D&D General Settings of Hope vs Settings of Despair

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Once things start to get real, we see what people are really about.

Folks in the midst of natural disasters -- real ones, not ones in movies -- tend to be incredibly empathetic and helpful, even toward strangers.

People are better than we think.

 

[overgeeked]

Maybe empathy isnt the right word, I'm struggling to find.

If I cannot provide for my kids, I'm not going to provide for yours. I would starve for my kids, but at that point I'm not making donations to the local soup kitchen.

Communities banding together, supporting eachother, I get that. I guess I'm not sure what the word I'm looking for is for when a society in decline, has people start to look out for themselves first.

I’m not sure empathy is the right word either. But I know what you’re getting at. Check out Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

You have to fulfill your basic needs before you worry about “higher needs” and the basic needs of others.

If you have to tighten your belt a little to help a neighbor, you will. If you have to starve to prevent a neighbor from starving, well…sorry neighbor.

General you throughout.

 

[overgeeked]

Folks in the midst of natural disasters -- real ones, not ones in movies -- tend to be incredibly empathetic and helpful, even toward strangers.

People are better than we think.

Yep. Happens every time.

 

[Celebrim]

Actually, that tends not to be true? Empathy is about understanding somebody else's internal state and tends to be correlated with pro-social behavior; some studies suggest that the more power and status somebody has the less empathetic they are while those from lower social strata have sometimes been observed to exhibit higher empathy.

Cf: studies on empathy and altruism in communities struck by natural disasters & etc.

"Empathy" is a very slippery term because it's a feeling and not an action. Altruism is generally a better measure because you can actually measure it somewhat objectively. "Empathy" or "Pro-Social" studies are all over the map in their conclusions with respect to how income and status effects it, I think in large part because what counts as "empathy" or "pro-social" heavily varies according to the constructor of the scenario or test.

cf: Higher income individuals are more generous when local economic inequality is high - PMC

 

[zakael19]

"Empathy" is a very slippery term because it's a feeling and not an action. Altruism is generally a better measure because you can actually measure it somewhat objectively. "Empathy" or "Pro-Social" studies are all over the map in their conclusions with respect to how income and status effects it, I think in large part because what counts as "empathy" or "pro-social" heavily varies according to the constructor of the scenario or test.

cf: Higher income individuals are more generous when local economic inequality is high - PMC

Empathy is the ability to perceive and understand the feelings of others. Empathic-altruism is the act of helping others because you understand that they're suffering. Empathy is correlated with pro-social behaviors because one part of that is understanding how others are affected by what you do.

Charitable giving is an entirely different thing, and may be more motivated by pity/sympathy (which is not quite the same thing).

A setting high in empathy suggests a place where people strive to understand each other, something which is often easier when you share relative backgrounds ime. Probably also scores high on community, working together, etc.

If you have to tighten your belt a little to help a neighbor, you will. If you have to starve to prevent a neighbor from starving, well…sorry neighbor.

And yet we have stories like the Choctaw, a tribe that had recently been on the edge of starvation and was still struggling to make ends meet sending money to the starving Irish in recognition of their suffering. We have plenty of stories both current and in fable of people giving the shirts of their backs, or splitting their limited food.

Humans are complicated. Your fantasy setting may not track human interactions directly, and your fantasy cultures and species may have different expressions of what empathy/caring/interactions demand.

What I think defines Hope vs Despair for the purposes of this thread is more about the ability to affect change. Dark Souls is a setting of Despair because ya ain't realy making things better due to the weird metaphysics of that land. Blades in the Dark is a setting of despair, because you're not going to (at least within the confines of the base game) really change the political and power dynamics of the Empire.

Eriador of the space between the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings walks the line, I think, depending on what you focus on - but it's at least a land of melancholy.

 

[Clint_L]

Folks in the midst of natural disasters -- real ones, not ones in movies -- tend to be incredibly empathetic and helpful, even toward strangers.

People are better than we think.

I agree. It's usually when people have time to be ideological that they get terrible, at least at a systematic level.

 

[Retros_x]

That feels aspirational, but it also feels a touch naive in light of all that had been happening in the world today.

I wouldn't call it naive, I think its just a positive fantasy. For example I think every queer author who pushes for queer friendly content in D&D is not so naive to think that the real life is becoming more queer friendly, they know exactly how much the situation worsens.

I would say my settings are also a mix. Usually some catastrophic event happened or is at the moment happening (these ruins with all that loot must emerge somehow), but there are tight communities supporting each other and in dire need of some heroes. And yes I build some real-life evilness often in my settings (greedy evil wizards sucking out life energy out of nature for their magical endevours is one of my default tropes), but that gives my players the opportunity to have some cathartic moments of doing that what they never can do in real life - kick that wizard out of his tower.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I vastly prefer settings of hope over despair.

A setting of despair makes me despair. Like literally. It actually makes me think depressive thoughts more, inclines me to be a less-good person to the people around me, and heightens existing mental health concerns. A setting of hope doesn't do that.

I still, of course, prefer grounded settings. That means, for example, the game that I run has plenty of dark things in it. Organized crime, severe social inequality/injustice, violence, slavery practiced in the shadows, assassin-cults and crazed fanatics and Lovecraftian rituals, bigotry. But it is very much predicated on the idea that if people stand up for what is good and right, then things can in fact get better.

Heroes are only one part of that equation--and, arguably, not the most important part. For real change to occur, you need people to choose change. That's not an easy thing to do....but it's at least a little bit easier when you have worthy role-models to follow, when you can see the impact of good deeds, when you personally know that someone doing the right thing for the right reasons at the right time actually did make YOUR life better. When it's not some airy-fairy dream, not some far-off vision, not some pronouncement from on high, not a philosophical claim. It's a living, breathing person, that you yourself saw doing good for others.

The heroes are just a guiding star. A useful sign. A guiding star shines regardless, and cannot make the world it shines upon all that much brighter. It's the people who find their way home that light the candles, or the lamp-posts, or the signal-fires.

A setting of hope says that, if the heroes contribute, it becomes part of getting--or keeping--things in good shape.

A setting of despair tries to sell us the lie that nothing can change, so there's no point in trying--or the insubstantial claim that there is some special nobility for doing the right thing when you're guaranteed to fail.

A setting of hope isn't saccharine. It's realistic. Because it turns out, yes, things do sometimes get better, and not just that, but good people working for good causes over time do in fact change things.

500 years ago, folks thought nothing of enslaving their fellow humans--and most laws expressly permitted it. Now? It's a crime, an unthinkable sin for many, and broadly used as a symbol of immense cruelty. That is a real, objective change. Something got better. It didn't just spontaneously do so, and it's not like anyone slew the concept of slavery--but things really did get better, because folks labored for it. People chose to make a difference, and a few of those people were particularly noteworthy when doing so.