D&D General For the Love of Greyhawk: Why People Still Fight to Preserve Greyhawk

[Paul Farquhar]

Normally "moral ambiguity" means "everyone is kind of the bad guy".

No, not really. It mean everyone is grey. Which applies to Eberron and Wildemount.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, not really. It mean everyone is grey. Which applies to Eberron and Wildemount.

@Aldarc said it required equivocating to claim Wildemount is "morally ambiguous" in the sense of S&S, and this is precisely what he was talking about, I believe.

In Sword and Sorcery, "morally ambiguous" typically refers primarily to the protagonist and maybe his cohort of fellow quasi-heroes. The foes they face are very often purely evil. Conan doesn't fight people who are merely misunderstood, unless they're hot babes who he ultimately teams up with to fight the real evil, generally speaking (I'm sure in the canon there is an exception or two, of course). Likewise Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. They're certainly dodgy geezers, but the people they face (unless hot chicks) are usually outright evil. They're not ambiguous figures, but monsters metaphorical and literal, slavers and be-tentacled beasts. Same for Elric - it's not a case of "we're only fighting because we have different goals, we're both equally good/bad!", it's "I need to destroy this sorcerer because he's hurting people" or the like.

So the typical S&S trope is you have a morally ambiguous hero, maybe a few other morally ambiguous characters who he interacts with, but the main adversary and indeed most adversaries, will be evil or bestial.

Whereas Eberron has a very different kind of moral ambiguity. There are deeply evil beings out there, but the bulk of the setting is about conflicts between different goals and ideologies, and it doesn't fit well with S&S. You can see this in Baker's own novels and blog, where he often stresses how people react to something that seems evil/scary but isn't actually, or where something is kinda evil but not actually any more evil than X more normal thing. It's actually a major theme of Eberron, and a very different thing. My impression was that Wildemount was pretty much the same deal - competing factions which are not evil.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, in the last two thousand years, I'm sure there have been some changes made to the literary structure. But, pretty much the majority of stuff written in Europe during the 13 and 1400's was heavily steeped in the Bible, and from their we found ourselves riffing on various conceits.

Part of the problem with this conversation is that it often feels like you’re not actually listening. I’m telling you that “redemption” in a biblical sense and in the contemporary sense of antagonistic characters who become protagonistic allies aren’t really analogous. (Could you find some examples of the latter in the former? Sure, but it’s a stretch to say that this story trope has origins in the biblical texts.)

 

[FrozenNorth]

I noticed, and I've tried to respond to some of them. A couple had some very good ideas in them.



Well, if that is sarcastic, decent jibe.

If that is true... fine I guess. No need for you to listen to my opinion on anything if you don't want to. I'm just glad my introduction to DnD didn't feature so many roadblocks. People tend to be so much more willing to talk in person.

It was sarcasm. I did not read Jack Vance and do not think it is necessary to appreciate D&D.

When I was a teen, my father gave me some Heinlein (I was a sci-fi fan) and raved about how good it was. I read, shrugged and moved on to something else.

My son is 12. He is a fantasy fan. I bought him Good Omens. He read it, shrugged and moved on to something that interested him.

“All this has happened before and will happen again”.

Many, many, many books from the 50s and 60s have not aged well. I don’t think it is necessary to read the book to appreciate the setting.

I don’t think I read any of the novels that inspired DS (Except the first Dune book) and I still think it is a great setting. Furthermore, I think I could describe it fairly well without resorting primarily to sub-genres of fantasy fiction.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

@Aldarc

Whereas Eberron has a very different kind of moral ambiguity. There are deeply evil beings out there

Having read Exploring Eberron, I would dispute that. Even the Daelkyr and Sahuagin have motivations that are reasonable to them, while the kingdom of the elves is described as "an oppressive tyranny". Everyone in Eberron is grey, from the foulest fiend to the noblest celestial.

In Sword and Sorcery, "morally ambiguous" typically refers primarily to the protagonist and maybe his cohort of fellow quasi-heroes.

Which in D&D is down to the players, and has nothing to do with the setting.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Ok, just to weigh in here because it's something I see a lot of. If someone has not read the primary sources, has not read the secondary sources and is basing their opinion on the opinions of others, that opinion really doesn't carry a lot of weight. I mean, this is what we saw all the time in the Edition Wars where people who had not played 4e, had not read the 4e books, were parroting the same criticisms of 4e that others were making and simply elevating the level of frustration in the conversation.

Except that wasn’t what happened here. Chaosmancer initially weighed in trying to find out what made Greyhawk distinct. This is 100% a reasonable ask in a thread trying to resurrect a setting, and I followed the debate because I was curious myself.

Most of the initial responses (later responses were better) were pretty limited and said 1) Sword & Sandals; 2)Low Magic; and 3) It was the original setting.

Chaosmancer responded that he wasn’t terribly familiar with S&S. Then it got weird with various posts attacking him for not reading the canons of S&S which form the basis for Greyhawk and a lot of other D&D settings.

 

[Aldarc]

Having read Exploring Eberron, I would dispute that. Even the Daelkyr and Sahuagin have motivations that are reasonable to them, while the kingdom of the elves is described as "an oppressive tyranny". Everyone in Eberron is grey, from the foulest fiend to the noblest celestial.

Do you honestly - and I do mean honestly - believe that Baker would describe Eberron as Sword & Sorcery? Because this sort of equivocation game regarding the meaning of “morally ambiguous” is something that I would expect in a conversation with Max on this forum but not too many other people.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Do you honestly - and I do mean honestly - believe that Baker would describe Eberron as Sword & Sorcery?

No, I'm not suggesting that at all.

Not enough swords and too much sorcery.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The 1983 boxed set has lots of clear-cut Good and Evil.

As mentioned upthread, the map in the chapter Regional Alignments divides up the world into good, evil, and neutral lands. Demi-humans are good and humanoids (and many other monsters) are evil. There are good and evil gods.

"Furyondy and Veluna in the central Flanaess are strong in the cause of justice and good."

Belvor IV, the king of Furyondy, "is a most noble and just king".

"The Archclericy of Veluna has long been a shining example of the better side of humankind in the Flanaess. Since the state became independent, it has treated fairly and justly with its neighbors and championed the cause of righteousness everywhere."

"Knighthood in any branch of the Order of the Hart is bestowed only upon freemen and gentlefolk seeking the weal of the states which they are dedicated to uphold and defend. Furthermore, each candidate must be a proven fighter and have performed an act of exceptional honor, bravery, courage, and service."

"Heironeous is the champion of rightful combat and chivalrous deeds. Likewise he is the deity of those who fight for honor and strive for order and justice… Worshippers of Heironeous are found everywhere, but particularly where those who follow military professions or do heroic deeds are found is a chapel of this deity likely to be found."

"Once the most powerful force for order and good, the Aerdians have declined over the last century to an unspeakable state of decadency. After a millenium of leadership, its rulers and nobles turned to evil and irrationality."

The land of Iuz is "steeped in wickedness and evil".

"Many humans of evil nature, and some humanoids as well, pay homage to Nerull. Assassins and thieves often regard this deity as a patron. In wicked lands, temples and cathedrals of Nerull are openly operated… The worship of Nerull is done in full darkness. The litany is ghastly, being of death and suffering. Human sacrifice is common."

"The Temple of Elemental Evil" couldn’t be much more explicit.

The Mother, a strange ooze monster from the Lost Passage of the Suloise mini-adventure in the Glossography, "is virtually a physical embodiment of evil, radiating vileness and wickedness".

Drow are "selfish and cruel." (Fiend Folio)

Meenlocks, monsters that appear in the Sea of Dust encounter tables in the Glossography, are "highly evil and greatly desirous of wreaking vengeance on humankind." (Fiend Folio)

 

[Aldarc]

No, I'm not suggesting that at all.

Not enough swords and too much sorcery.

Do you believe that Mercer would describe Wildemont in terms of Sword & Sorcery and its themes?