&S roots shine through. D&D was originally not all that interested in saving the world or defeating evil. It cared about amassing power (via levels, magic, or gold) and living One More Day. Of course, D&D always had a paradoxical relationship between these two mediums, which embraced Vance's magic and Moorcock's moral system but also Tolkien's races and rangers and Malory's Arthurian Knights as player options. Clearly, even as far back as OD&D there was conflict between the brooding barbarian on his throne and the questing knight searching for holy relics.

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).