Reinventing fantasy cliches

[CruelSummerLord]

Concerning two of the fantasy tropes I'm most interested in that were cited by Afrodyte, Racial Determinism and Eurocentrism, I modify one and subvert the other.

-Racial Determinism, to me, stems at least in part from the fact that the different races were created by different gods with different agendas. Different gods have different commitments and interests, and they imbued their races with different traits. Corellon Larethian imbued the elves with a natural tendency towards magic and the wilderlands, Moradin gave the dwarves incredible skills at craft and an affinity with the earth, Gruumsh gave the orcs a culture and belief system that values war and physical strength, and so forth.

Humans are the exception in that they have no centralized pantheon of gods, and may worship dwarven, elven or orcish gods as easily as non-human races worship their gods. The human race is, in a way, the jack of all trades, in the sense that they'll be good at just about anything they set their minds to, but chances are they won't be as good at it as a nonhuman race. However, their drive, determination and ambition-and this applies to humans derived from non-European cultures as it does to the European-based humans-allows them to keep up and stay in the thick of things.

In a sense, then, the various nonhuman races are the way they are because of the fiat of their gods. Only humans have no centralized pantheon, which has caused them to worship a wide variety of gods. Orcs and goblins ravage, kill and destroy because, in many ways, that is their nature, but even this can vary. They possess an inborn hatred for dwarves and elves, but humans who win their respect and have similar mores and values to theirs can earn their respect. Lawfully-aligned orcs can serve as military allies to those they view as worthy, or otherwise serve those who will pay for their swords.

-Now, as to Eurocentric fantasy, I think we can all agree that what is considered Eurocentric is not truly based on an accurate representation of medieval European culture, but is at least inspired by it and derived from it. We see how the dwarves, elves and orcs influence and are influenced by them.

But what about the rest of the world? How would dwarves get along with the Iroquois Confederacy? How would elves get along with medieval Ethiopia, Somalia or Zimbabwe? How would orcs live in a Viet- or Thai-inspired culture? Here lies my interest in extending the tropes of D&D to fit the rest of the world. Cultures inspired and derived from, but not exact copies of, the various cultures of the rest of the world, tailored to fit the D&D mold, are what I'm going for.

Societies patterned after medieval Africa might have full mastery of metalworking and smithing, due to cultural contact with dwarves or gnomes. They would use metal swords and shields in battle, but prefer light chain shirts at most when it comes to armor, since heavy plate mail would be too hot to wear in the climates they call home. Similarly, nomadic or semi-nomadic First Nations cultures might have a trading relation with dwarves or elves similar to those they had with Europeans in the 16th to the 19th centuries, trading furs, meat, vegetables, grains or whatever else in exchange for metal weapons or other finished goods, or even develop these things themselves after intercultural contact. Gnomes might have a privileged position in a society patterned after China or Persia, given their scientific knowledge and engineering ability. Halflings might form a particular class within an Aztec or Mayan society for their skills in agriculture, being comfortably interwoven with the humans, who protect them from rampaging orcs and goblins in exchange for their skills with the land.

What is noteworthy here is that the skills and inclinations given to the nonhuman races by their gods still exist, but they have different functions and relations to human society than they might in a European-based society or continent. Racial "Determinism", so to speak, affects, but does not dictate, how different races get along with the various human cultures.

These are just some ideas. The European-derived cultures are still there, but now we see how the rest of the world interacts with dwarves, elves and orcs, who are all just as spread around the world as are humans.

 

[Afrodyte]

CruelSummerLord,

That's pretty cool! I thought about using the First Nations as my baseline humans on the main continent.

Speaking of the blog link I posted earlier, I sort of like the idea of elves being not exactly biological. They are shaped like humans - eerily so, since there's something about them that seems geometric or sculpted - but that's about it. Instead of internal organs, I can see them being filled with a glowing gelatin-like substance of various hues (usually white or gold). In other words, they're Not From Around Here, and they have to create bodies to interact with our world. Usually this means assuming the form of idealized humans native to the environment, but there's always something that's a little . . . off.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

CruelSummerLord,

That's pretty cool! I thought about using the First Nations as my baseline humans on the main continent.

Speaking of the blog link I posted earlier, I sort of like the idea of elves being not exactly biological. They are shaped like humans - eerily so, since there's something about them that seems geometric or sculpted - but that's about it.

For Urbis, I'm using the deep background assumption that all the nonhuman but humanoid races were created by an ancient magocracy. The dwarves were the miners and smiths, the goblinoids and orcs the warriors, the gnomes were the craftsmen, the halflings the servants and cooks... and the elves were the descendants of the ruling wizard elite.

I mean, good looks, heightened senses, long life spans, less sleep... it's like some transhumanists were going through a checklist and said "Yup, I want all those things." And the end results were elves...

 

[Afrodyte]

For Urbis, I'm using the deep background assumption that all the nonhuman but humanoid races were created by an ancient magocracy. The dwarves were the miners and smiths, the goblinoids and orcs the warriors, the gnomes were the craftsmen, the halflings the servants and cooks... and the elves were the descendants of the ruling wizard elite.

I mean, good looks, heightened senses, long life spans, less sleep... it's like some transhumanists were going through a checklist and said "Yup, I want all those things." And the end results were elves...

Yeah, that make sense too.

 

[ekb]

Subversion

There are cliches in fantasy beyond the character ones. And they can be wonderful to subvert...

1 - It was all a dream: had fun with this last night with my main play group. The party is traveling on the road through a haunted forest and find themselves "stuck" by the spirits and make camp. They do the "smart RPGer" things - schedule watches, arrange signals, verify inventory of equipment, set triplines and wards. They all have a shared dream of traveling on a path to a tomb and are woken up by an owl's cry. So they set out and find themselves on the path they dreamed about and soon encounter the tomb from the dream. Things go rather awry when they do the usual "smart RPGer" things - the weapons and tools they are so used to using start self-destructing or falling to pieces... When it gets too much, they wake up - but with *some* of the "injuries" they received in the dream actually present in the waking world. Gothic as all get out - clanking chains and all - but it works in the end.

2 - Monsters are unnatural things: The first session in this mini-campaign featured an imp chasing people about and finally killing some key people. Obviously, the PCs are intended to investigate and possibly destroy the "monster." Turns out that it's someone's pet that is confused by perfumes that people are wearing... nothing supernatural about it at all, but with good GMing it makes things seem unnatural.

3 - There is good and there is evil as absolutes: while not wanting to get into a deep philosophical debate on moral relativism, the ideas that are the foundation of this RPG trope don't really hold in a modernist culture such as our own. There may be some things we agree on (theft bad, child safety good), it's easy to sell someone on the idea that this horrible thing I'm doing to "them" is actually good because it benefits "us," we possess divine right to this thing, it was ours to begin with yadda yadda yadda...

4 - Genocide is feasible: okay, who *hasn't* attacked the critters/monsters on sight? If my players are known as peerless killers of orcs, couldn't a strong warband be organized to capture them and put them on trial for crimes against orc-kind? Because, in general, that's what a dungeon crawl often is: regionalized genocide.

5 - The party must work together: hogwash! Who's to say that having opposing agendas is a bad thing? The party wouldn't be in existence if there wasn't a need for it, but who's to say that betrayal after that initial goal has been met is poor game-play?

That's what I can think of off the top of my head...

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Afrodyte wrote:
I was going to list some of my own ideas, but I should probably do that on another thread.

No, this is the perfect place. Would love to hear what you have in mind.

haakon1 wrote:
But to me, bugbears and gnolls are irredeemably evil, viewing human as mortal enemies who are either killed on sight or kept as slaves until it's time for lunch. I think it's good to have contrasts between evil but negotiable (kobolds, goblins, and hobgoblins IMC), mostly evil with some exceptions and a racial connection to elves and humans (orcs IMC), not evil but alien (lizardmen), and plain old kill everybody and eat them evil (bugbears and gnolls IMC).

I get what you mean about some contrast on the good/evil scale, adds more depth. Nothing wrong with just plain old malicious and cruel critters. All for it. And Bugbears and Gnolls do have that terrible, bestial appearance. The Bugbears in my Borderlands are definitely cruel and vicious, but some have enough pragmatism to realise that human traders can provide benefits above and beyond filling the pot. My Gnolls have only rarely seen a human. They live in a desolate area of basalt peaks from where they carry on their endless vendettas among themselves and against the Yildiz Hobgoblins who long ago drove them from their ancient homes on the high prairie.

haakon1 wrote:
It's the border between civilization and wilderness, and also between "eastern" civilizations (the western-European like Suel and Oeridian cultures) and "western" civilizations (the Eastern on our world Baklunish). I view it as being a bit like Yugoslavia, a "Clash of Civilizations" area, combined with a frontier.

I am pretty familiar with Greyhawk. Long been a fave of mine!! I vaguely recall someone (either here on Enworld or on Canonfire) talking about using the border area between Ket and Bissel as a great area for adventure. The whole clash of cultures thing that takes place there. Was that you per chance?

Re: using less familiar backgrounds.

The info dump is a hard thing to do well. Even more so when what you're trying to convey is background stuff rather than something of immediate relevance to the plot. Main problem is getting the players to pay attention long enough to get the info. across. Of course if they're not then the GM is probably not presenting it in a manner to interest them. One thing that I've tried is the use of tales within the game. Tales of long ago that illustrate the point you are trying to get across or contain literal details they need. Begin with giving them a few vague hints and then get the players to make skill checks (History, Religion, Bardic Lore, what ever) so as they can remember more details. Once you get players rolling dice they do get all excited and focussed. (I know I do )

This can backfire.

Once had the platyers dedicate a session and a half to tyeing to track down if a mythological character called Fafnr was real or not. All because there was a curse going around the Dwarven Kingdom, called Fafnr's Curse, that turned honest, hardworking Dwarves into thieves. Now I was just using a nice, poetic name. Unfortunately the guys read so much more into it. I tried discouraging them. In the end had to be blunt and say they were chasing their own tails. And all because they were expecting me to be hinting at stuff when I wasn't. My own bad reputation caused that.

cheers all.

 

[DarkKestral]

I don't think a highly organized (and successful, and civilized!) hobgoblin empire is represented anywhere in Tolkien or in most D&D settings I've seen either.

I don't think we really saw hobgoblins represented in Tolkien, but we did see the hyper-lawful evil orcs, which I feel are the closest in representation to the D&D hobgoblin that we get in Tolkien. The Peter Jackson orcs even have the "look" associated with hobgoblins in D&D. And they definitely were on the rise there, until the combined armies of every free nation and race worked together to wipe them out. In fact, it was basically implied that if they hadn't, the rest of the races would have been wiped out. They may be twisted, pathologically evil beings, but they are incredibly organized, and their mastery of machinery appears to be far greater than the rest of the races of Middle-Earth; even the dwarven cities don't seem to have much in the way of machinery, though they are implied to be among the best crafters. On the other hand, the orcs had all sorts of siege technology and immense forges capable of producing armaments for entire armies at a go, and we know this from direct text.

Which makes it ironic that we don't have too many "evil, but organized race on the rise" stories in fantasy, as it is rather Tolkienian.

 

[Desdichado]

The organization and the seige equipment was all Sauron (or Saruman) though; not the orcs themselves. Left to their own devices, they fell into squabbling fiefdoms run by minor warlords.

The implication being that they weren't anything on their own, and were in fact rather inferior soldiers even; pretty much everyone had a chance to beating back an orc infestation with relatively light losses. Without some greater, organizing intelligence, the orcs didn't amount to a hill of beans. The only orcs of any real notoriety on their own behalf were Bolg and Azog. Maybe Golfimbul could pass muster here too.

But again; they were rather handily defeated as soon as they stuck their necks out of the Misty Mountains, and in Golfimbul's case it was in an especially undignified manner.

No, my ascendent hobgoblin empires don't really resemble Tolkien IMO. Only superficially.

 

[Desdichado]

Speaking of non-Eurocentric fantasy, I've just recently gotten my hands on a copy of the reprint of Imaro in trade paperback. Imaro and the setting of his stories are to Africa what Conan and the Hyborian Age are to Europe and the Near East. If you can see past the rather obvious social agenda of the writer, and his tendency to re-introduce relatively familiar items through an Afrocentric lens (he has to constantly rename cows, lions, hyenas, spears, swords, etc. using Swahili words—a contrivance I thought was more irritating rather than interesting) he's actually written some really fine, competent and entertaining Sword & Sorcery that shows a great model of a non-Eurocentric setting.

The character of Imaro himself is a little too emo for me at times, though.

 

[haakon1]

Let me give you an example. What do most Americans think of when they hear the word "castle"? The image that will likely spring into the minds of most is the fairy tale castle from Disneyland.

Well, once I was talking online with a Floridian who said they lived "in the shadow of the castle". I asked if they meant the Spanish castle (I now forget the name) whose ruins really do still exist in Florida. They didn't know what I was talking about.

So the castle imagery in the minds of most Americans (though probably not most American role-players, who likely have a more in-depth knowledge of this period in history) is several layers removed from real castles - but giving them an understanding of the functioning, layout, and other essential aspects of genuine castles will require a lot of additional explaining. So what to do when you plan to use castle imagery - do you use the superficial image so that everyone gets it at once, or do you use the genuine historical thing and need to provide a large info-dump to clear up any misconceptions?

I'm American. My very first introduction to D&D was by a DM (Indian-American) who had visited his cousins in Scotland and was quite impressed by Edinburgh Castle. He described the gate, the portcullis, and the murder holes above and arrow slits to the sides as we were asked our names and our business at the Keep on the Borderlands. I loved it, so I've always tried to have a similar scene for new players.

Also, as a child I read a picture book on how castles (specifically Edward I's castles in Wales) were built.

And later on I became a history major and lived in England for 3 years, visiting at least a half dozen castles. My favorites are Edinburgh and Caernarvon (Edward I's largest Welsh castle).

So, when I DM it, I do go into detail, and they are quasi-real medieval. I've had "castles" towers ranging from a dirt wall and a wooden tower (more of a burh), to a stone tower and stone wall, up to concentric ring castles. I don't care about the "but that wouldn't work against stuff that can fly" rationale of castle design, because my campaigns are relatively low-level. The typical threat is a Warrior 1, either human or orcish, so walls and murderholes are fairly effective. And my absolutely favorite DMing was running an assault on the Keep on the Borderlands by many of the Caves of Chaos' denizens, against the PCs and the Keep troops!

But I suspect your criticism of typical Americans may be right!

(Or, to provide a flip side to the Neuschwanstein example for German readers: When using a pseudo-Native American culture - which would certainly qualify as "exotic" in Germany - do you try to get the details right, or do you confine yourself to the imagery thought up by Karl May?)

I actually know what you mean on this one (I've heard of Karl May). I generally keep it pretty stereotypical Plains Indian, but I like to throw in some elements of East Coast Indians too. My "Indian" civilization also has Irish elements thrown in, just because I feel like it.

Truly researching the historical and cultural details often is highly rewarding, and I strongly recommend it even if you don't end up using them - they often contain all sorts of cool adventure ideas. But again, all this has to be weighted against overwhelming the players with details.

I couldn't agree more. Real history and mythology are fascinating in their own right, and even more fun when plundered for D&D.