Tropes that need to die

[JacktheRabbit]

What's put me off is the reports that all civilisation is evil and only the barbarians are pure and good.

Not an accurate description of the stories at all. The Picts, who are even more barbaric than Conan's fellow Cimmerians are described as disgusting beasts full of perversions.

Also Conan has a habit of hanging out in the underside of society. It would be like following around a gangbanger on the south side of Chicago and using what he does and what he sees to make an accurate determination on our society.

 

[Celebrim]

What's put me off is the reports that all civilisation is evil and only the barbarians are pure and good.

This is a Western Civilization Trope that definately traces back to at least the Roman Republic, and arguably all the way back to Classical Greece. In other words, it's as Old As Dirt. It's hard to find Western Civilization without finding someone moaning that we were all better off and more moral before we back civilized.

 

[AllisterH]

There's also the weird belief I have that high level magic (spell levels 7 to 9) was never intended to be used in a normal game...

Reason why I think this is because the original high level module, a module where you go into the Abyss and kill a god should be a prime example of what the original D&D designers thought high level would be like.

Queen of the Demonweb pits though is only for levels 10-14....


So, if you're killing a goddess at level 13, exactly what were you supposed to be doing at level 15+?

As well, I distinctly remember Gygax talking about his games and himmentioning that all of his players at high levels were rnning high level spellcasters and would have henchmen/hireling figters that the players would run as well,,,

Kind of like Ars Magica troupe play...

 

[jonesy]

So, if you're killing a goddess at level 13, exactly what were you supposed to be doing at level 15+?

Whatever it was that Doctor Manhattan did after the comic ended.

 

[Thasmodious]

But after nearly 20 years of D&D, it has become such a staple, astute players and GMs start to deconstruct the idea and wonder, like OP has done, why anyone would want to have a graveyard when it is the main source of undead.

I never thought about this before, but it seems genre theory can apply to tropes from the genres as well. Specifically, I mean the stages - primitive, classical, revisionist, parody.

Take our graveyard trope for example. The primitive stage of the trope would be the early literature and film in which undead came from graveyards or creepy dudes stole bodies from the graveyard for nefarious purposes (Frankenstein, Dracula, White Zombie, etc). Folklore held such myths, but seeing them brought to life through literature and film would be the primitive exploration/creation of the trope.

I think, for the most part, we don't get to experience the primitive stage in our gaming, as these things are only tropes we take to the game table after the trope has "matured" past that stage.

But classical graveyard, yeah, a lot of us have done that. Undead plaguing the town, mysterious noises from the graveyard on the hill at night, underground burrows beneath, all those trappings that are part and parcel to the trope.

Then there's the revisionist stage - such as we've been discussing here, cultures changing their death rituals due to the existence of undead, a populace, both PC and NPC well aware of the undead's existence, the types, how they are made, and steps to take to minimize the threat. And, too, DMs devious ways to get around the trope - the graveyard as sanctuary (because its hallowed ground), the undead menace having a non-graveyard source, the undead being raised as soldiers or guards by the town, etc. In film (TV) Buffy is a good example of a revisionist graveyard (and parody sometimes). It is numerous things in Sunnydale, information source (good guys doing the grave robbing, hunting for ancient scrolls and relics); the haunt of allies, informants, and villains; hang out spot; set piece for romantic, emotional or developmental character scenes; action setpiece; pretty much all things for all people.

The parody stage would be represented by things like RPGs featuring undead, good guy PCs, or interesting, tongue-in-cheek undead NPCs (the Hogwarts ghosts, for example; the Death Day party was pretty brilliant), undead or graveyard encounters as comic relief.

I agree with lin_fusan that the great thing about tropes is that they can be deconstructed, contextually, for a wealth of gaming opportunities, and that's why old tropes should never die.

 

[AllisterH]

Well, it can be extended to more than just the "undead/cemetery" angle..

Take the classic Light spell...In 3.x, given the relative ease of magic, why weren't most cities lit up like Vegas?

The OP is actually starting to think about the "rules as gameworld physics" (which is a view I personally tend to shy away from BECAUSE you end up with these sort questions)

 

[The_Gneech]

What's put me off is the reports that all civilisation is evil and only the barbarians are pure and good.

Actually, it's not a good/evil axis. The actual theme behind REH's work is that civilization can't last, not that it's evil ... I don't think there's anything in there that's held up as "good." The best you can hope for is to enjoy what fleeting time you have before your flame is snuffed out.

REH was not a cheerful guy.

-The Gneech

 

[Raven Crowking]

The thing is, as I've read Justin Alexander outline in detail, level 5 in 3.X is about the human maximum in the real world. The wizard gains power at a more than linear rate past that point. What do you want the fighter to do?

The fighter? I expect the reader to realize that the model you just described is not only not the only possible model, but also not necessarily the best model for all (or even the majority) of people.

What's put me off is the reports that all civilisation is evil and only the barbarians are pure and good.

I would refer you back to the source, then. You are sure to find it more informative than he-said, she-said.

I started a thread some time back (http://www.enworld.org/forum/media-...jrrt-comparative-exploration-their-works.html) which may be of interest to you. It is no substitute for reading the stories, though. And I have been somewhat remiss on getting an examination of the next Conan story up.

Not an accurate description of the stories at all. The Picts, who are even more barbaric than Conan's fellow Cimmerians are described as disgusting beasts full of perversions.

I wouldn't say that. The picts eventually become such in Howard's mythos, but that is long after the time of Conan. In Conan's era, the picts are savage, but neither better or worse than other peoples. More dangerous, perhaps, than many! In Kull's era, a pict becomes Kull's closest friend.

Also Conan has a habit of hanging out in the underside of society. It would be like following around a gangbanger on the south side of Chicago and using what he does and what he sees to make an accurate determination on our society.

Again, I would be careful of that assessment. Conan spans societies over his travels and adventures. He is, at times, a pirate, a thief, a king, a general, consort to princesses, and a leader of hard men. Conan doesn't shun people on the basis of social class, nor does social class particularly impress him.

I think we get a pretty good overview of the Hyborian Age through REH's Conan adventures.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Then there's the revisionist stage - such as we've been discussing here, cultures changing their death rituals due to the existence of undead, a populace, both PC and NPC well aware of the undead's existence, the types, how they are made, and steps to take to minimize the threat.

That's not revisionist -- that's what people in the real world thought/did. They believed that undead existed, and they believed that they were aware of the existence of the undead. They therefore implimented death rituals intended to placate the dead and/or prevent the dead from rising and/or move the spirits of the dead onto other rewards.

Unless, for example, Hamlet, should be considered revisionist, or Dracula, or centuries of folklore.

"Revisionism" IMHO arises only when the original intent is forgotten. We forget why graveyards exist, so they become only convenient places for storing bodies. Then, one looks at the threat and says "Why not burn 'em?" That is revisionism -- it revises the original purpose, reimagines it to be something else, and then wonders why it no longer seems to make sense.

I would say:

(1) Primitive: I know undead exist, and I take steps to placate/bind/move the dead on their way to the next world.

(2) Classic: The primitive rituals become formalized. While I still know the undead exist, I might no longer know what the relationship between the ritual and the placating/binding/moving the dead on is.

(3) Revisionism: I no longer believe in undead, and I know longer understand the reasons behind the rituals. Therefore, my mind tries to fill in the gaps, and things don't seem to make sense anymore.

(4) Parody: I now make fun of how things don't seem to make sense anymore.

You know, this topic makes me think I should do an Undead thread similar to the one I created for Faerie Encounters..........



RC

 

[Thasmodious]

That's not revisionist -- that's what people in the real world thought/did. They believed that undead existed, and they believed that they were aware of the existence of the undead. They therefore implimented death rituals intended to placate the dead and/or prevent the dead from rising and/or move the spirits of the dead onto other rewards.

We're talking about the genre, the trope, not real life. So, yes, that's the revision. Don't confuse the two (fantasy/reality). The stories based on the myths created the trope. Your list applies just fine to our real world death rituals, but that's not what I was discussing.

"Revisionism" IMHO arises only when the original intent is forgotten.

Thorough knowledge of the subject is required to revise the subject. That's why it's called revisionism and not forgot-it-ism.