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

[Chaosmancer]

This is a complete failure as a rational argument. I'm not even sure why you think it's a rational argument. It's bizarre.

Specifically your argument from the previous post appears to be that, to all intents and purposes, S&S and noir are either the same, or so similar that it doesn't matter. It is irrational and unreasonable, in that case, to claim that the number and kind of differences doesn't matter, if some similarities, however weak, can be identified. I'm pretty sure that, by that logic, we can claim any number of deeply disparate genres are "the same", because a lot of very different genres contain similar elements if you boil them down enough.

There was an entire paragraph above the part you quoted. It was kind of important. I'm going to repost it, maybe do some in bold so it pops out and you can see it.


"None of your differences addressed the similarities I was talking about, the only way your point makes sense is if you assume I was saying the two genres were identical. Which is an absurd point that I never made. "


Note, that you say "Specifically your argument from the previous post appears to be that, to all intents and purposes, S&S and noir are either the same, or so similar that it doesn't matter." Which is in direct opposition to my own point on my own position.

They are not the same genre, that is a stupid assertion.
They are not so similar that they might as well be the same genre. That is a stupid assertion.

The point I made as that they have similar styles of protagonists and similar levels of stakes. You want to counter that by saying the Noir is generally more grim and depressing in tone, and that the structure of events in the story differ, such as the opening "call to adventure"? Go ahead. Because those do not reference the level of stakes, and do not talk about the similarities in protagonist archetypes.

I've pointed out a number of pretty fundamental differences, in tone, in structure, in the information they convey and so on. They're genres with some crossover, but they also have considerable differences. Neither is a subset of the other, rather they're essentially two Venn diagrams, that where they intersect, we have The Witcher.

Echo? Echo?

That is exactly what I said. They have some similarities, some crossover.

Then you decided to attack my point by pointing out all the ways they don't cross over, and got offended and called me ignorant for saying that did not address my point. A point that you just agreed with.

I also think that your reliance on other people (including me) telling you stuff here is completely proving my point about how, if you make zero effort to find out about something, you won't understand it very well. You're just leaping on any tiny thing you think you do understand, and trying to make it all about that. It's not helpful.

I'm trying to be polite here man, but you are making it incredibly hard.

I'm guessing you also skipped my post where I mentioned I'd read some of the articles people had posted, and that according to those articles, I was running into a problem.

Specifically, it was that the majority of the descriptors for the Genre were about characters, which is how I got to mentioning the similarities with Noir characters. But, a setting in a game is not defined in that manner.

I don't expect you to care, but you will just tell me I'm wrong, but since the genre seems so reliant on the characters instead of the setting, magic system, or even time line (there is a spin-off of S&S that takes place in Space, with things like Thundar the Barbarian) it makes it very difficult to define the setting of Greyhawk that way.

After all, S&S "heroes" are morally grey mercenaries. Meaning that if the players wanted to all play Paladins and Clerics of Heironious, they are immediately breaking the genre conventions. And if the campaign focuses on the clearly evil and morally bankrupt villians like Iuz and The Scarlet Brotherhood, then there is no shades of grey to the game. But, that is a campaign that is internally consistent for Greyhawk.


But no, let us continue to say I am unwilling to do any small amount of research and that I'm just latching on to small, meanignless points in my ignorance. I'm sure the dialogue will continue to be productive.

If you're not trying to argue that noir and S&S are essentially the same then I have no idea what you are trying to argue.

Clearly, since you said my own point back to me.

 

[Aldarc]

It's worth pointing out that Fritz Lieber coined the term "Sword & Sorcery" as per his letter to Michael Moorcock discussing Robert Howard's fiction to distinguish it from other forms of non-fantasy fiction:

I feel more certain than ever that this field should be called the sword-and-sorcery story. This accurately describes the points of culture-level and supernatural element and also immediately distinguishes it from the cloak-and-sword (historical adventure) story—and (quite incidentally) from the cloak-and-dagger (international espionage) story too!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

As I've said before, I don't think obsessing over genre labels is hugely productive - it's better to consider each work on it's own merits. Certainly, if you want to understand Gygax's work (and I would consider world creation and module design a literary form), it helps to have some familiarity with the authors he was most influenced by.

If you look at how D&D was actually played in the early days, there is an underlying assumption that the adventuring party are amoral mercenaries, and this can make those early adventures appear noirish, even though those works of literature and film classed as Noir where not a direct influence on Gygax.

It might be that Fritz Lieber was influenced by noir, but that would take a pretty detailed analysis to either support or refute. All I can say is he was the right generation, but I don't think he directly mentioned it. I guess some of the "Cloak and Dagger" stuff he referred to might have been Noir.

 

[Hussar]

The point I made as that they have similar styles of protagonists and similar levels of stakes. You want to counter that by saying the Noir is generally more grim and depressing in tone, and that the structure of events in the story differ, such as the opening "call to adventure"? Go ahead. Because those do not reference the level of stakes, and do not talk about the similarities in protagonist archetypes.

I'd actually disagree on this point. Noir heroes are very likely anti-heroes - ineffectual, weak, easily tempted. S&S heroes are generally pulp heroes- strong, super(most often)men who are better than everyone around them. I'm not actually seeing a lot of similarities in the characters.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'd actually disagree on this point. Noir heroes are very likely anti-heroes - ineffectual, weak, easily tempted. S&S heroes are generally pulp heroes- strong, super(most often)men who are better than everyone around them. I'm not actually seeing a lot of similarities in the characters.

Often true, although Philip Marlowe (Chandler) is an allegorical paladin, symbolised by the George & Dragon stained glass window in the first story.

And you might argue that the Grey Mouser is powerful, but morally weak and easily tempted (Fafhrd acting as his conscience). Both are often the fall guys of the plots of others.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'd actually disagree on this point. Noir heroes are very likely anti-heroes - ineffectual, weak, easily tempted. S&S heroes are generally pulp heroes- strong, super(most often)men who are better than everyone around them. I'm not actually seeing a lot of similarities in the characters.

Hmm, I see your point, but I'm not sure I'd say it is an artifact of the Noir hero being weak or ineffectual. More that the society is more resistant to change. Many Noir heroes that I've read fall into either the "dying breed" style, where they are pining for the good ol days in a world where the new is strangling the old, or they are deeply scarred. They have fought their war, and want to rest, but they can't.

I will agree though that the S&S hero is a power Fantasy and the Noir Hero is not, and I think that approach is interesting.

A S&S hero is jaded and mercenary because he is a strong man who only bothers to interact with society for the vices he desires.

A Noir hero is jaded and mercenary because society has broken him, torn him down and forced upon him vices that he cannot get rid of.


Still, a fair point because of the tone, style and purpose of the stories.

 

[Aldarc]

The noir hero unsurprisingly would find a greater fit in the post-War setting of Eberron than in Greyhawk.

Greyhawk entailed PCs carving a kingdom of their own from the shattered decadent remains of falling kingdoms and fighting to keep it, as in tune with the expectations that fighters gained strongholds.

 

[amethal]

I'd actually disagree on this point. Noir heroes are very likely anti-heroes - ineffectual, weak, easily tempted.

As Paul Farquhar already mentioned, Philip Marlowe is very much not any of those things.

The other author I'm most familiar with, after Raymond Chandler, is Dashiell Hammett. His protagonists don't seem to meet that description either. Sam Spade is not a very nice man (and book-Spade comes across as even worse than film-Spade, at least to me) but he's certainly not weak or ineffectual. The others, such as the Continental Op, are better people but can be just as mentally and physically strong when required.

 

[Aldarc]

Isn’t this the distinction between noir vs. hard-boiled?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Isn’t this the distinction between noir vs. hard-boiled?

Why I'm not a fan of Genre labels! "Noir" originated as a movie genre, and referred to the way the film was lit as well as the subject matter. The movie versions of The Big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon are both considered examples of film noir, even though the novels they are based on might be better described as "hard boiled detective fiction". It doesn't help that white knight Marlowe and morally grey Spade where both portrayed by the same actor!