Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dlsharrock" data-source="post: 4169235" data-attributes="member: 55833">Embraced the cliche! I'm running a Third Age of the Sun Middle-Earth campaign (no, edit that) I'm trying to get off the ground a Third Age of the Sun Middle-Earth campaign with the original Dark Lord squatting in his tower. He hasn't moved all his stuff into Barad-Dur yet, he's still skulking and sulking in the tower of Dol Guldur on the fringe of Mirkwood. (Six players, one character submission so far and a lot of discussion about starting locations, which race of elf best suits which character class, the annoyance of low level magic etc.)Egging on those who subscribe to Tolkien-bashing, I really love Sauron as a BBEG because he has the best and basest motive for a bad guy. He's the original Hell's Angel! Where a lot of my own home-spun creations fall down is believable motive, true also of fiction I think where many a lazy author relies on the reader's presumptions about evil dudes to just present a nasty piece of work as a nasty piece of work and thus perpetuates the 'bad' cliche. Evil dudes, by my preference, should not come out of the womb wearing skull caps and black capes. They can be cliches, fine, but they need at least some back-story to make them acceptable cliches. The way-back-mentioned Tad Williams trilogy was guilty of this and I shudder at comparisons between the *four* bricks of the Memory, Sorrow, Thorn *trilogy* and Tolkien. What Tad omitted from his revised idea, Tolkien wrote down in secret (and some) thus Sauron, and all of Middle-Earth, has a very deep back story I can rely on if the integrity of the bad guy ever falls into question. I do like Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, though. Some great cliches in there - particularly the scullion made hero aspects of Arthurian legend, complete with sword(s), cliches I never tire of (as long as they're done well).Like the poster who researched like billy-o and kept all the details to himself, when it comes to gameplay additional research and backstory always feeds suspension of disbelief without necessitating a full and long winded exposition of the fine details. Even the worst cliches can be made believable if executed with attention to detail, I guess is the controversial point I'm trying to make, though I'm also saying the detail needn't be lifted above the level of foundation.Edit: Also, regarding the previous mention of Elven sub-races, I definitely blame J R R for starting this trend, though some blame must rest with early editions of D&D for using the idea without embarking on Tolkien's historical reasoning.</blockquote>

Verification