D&D General Settings of Hope vs Settings of Despair

[overgeeked]

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 comes down to empathy. It’s not as widespread as we seem to think. It seemingly ebbs and flows. Those with empathy ascend, do some good, then those without empathy ascend and tear it all down. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it comes down to empathy. It’s not as widespread as we seem to think. It seemingly ebbs and flows. Those with empathy ascend, do some good, then those without empathy ascend and tear it all down. Lather, rinse, repeat.

That's kinda a good way to hammer down part of my dilemma. How much net empathy should the setting have? A hopeful setting would have generally high empathy, while a despairing world would have lower empathy. That's not to say individuals or even groups would be less empathetic, but that a harsh world may turn others hearts cruel. Such a place may (for example) turn away an outsider rather than other than hospitality.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The nice thing about the empathy framing is that it means that not everyone has to have it in a setting, but those that do function as de facto points of light.

Maybe most people in a terrible cyberpunk setting will sell you out for a few credits, but the fact is, not everyone will, and that makes the setting more bearable, even if your allies are a street vendor, the staff of a struggling diner, a homeless person and an elderly widow.

 

[Hussar]

I think this is where you get into categorizing fiction in multiple categories at once. "Dystopian fiction" can be Handmaid, Hunger Games, 1984, Logan's Run, or Soylent Green, but only some of them are considered science-fiction because...uh, the presence of advanced technology instead of simply social differences?

I know that you've dropped out of the thread, and fair enough, but, all those works are absolutely SF. "Advanced technology" is not required, at all, for SF. If your (and I mean this as the general you, as in anyone) definition of SF excludes any of those works, that's not a commonly accepted definition of SF.

 

[Hussar]

That's kinda a good way to hammer down part of my dilemma. How much net empathy should the setting have? A hopeful setting would have generally high empathy, while a despairing world would have lower empathy. That's not to say individuals or even groups would be less empathetic, but that a harsh world may turn others hearts cruel. Such a place may (for example) turn away an outsider rather than other than hospitality.

Personally, I would lean into the "more empathy" style setting. Sure, there's lots of bad stuff, but, by and large, given the choice, people will choose empathy over hate. So, the whole, much criticised, "Cantina scene" is not out of place in the setting. Anyone who chooses to "None of those kind served here" are coded as evil. Take a stand in the setting design. In a hopeful setting, anything that is against "hope" (however you define that) is evil and is presented as straight up wrong.