Tropes that need to die

[Zelda Themelin]

CUT....

"

...and thus 3e was born.

And you got very reason why I like 3rd edition.

 

[WizarDru]

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.

I thought the entire point of the OP was the the very concept of graveyards needs to die in D&D because it's a trope, particularly in that adventurers often find themselves travelling to them to fight the undead. His argument was that given that undead can and DO happen in a fantasy setting, the very act of having a graveyard was a nonsensical idea that needs to die.

A lot of folks have responded to that with a variety of logical explanations why that would be. RC's specific point, from what I got, was that the idea that undead happen means there should be no graveyard doesn't make sense, because historically most cultures believed that the dead could return as the undead (hence the variety of what WE NOW call myths, which they called reality) and THEY STILL HAD GRAVEYARDS. Further, that the REASON they had those graveyards was PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of the supposed trope...i.e. that they existed to PREVENT the rise of undead that might otherwise occur. That the dead do not actually rise has no bearing on the validity of graveyards, only the perception of their effectiveness.

Every culture has it's specific burial or corpse-disposal rituals. Often informed by practical realities (such as burning a corpse in a hot, wet climate or burying it in a cold one), these rituals have a lot of importance beyond just hiding the body or even just preventing undead. The very notion of a graveyard is not, IMHO, a trope. Now, the notion of a town where people have started to disappear around a graveyard and they soon discover the dead have risen? Sure, I'll give you that. I don't see it as something needing to die, however.

But that same graveyard could be the place where the exorcist leads his line of hopping vampires to be returned to the earth. It could be the place where the paladin's virtuous ghost rises from the defend the town. It could be the place the mad wizard steals parts from to build his masterpiece. It could be a place of final rest, where spirits are freed from torment or a place of remembrance where heroes come to respect the fallen or loved ones long gone (who may return at their grave to grant solace or advice). The graveyard can take many forms. But a trope? If it is one, it's one I'll gladly keep.

 

[Diamond Cross]

No, revisionist is when a person doesn't like something so they change it.

For example, people who write history. There's very little truly objective history out there, and people write it according to how they think it should be. Such as Abraham Lincoln, if he's a villain or a Saint.

 

[Mark Chance]

We do not know how strong Grendel actually is; although we are told that Beowulf is the strongest human there is, we don't really know how strong that is, either. Nor do we know enough about Grendel's anatomy to know how weak or strong his shoulder joints are. It is indicated, though, that Grendel's attempt to get away, combined with Beowulf's attempt to hold him fast, rip his arm and shoulder off.

We've got a very good idea about how strong Grendel is. He carries off multiple victims at once, toting them to his lair to feast upon. Grendel is superhumanly strong, and so is Beowulf. The epic is clear on this, even if it isn't explicitly stated.

 

[Raven Crowking]

We've got a very good idea about how strong Grendel is. He carries off multiple victims at once, toting them to his lair to feast upon. Grendel is superhumanly strong, and so is Beowulf. The epic is clear on this, even if it isn't explicitly stated.

Sorry, but this is not clear at all. The translator, AFAICT, has to make a guess as to how to read the passage. In fact, what is actually clear in Beowulf is that Grendel consumes at least one man in the hall, the Geat who dies before Beowulf acts.....Grendel's mother, who is described as being stronger, carries one man away.

The door bursts in when Grendel touches it with his nails, but it is unclear whether this is intended to be supernatural, or due to strength.


RC

 

[Thasmodious]

I thought the entire point of the OP was the the very concept of graveyards needs to die in D&D because it's a trope, particularly in that adventurers often find themselves travelling to them to fight the undead. His argument was that given that undead can and DO happen in a fantasy setting, the very act of having a graveyard was a nonsensical idea that needs to die.

A lot of folks have responded to that with a variety of logical explanations why that would be. RC's specific point, from what I got, was that the idea that undead happen means there should be no graveyard doesn't make sense, because historically most cultures believed that the dead could return as the undead (hence the variety of what WE NOW call myths, which they called reality) and THEY STILL HAD GRAVEYARDS. Further, that the REASON they had those graveyards was PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of the supposed trope...i.e. that they existed to PREVENT the rise of undead that might otherwise occur. That the dead do not actually rise has no bearing on the validity of graveyards, only the perception of their effectiveness.

Yes. I agree with Mr. Crowking's point. I believe I xp'ed him for it several pages ago. I'm not sure where the disconnect is. It seems you are arguing against something I said, but I'm not sure what that is?

No, revisionist is when a person doesn't like something so they change it.

For example, people who write history.

I'm talking about revisionism as it applies to genre theory. It's a specific term about a specific thing. "Revisionist history" is something different. For example, one of the greatest revisionist westerns is Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, a brilliant film that plays with the western form, the genre, to make a powerful anti-violence film. He challenges the notions of the classic western (paladin gunfighters roaming the west righting wrongs, bloodless shootings, etc) by making the gun violence in the film as stark and brutal as possible. He, like Eastwood later with Unforgiven, directs with full knowledge of the classic western, challenging its assumptions and using its conventions in new ways.

 

[Janx]

You are talking about real world religions that are trying to justify tradition or a new set of rules. One cannot use real world logic when talking about fantasy worlds because in DnD the Gods really do tell you what they do and dont like.

The graveyard trope is just illogical. In a world where the undead exist it makes no sense that graveyards ever came into being. To make things worse not only are there graveyards but they are often right in town.

It makes more sense in a world with undead that graveyards were never ever created and the very concept would sound pointlessly dangerous. Also it would make sense that clerics who worship gods that fight undead would very much be against any sort of graveyard. They are risk that does not need to be taken.

Um. Wood dude. England darn near ran out of trees burning their dead. Burial takes less wood than burning.

Besides, I don't know where your PCs live, but I've never seen that many problems with graveyards (if any). Now vampires...

 

[Mark Chance]

Sorry, but this is not clear at all. The translator, AFAICT, has to make a guess as to how to read the passage. In fact, what is actually clear in Beowulf is that Grendel consumes at least one man in the hall, the Geat who dies before Beowulf acts.....Grendel's mother, who is described as being stronger, carries one man away.

Lines 120-125, Seamus Heaney translation:

".... Suddenly then
the God-cursed brute was creating havoc:
greedy and grim, he grabbed thirty men
from their resting places and rushed to his lair,
flushed up and inflamed from the raid,
blundering back with the butchered corpses."

Grendel carries off nearly three dozen man. You figure 150 pounds a man, and that's a bit over two tons. Grendel is superhumanly strong, and Beowulf matches him in a wrestling match.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I can't actually remember a lot of mythic or literary influences where the wizards/spell slingers were as well, over the top as the typical high level D&D mage.

Lord of the rings and the hobbit basically have Gandalf not just solving every problem via magic simply because he doesn't want to. Admittedly he's got a really good reason for not wanting to. The closest any of the martial characters come to that is simply that they wield immense political power.

 

[Hussar]

The biggest problem with trying to define the "fantastic" is the people's definitions will vary more based on their own particular biases than any sort of objective view. Which makes sense since fantastic is pretty vague.

A hobbit can hide a short distance away from one of the most powerful beings in Middle Earth and not be found. Fantastic? A hobbit can resist the most powerful artifact, the one that destroys even the elves. Fantastic? Depends on how you define things.

From a D&D perspective though, the problem is, fighters and the non-magic types become essentially Muggles in a Harry Potter Universe as soon as the casters hit any significant levels. Conan, in a Harry Potter world, wouldn't last ten seconds against children, considering what students can do in that world. And that's what (at least 3e and 4e) casters become in D&D.

But, if you allow the non-magic types to be fantastic - James Bond, Conan (yes, I do consider Conan fantastic), Batman, that sort of thing - not magical in the special effects way, but still far beyond normal human, then it works a great deal better, IMO.