D&D General Settings of Hope vs Settings of Despair

[Paul Farquhar]

I think this is exactly where I am right now. I used to think that maybe humanity was inherently at least neutral, with the average persons good nature being dominant over any evil they had. Sure there was bad individuals who would set things back, but over time things would keep slowly improving. Two steps forward, one step back.

But now I'm starting to wonder, maybe we are inherently the bad guys? Maybe our darker natures will always win out, and every bit of progress we ever make is doomed to be torn down again and again.

I think it’s more inherent self-destructive stupidity than inherent evil, but the point of fiction is to imagine that things could be better. Maybe in the imagining we might make it so, or maybe it will just help us cope with the awareness that all things, including humanity, must pass.

In a couple of million years there may be people living on this planet who are unaware that the human species ever existed. And maybe they, will do better.

 

[Hussar]

Dune falls under what I would define as "science fantasy," as it borrows elements from science fiction ("What if...?", other worlds, space travel) as well as fantasy (magic BS mental powers, ancestral memories that are entire personalities, and prescience which, on my recent rereading of the first 3 books, came across as a bunch of pretentious nonsense now that I'm not a teenager).

Ahhh. I think I see where the problem lies. To me, SF is not defined by trope. Like, at all. You can have SF set in the stone ages (Quest for Fire) and SF set in post-human Doctor Who level magic. That's not what defines SF. SF is defined by theme. Dune is an exploration of what free will actually means. Is it possible to have free will if you can see the future is the main element of the story.

Whether or not it's good is a matter of taste. But, it is most definitely SF and not fantasy.

 

[Hussar]

It's full of space magic.

There is no rule that says something cannot be both satire and fantasy. Nor is there any rule requiring fantasy to be nostalgic.

Actually, that's the basic definition of the genre. Fantasy is a romantization (I'd argue fetishization) of the past. That's the point of Fantasy stories. Makes sense given the origins of Fantasy as a genre.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Actually, that's the basic definition of the genre. Fantasy is a romantization (I'd argue fetishization) of the past. That's the point of Fantasy stories. Makes sense given the origins of Fantasy as a genre.

Just wrong.

 

[Hussar]

Just wrong.

How so? In what way is that wrong?

Fantasy as a genre is an outgrowth of folktales, among other things. Folktales are morality stories dealing with questions of good and evil, but, also primarily, as a means of reinforcing social behaviour. Things in the past are good and traditions need to be upheld is the fundamental basis of fantasy as a genre.

SF has a different genesis. It's born out of satire. Thus SF questions the norms. This is why we get SF genres like Steampunk which turn Victorian norms and morality on their head as a criticism of modern norms. Just as an example. When you say that something can be both satire and fantasy, it's a bit of a stretch. Pratchett's stories use fantasy tropes to tell satirical stories about the modern world and modern sensibilities. It's satire, with fantasy tropes. But that doesn't make the stories fantasy any more than having robots and laser swords makes Star Wars SF.

Now, all that being said, genre is porous. And very wibbley wobbly, particularly at the edges. And there's tons of stuff that straddle the divide. Genre is not defined by its edges, but by its centers. So, of course you can find exceptions. That's just part and parcel of genre. But, at the end of the day, when we're discussion Spec Fic and the triumvirate of SF, Fantasy and Horror, tropes are probably the least useful means of differentiating between them.

 

[Remathilis]

I think this is exactly where I am right now. I used to think that maybe humanity was inherently at least neutral, with the average persons good nature being dominant over any evil they had. Sure there was bad individuals who would set things back, but over time things would keep slowly improving. Two steps forward, one step back.

But now I'm starting to wonder, maybe we are inherently the bad guys? Maybe our darker natures will always win out, and every bit of progress we ever make is doomed to be torn down again and again.

I think it’s more inherent self-destructive stupidity than inherent evil, but the point of fiction is to imagine that things could be better. Maybe in the imagining we might make it so, or maybe it will just help us cope with the awareness that all things, including humanity, must pass.

In a couple of million years there may be people living on this planet who are unaware that the human species ever existed. And maybe they, will do better.

I think you two succinctly captured the crisis I'm going through. It feels right now that we are doomed to never escape samsara, we will make things better only to lose the progress and fall back into outdated methods of thought.

But then, fantasy (and science-fiction) have always been about "what if", and if this world doesn't live up to our ideals, we can imagine one that does. A world where tieflings aren't chased out of town, where the blacksmith and his husband are normal members of society, where the King is wise and fair. A world where fighting off the minions of darkness from Mordor is more important than the petty feuds between elves, dwarves and men.

I KNOW that it can be done. I'm just having a hard time getting over my cynicism. Thankfully, this conversation has been able to put into words a whole lot of thoughts I've had over the last year especially.

 

[Desdichado]

Enworld has a no politics rule and I'm trying to keep within that boundary. The point isn't isn't about what is actually going on though, suffice to say my opinion of humanity has lowered several points and I'm struggling to decide if I want my next game to reflect what I would want the world to be like or how I actually feel it is.

If that is too vague for you, feel free to move on.

On the contrary; it's not nearly vague enough. As you say, there's a no politics rule. Why are you clearly posting a thread that's about politics? More to the point, why are there multiple threads that indulge in talking about politics with a tiny thin veil of "oh, but I didn't refer to anything specifically even though I'm not vague at all about what political opinion I'm EXPLICITLY EXPRESSING." And even more to the point; is this what the no politics rule is supposed to mean? Not really no politics at all?

 

[Remathilis]

On the contrary; it's not nearly vague enough. As you say, there's a no politics rule. Why are you clearly posting a thread that's about politics? More to the point, why are there multiple threads that indulge in talking about politics with a tiny thin veil of "oh, but I didn't refer to anything specifically even though I'm not vague at all about what political opinion I'm EXPLICITLY EXPRESSING." And even more to the point; is this what the no politics rule is supposed to mean? Not really no politics at all?

I dunno. Go ask @Morrus

 

[Celebrim]

Ahhh. I think I see where the problem lies. To me, SF is not defined by trope. Like, at all. You can have SF set in the stone ages (Quest for Fire) and SF set in post-human Doctor Who level magic. That's not what defines SF. SF is defined by theme. Dune is an exploration of what free will actually means. Is it possible to have free will if you can see the future is the main element of the story.

Whether or not it's good is a matter of taste. But, it is most definitely SF and not fantasy.

That's a rather particular definition of SF and not one I've encountered before in any discussion of what it means to be SF including discussions that define SF by theme.

And I'm not sure you can convince me of it, because I'm not sure you can convince me the theme of "The Alien Way" is that we are defined by our free will, unless you can include the rejection of the idea that we have free will as being also an explanation of what free will actually means. And for that matter, it's not clear to me that Dune claims that any character in it has free will either. Or "Leviathan Wakes". And that means that the theme you've defined is so broad, that it would be hard pressed to claim any book isn't science fiction. Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" for example.

It's equally not clear to me that issues of free will are at the heart of everything I'd want to call science fiction, say the "Culture" books by Ian M. Banks.

 

[Fifinjir]

I’ve been thinking themes of the possibility of humanity never learning from its mistakes and perhaps even being doomed to destroy itself, but not really in the setting I use for TTRPGs.