D&D General Settings of Hope vs Settings of Despair

[Crimson Longinus]

Interesting thread!

Like many people have said, I think it is the best to avoid either extreme. I usually go somewhere in the middle, especially for a game like D&D. In D&D the characters routinely engage in lethal vigilante violence. If we want to present such people as even somewhat decent, this to me implies that the world cannot be quite OK. It means the world at large is brutal, chaotic and lacking in just and functional law enforcement. But there are also decent people, and they're worth defending.

But I often depict those in power as corrupt, weak or indifferent to some degree. There are no good kingdoms of goodness ruled by noble, just and wise kings and protected by shiny paladins of goodness. Because in addition of being nauseatingly boring, this is a poor setup for an adventure. The world needs to be a bit broken so that the characters have to be the ones to handle the things. And I like my worlds to be a bit punk this way. The decent people are more likely be the downtrodden and the outcasts, rather than the ones with most clout and authority.

I want my worlds feel real and have shades of grey. Not every conflict needs to be about clear good and evil, there should be nuance. And this also gives the players more agency on choosing sides. Though sometimes you just need proper villains too, and then the shades of grey come in play in choosing your allies, none of which are necessarily morally perfect either. And even though my belief in this certainly has been shaken when it comes to the real world, in my fiction most people have at least tiny bit of decency in them, and can be convinced to do the right thing once in a while; but often it needs the PCs to inspire or push them to do it.

 

[Staffan]

Note I mentioned strength AND mercy.

Frodo is strong enough to get it most of the way. And a good enough person to have a friend like Sam, to help him go the rest.
And yes, he fails at the end, but Frodo's mercy when tempted to get rid of a threat is what ultimately left Gollum alive, to play that final part.

Being a Good Person^TM and not giving up when things get hard, is what allows providence to provide in Tolkien's world.

Right, but the point is that Frodo was not the one who succeeded. It was luck – or if you prefer, providence.

In a way, the situation is similar to a Magic player who's finds themselves in a really bad situation because of matchup or whatever, and draws just the right niche card to fix things in this situation. You didn't earn that card draw, but you do get credit for being in a situation where it was at least possible for it to help you.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It worries me that you have to explicitely mention this, that would have been my default assumption!
Gonna lie: You're putting me in a setting of despair!

It's a way of expressing earnestness in the statement; it's equivalent to "I'm gonna level with you" or "to be honest". Does the use of adverbs like "honestly" or "frankly" indicate to you that that person would otherwise have lied?

Because--frankly--the truth is that yes, a lot of people DO lie about stuff along these lines. White lies. Polite lies. Gentle lies. Lies told to soften the blow, to extricate but not excoriate. Lies trying to aim at kindness, but (at least in my not-so-humble opinion) usually instead landing in manipulation.

So, "NGL" gets used, more or less as a signal that the speaker, in this case me, isn't going to sugar-coat things. It is an emphatic. The speaker is--I am--going to speak in full earnestness. Of course, I also believe that one needs to aim for speaking truth respectfully, an aim I have not done so well at reaching in the not too distant past. But I won't favor respectful speech so much that it requires saying something I believe untrue.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's a way of expressing earnestness in the statement; it's equivalent to "I'm gonna level with you" or "to be honest". Does the use of adverbs like "honestly" or "frankly" indicate to you that that person would otherwise have lied?

It's normal to assume that when someone says something to you, they are being honest. If they feel the need to state that they are being honest, it raises alarm bells. "If you are only being honest now, what about all that other stuff you said? If that wasn't honest, why should I believe you when you say you are being honest?"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

it apparently became popular when the assumption became that lying (even about trivialities) was the default position

Certainly. "Little white lies" became the de facto standard. They make up the bulk of small talk, which I find terribly tedious much of the time because--as noted--the vast majority of responses are straight-up falsehoods simply spoken so that you can be socially seen as recognizing others. A nod, a smile, a doffing of the hat? Plenty to achieve that goal. If I'm going to speak, I would prefer that it be, y'know, actually worth the listener's time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's normal to assume that when someone says something to you, they are being honest. If they feel the need to state that they are being honest, it raises alarm bells. "If you are only being honest now, what about all that other stuff you said? If that wasn't honest, why should I believe you when you say you are being honest?"

So you instantly suspect people have been lying to you if they ever use the word "Honestly..." to begin a sentence?

Seriously?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So you instantly suspect people have been lying to you if they ever use the word "Honestly..." to begin a sentence?

Seriously?

Yes. And many other people do to. Avoid it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes. And many other people do to. Avoid it.

So when I used "Certainly." above, you then instantly interpret everything else I've ever said as inherently uncertain? When I use "Hopefully", you assume that everything else I've said must have been in the pit of despair?

This is--frankly--ridiculous.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So when I used "Certainly." above, you then instantly interpret everything else I've ever said as inherently uncertain? When I use "Hopefully", you assume that everything else I've said must have been in the pit of despair?

No, because uncertain people are not trying to deceive you, so there is no reason they would say "certainly".

It's not only liars who use words like "truthfully" but it's a common tell.

Your choice of wording matters, and may have connotations you did not intend, especially on a multicultural forum.

 

[pemerton]

D&D's cosmology, unfortunately, with its Supremacy of Neutrality and lack of providence or final judgment, makes hope hard to find if you're looking beyond the immediate, and can make Good look foolish. Look at the hoops the Book of Exalted Deeds has to jump through to avoid 'ends justify the means' thinking in a cosmos where Good and Evil are equivalent poles and powers.

I've often made this point about Planescape.

But D&D doesn't have to be played with this sort of nihilistic cosmology.