Which of these games would you rather play (and why)?

[Bold or Stupid]

Option 2 as it didn't include the phrase goodly people, I hate the idea that all the elves and dwarves are good and all the orcs are bad.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Good points regarding the Hobbit, which is a lot closer to Gygaxian D&D than the Lord of the Rings, and also the Frost Giant's Daughter - reading your quotes it does look a lot like an enchantment.

Yup.

However I must still disagree with you regarding the level of cynicism to be found in Conan versus Tolkien's works as a whole. There is no sexual desire in Tolkien, just romantic love, and mostly no women at all.

Wait a sec....There are some odd things going on here.

Do you equate sexual desire with cynicism? I certainly do not!

And there certainly is sexual desire -- including a pursuit very reminiscent (though more happily resolved) of that in The Frost Giant's Daughter. You can find it in The Silmarilion (sp?) or I can quote it if you doubt. There is also rape, although it happens "off stage", during the Fall of Gondolin.

The women Conan meets are both princesses and dancing girls.

Conan's motivations are a lot more complex than you suggest, and there are fewer Conan stories where the "treasure hoard is the plot driving macguffin" than otherwise. Personal honor is often a driving force in Conan stories, as is revenge, because Conan is often a leader of men. Again, perhaps you are thinking of the pastiches....particularly those of deCamp......which turned other REH stories into "Conan" stories.

It is true that we meet Conan at various points in his life. He is not born being the man he becomes.

Contrary to the typical understanding of the character, when we first meet Conan, in the very first Conan story, he is concerned with the maps of Aquilonia, and is trying to correct their maps of the regions to the north, where he has travelled. His primary concern is being a wise and just ruler; his primary plot motive is preventing his enemies from killing him so as to gain the throne themselves.

One might say, "In Conan, beings from other worlds are demons or Cthulhoid horrors. There are no angels. There is no heaven, but there is a hell.", but the person who did so wouldn't be accurate. Conan's world is not monotheistic, but there are definitely good supernatural beings who care for thier worshipers. Again, one appears in the very first Conan story, The Phoenix on the Sword.

Howard's overwhelming idea -- present in much of his fantasy writing, regardless of subgenre -- was that history largely consists of civilizations being built up, and then destroyed by the harder men at the fringes who don't gain the primary benefits of civilization. He did not applaud it, but he thought it true. His primary heroes (Conan, Kull, Solomon Kane, El Borak, etc.) are all "hard men" who nonetheless use thier power to do good....to stave off the eventual collapse. They are all driven by things they don't understand, including an instinctive grasp of justice. Howard proposes that civilization, in and of itself, tends to blunt justice for expediency.

There are also several stories dealing with racial memory or reincarnation, where it is supposed that the sins of past lives must be dealt with eventually....ultimately there is no free lunch. Injustices always have to be paid for; goodness is always eventually rewarded.

JRRT also relies upon the idea of cycles of civilization. Where a person in Conan's time might look back to the days of "Shining Atlantis", a person in Frodo's time might look back to Numenor.

Both JRRT's heroes and REH's are moved by forces beyond thier understanding. Where JRRT's heroes differ most from REH's is that JRRT's heroes are heroic because they know their place in the scheme of things, and are ready and willing to serve. REH's, on the other hand, are actively trying to better themselves, but are willing to die for a just cause. That active betterment supplies a motivation, but it inevitably and invariably takes a back seat whenever there is a choice concerning justice.

In LotR, Boromir falls because he doesn't know his place -- Faramir was intended as one of the Fellowship. Denethor falls because he doesn't know his place -- he is Steward, not King. Saruman falls because he doesn't know his place -- he is to serve Middle Earth, not rule it. Even Morgoth falls because he doesn't know his place, and attempts to control the Music of Anwe.

In REH, lots of people know their place. Those people are not heroes, because they are not proactive.

Should a hero serve the vision of others or seek actively to promote his ideal of justice? This, more than anything else, differentiates JRRT and REH.

It also differentiates the choices in this poll. Option 1 seems, to me, to suborn the choices of the players to the vision of the DM, whereas Option 2 seems (again, to me) to present an unjust world and ask the players just what they think they should do about it.

Finally I would ask - do you think this is pandering to any base instincts?

I don't blame the writer for someone else's interpretation. Or would it be fair to judge LotR by the Rankin & Bass Return of the King?

Or should I just provide quote after quote from story after story to demonstrate my point? The Conan you describe is not the Conan REH wrote.


RC

 

[Remathilis]

It also differentiates the choices in this poll. Option 1 seems, to me, to suborn the choices of the players to the vision of the DM, whereas Option 2 seems (again, to me) to present an unjust world and ask the players just what they think they should do about it.

I think you're selling Option 1 short because it sets up a "metaplot" that the PCs may or may-not be active in.

Setting a campaign against the backdrop of a war is no different than setting it against a dying nation, a vibrant Renaissance, or a zombie apocalypse. While the initial call to the PCs is to step up and defend their home, I can cite hundreds of stories written that while taking place in a war, have little to do WITH the war. Similarly, you could adventure in this world of clashing forces, border-guards, sacked outposts, and political unease without ever joining the army.

Two has a metaplot, its just less obvious. Option two is a world already fallen; it COULD be Option 1 after a devastating loss. The PCs are survivors of the catastrophe and must find a place in it. People are more fearful and cynical than the world in Option 1; the good times are gone. Humanity (and other common races) are on their last legs. Chaos and/or Evil rule; even humanities great "bastion of hope" is a city ruled by a tyrant (trading Chaos and Evil for Law and Evil is only a slight improvement). The PCs have a choice; fix this world (somehow) or merely survive in it long enough to get rich.

At the end of the day, both involve making a positive change OR merely trying to make your way through the world despite its current condition. The difference: Option 1 presents a world of Optimism; there are good things in the world and they are worth fighting for. Option 2 presents a world of Cynocism; things are terrible, so you might as well get what you can from it.

The PCs, of course, are free to accept/reject either of these overlaying opinions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you're selling Option 1 short because it sets up a "metaplot" that the PCs may or may-not be active in.

Of course I am. You are absolutely right.

But experience has shown me that most GMs who introduce big, obvious metaplots do so because they wish the action to follow the big, obvious metaplot.

That doesn't have to be universally true. It is true enough, though, to make me sell such an option short almost as a matter of reflex.



RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

Again, perhaps you are thinking of the pastiches....particularly those of deCamp......which turned other REH stories into "Conan" stories.

I've never read de Camp. I've read most of REH's Conan, tho not Conan the Conqueror/The Hour of the Dragon, one issue of the 70s Marvel comic and I think I saw the Swarzenegger movie a while back. The vast majority of my Conan knowledge comes from Howard.

Do you equate sexual desire with cynicism? I certainly do not!

Part of being a cynic is to believe the motives of others to be base. I admit that normally higher motives have to be professed and that's not the case in Conan, he seems to be honest about what drives him.

In the very stories you quote, The Frost Giant's Daughter and the Tower of Elephant, the driving motives are base - sex and money. Conan wants to steal the gem called the Elephant's Heart and to have sex with Ymir's daughter. Her brothers wish to take grisly trophies for their father. It's primitive, lizard brain stuff. Tbh, money is the most sophisticated motive here.

there are definitely good supernatural beings who care for thier worshipers. Again, one appears in the very first Conan story, The Phoenix on the Sword.

The Phoenix on the Sword is a weird one, REH hadn't nailed the formula yet and it has some un-Conanish features such as assistance of the wise old, Gandalf-like figure, Epemitreus to which I think you are alluding. There's talk of destiny and Fate which is also very un-Conan. In the other stories he wins mostly unaided, and his victory is contingent, not fated.

Howard's overwhelming idea -- present in much of his fantasy writing, regardless of subgenre -- was that history largely consists of civilizations being built up, and then destroyed by the harder men at the fringes who don't gain the primary benefits of civilization.

Yeah, his writing is full of decadent types from decaying civilizations, and also totally primitive beings such as ape-men, who are always depicted as a very potent physical threat. His ideal man does seem to be partway between the two extremes, Conan, who is more advanced than an ape-man, but more primitive than most 'civilized' folk.

However that in itself leads to baser, more animalistic motives. The best that can be found in the world of Conan, the very best and noblest the world has to offer, is Conan himself - a thief, a reaver, a slayer. Someone motivated largely by primitive desires such as sex, food and physical safety. Someone who responds to perceived threats with aggression, with physical violence. Money is the only fruit of civilization he really wants.

This is what I mean by a cynical world view. In the texts Howard does not respect higher pursuits. Spirituality is either primitive superstition, or the pursuit of swarthy high priests with depraved lusts. The gods are not worth following anyway, most of them are Lovecraftian horrors or uncaring, like Crom. Art, science, learning are not the paths to success, the barbarian is king. That Conan is working on a map in Phoenix is a rarity, the same story tells us his true nature - “these matters of statecraft weary me as all the fighting I have done never did.” Conan is no administrator, he is a natural killer. Like many heroes in adventure fiction.

Sure, Conan has a few uncharacteristically emo moments, as in your quote from the Tower of the Elephant. But after that it's back to the killing, looting and whoring.

I don't blame the writer for someone else's interpretation.

It shows us what the readers want, and that's what's in the stories. Lowest common denominator crap. Sex and violence. Cheap thrills. Pure pulp.

 

[Doug McCrae]

One could see REH's Conan tales as visceral, and Tolkien's LotR as spiritual. Polar opposites in this respect.

In Conan, the human body is described in detail, lovingly. The male and female leads are often almost, or even completely, naked, their pantherish sinews and lithe forms fully on display. Like the hero, the stories are physical, not intellectual. Action, adventure, chases and, above all, fights. The wounds are unrealistically gory, and frequently described - “Ribs and shoulder-bone parted and blood spouted from the great gash.” “spurting blood hideously” “Blood gushed from that terrible gash in his breast.” This is in the space of five paragraphs, and describing the same wound!

The body is Conan's domain, not the mind. He is motivated by the most primitive of urges - sex, vittles. He needs money so it can be spent fulfilling these desires.

It's lurid violent escapist nonsense, written for a lowest common denominator Depression era audience understandably seeking momentary escape from their everyday lives.

Tolkien otoh was writing primarily for himself and also the Inklings, a posse of Oxbridge nerds. He wished to create an Anglo-Saxon mythology that would have been had the Normans not invaded. The language is Biblical. The world itself is the main focus, the landscape, rather than the body. But, as in myth, it is a metaphorical landscape. There isn't that much overt religion in the story, but as Tolkien himself says, “The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”

That was Tolkien's aim. Though I feel that what comes across most strongly in the text is his hatred of modernity.

 

[Philosopher]

Both JRRT's heroes and REH's are moved by forces beyond thier understanding. Where JRRT's heroes differ most from REH's is that JRRT's heroes are heroic because they know their place in the scheme of things, and are ready and willing to serve. REH's, on the other hand, are actively trying to better themselves, but are willing to die for a just cause. That active betterment supplies a motivation, but it inevitably and invariably takes a back seat whenever there is a choice concerning justice.

In LotR, Boromir falls because he doesn't know his place -- Faramir was intended as one of the Fellowship. Denethor falls because he doesn't know his place -- he is Steward, not King. Saruman falls because he doesn't know his place -- he is to serve Middle Earth, not rule it. Even Morgoth falls because he doesn't know his place, and attempts to control the Music of Anwe.

Raven Crowking - Your posts on this topic have been excellent, good analysis of REH and JRRT. This passage that I've just quoted is precisely why I prefer Howard's style to Tolkien's.

The Hyborian Age is often judged as more cynical than Middle Earth, I think, because REH merely acknowledged the existence of money, sex, and power as motivators. You are correct that these were not the only motivations present in his characters. If anything, I find it more cynical to not acknowledge these motivations, as it implies that what motivates most people in some form or other is "bad".

Part of being a cynic is to believe the motives of others to be base.

It involves the belief that base motives are the sole or primary motivations. I'm not convinced that this is being portrayed in REH.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In LotR, Boromir falls because he doesn't know his place -- Faramir was intended as one of the Fellowship. Denethor falls because he doesn't know his place -- he is Steward, not King. Saruman falls because he doesn't know his place -- he is to serve Middle Earth, not rule it. Even Morgoth falls because he doesn't know his place, and attempts to control the Music of Anwe.

Interesting. And identical to Moorcock's analysis of LotR as deeply reactionary. The essay is in the collection, Wizardry and Wild Romance, entitled 'Epic Pooh'.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Doug,

I am enjoying this conversation, but it is a tangent. I'll fork it next week, if you are interested, and go through the REH Conan stories one by one. I think your analysis, above, misses something essential in the Conan stories. You may discover more clothing than you expected (and certainly much more than most artists depicted), deeper motivations that exist in the face of a world that doesn't make those motives as easy to hold on the surface -- but ultimately rewards them, a far more cereberal Conan than you realize, and more.

A comparison of the use of Fate in the works of JRRT and REH, btw, would make excellent reading.....They are not as far apart as you seem to think!


RC

 

[Philosopher]

One could see REH's Conan tales as visceral, and Tolkien's LotR as spiritual. Polar opposites in this respect.

In Conan, the human body is described in detail, lovingly. The male and female leads are often almost, or even completely, naked, their pantherish sinews and lithe forms fully on display. Like the hero, the stories are physical, not intellectual.

If the visceral nature of REH's tales implies that they are not intellectual, then the spiritual nature of JRRT's tales implies that they are even less so.

Conan did not typically pursue intellectual matters, but it is not the case that he never considered the meaning of it all.

"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." - Queen of the Black Coast

Yes, he mentions slaying, but what contents him is not entirely base. He lives (who says life itself is base?), he burns with life (he has passion), he loves (sure you can read this as "base", but given the love that grows between him and Belit in this story, I can't buy that). And look at the second sentence: "I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me." That's pretty sophisticated for a savage who only cares about money and sex. He has a reason for not pursuing intellectual topics. You may not agree with him (I don't), but he isn't merely being base.

Tolkien otoh was writing primarily for himself and also the Inklings, a posse of Oxbridge nerds. He wished to create an Anglo-Saxon mythology that would have been had the Normans not invaded. The language is Biblical. The world itself is the main focus, the landscape, rather than the body. But, as in myth, it is a metaphorical landscape. There isn't that much overt religion in the story, but as Tolkien himself says, “The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”

That was Tolkien's aim. Though I feel that what comes across most strongly in the text is his hatred of modernity.

Creating an Anglo-Saxon mythology to what end? So that he has a mythological narrative for his race. Wanting a mythology for one's racial in-group is not the noblest of pursuits. It can easily be linked to base tribalism. I don't mean this as a criticism of Tolkien (racism was certainly also a theme found in Howard), I just don't see your description as raising Tolkien to a higher level.