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

[Doug McCrae]

if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion

Conan doesn't seem to have read Descartes.

Sure, he is highly intelligent. I see him as having all 18s, incidentally. But he uses his intelligence toward the simplest of ends, by my reading. The stories I've not read are all from the late period, once he's king, so maybe I'm putting too much store by his life as a young man, when he's ofc going to be more motivated by sex and money.

Belit and Conan is a meeting of the minds, yeah. They both love sex and treasure. Belit seems to have an almost hypnotically strong fascination for the latter.

 

[Klaus]

Conan doesn't seem to have read Descartes.

Sure, he is highly intelligent. I see him as having all 18s, incidentally. But he uses his intelligence toward the simplest of ends, by my reading. The stories I've not read are all from the late period, once he's king, so maybe I'm putting too much store by his life as a young man, when he's ofc going to be more motivated by sex and money.

Belit and Conan is a meeting of the minds, yeah. They both love sex and treasure. Belit seems to have an almost hypnotically strong fascination for the latter.

And Belit's return to defend Conan, in a valkyrie-like state, seem to indicate that yes, an afterlife of sorts does exist.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Okay, WHAT THE HELL DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL POST?

If you guys want to discuss Conan you should've started a completely different thread.

 

[Remathilis]

So the thread kinda degenerated into lit-geeks in loincloths vs. lit-geeks with elf-ears. Ok.

Ignoring LotR and Conan as the obvious "examples" of there genre (Cue 10 pages of "no they're not!") I do think its safe to say option 1 is classical high-fantasy inspired, the other is neo-classic sword-n-sorcery inspired.

Lets take the ideas and spin them a bit more.

Option 1 could be also viewed as chivalric. Noble knights, pious priests, good-hearted outlaws, fair maidens, evil dragons, wise kings, and ugly crone-witches. It could be viewed as a world like Mystara's Karameikos, the quintessential "good kingdom". Quests here are Grail quests; done to better the world against the forces of darkness who forever loom just out of reach in the dark places in the world.

Option 2 could be viewed as dark-age nihlism. Cruel tyrants, backstabbing thief guilds, assassins, gamblers, drunkards, shady merchants, prostitutes, and corrupt police all rule the places of "civilization" and people tollerate it because being out there with the bloodthirsty monsters is much worse. Magic, even that of divine nature, is feared and coverted at the same time. This is more AD&D/City of Greyhawk material, a world jaded by its own failings and unable to quite cope with the fact Man's time is nearly over here. Quests here are often done for personal gain in treasure and power, and if that makes the world a better place, that's a fringe benefit.

Camelot vs. Dying Earth. Middle Earth vs. Cimmeria, Oerth vs. Faerun. Hope vs. Cynicism.

Which world do you want to make your mark in?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Which world do you want to make your mark in?

Option 1 looks a little better. I think Arthurian is less played out, and weirder from a modern prespective. Good, weird ideas to be found in other medieval romances too.

However the material you presented in post #1 was poor imo, so I'd pick neither if that's all you had. Bad names, boring monsters, boring ideas.

Camelot vs. Dying Earth. Middle Earth vs. Cimmeria, Oerth vs. Faerun. Hope vs. Cynicism.

Out of those choices I'd pick Camelot and Dying Earth.

 

[Klaus]

So the thread kinda degenerated into lit-geeks in loincloths vs. lit-geeks with elf-ears. Ok.

Ignoring LotR and Conan as the obvious "examples" of there genre (Cue 10 pages of "no they're not!") I do think its safe to say option 1 is classical high-fantasy inspired, the other is neo-classic sword-n-sorcery inspired.

Lets take the ideas and spin them a bit more.

Option 1 could be also viewed as chivalric. Noble knights, pious priests, good-hearted outlaws, fair maidens, evil dragons, wise kings, and ugly crone-witches. It could be viewed as a world like Mystara's Karameikos, the quintessential "good kingdom". Quests here are Grail quests; done to better the world against the forces of darkness who forever loom just out of reach in the dark places in the world.

Option 2 could be viewed as dark-age nihlism. Cruel tyrants, backstabbing thief guilds, assassins, gamblers, drunkards, shady merchants, prostitutes, and corrupt police all rule the places of "civilization" and people tollerate it because being out there with the bloodthirsty monsters is much worse. Magic, even that of divine nature, is feared and coverted at the same time. This is more AD&D/City of Greyhawk material, a world jaded by its own failings and unable to quite cope with the fact Man's time is nearly over here. Quests here are often done for personal gain in treasure and power, and if that makes the world a better place, that's a fringe benefit.

Camelot vs. Dying Earth. Middle Earth vs. Cimmeria, Oerth vs. Faerun. Hope vs. Cynicism.

Which world do you want to make your mark in?

I those terms, Option 1 is more appealing than it was originally. It could be made even better if you sprikled it liberally with classic folkloric stuff (dwarves and elves closer to their Norse origins, goliaths as Norse troll-blooded humans, etc).

 

[Raven Crowking]

As the options are written above, Option 1 becomes appealing.

However, neither Middle Earth vs. Cimmeria or Oerth vs. Faerun = Hope vs. Cynicism.

 

[Philosopher]

So the thread kinda degenerated into lit-geeks in loincloths vs. lit-geeks with elf-ears. Ok.

I wouldn't call that a degeneration, but I'm glad you've pulled it back on topic.

Option 1 could be also viewed as chivalric. Noble knights, pious priests, good-hearted outlaws, fair maidens, evil dragons, wise kings, and ugly crone-witches. It could be viewed as a world like Mystara's Karameikos, the quintessential "good kingdom". Quests here are Grail quests; done to better the world against the forces of darkness who forever loom just out of reach in the dark places in the world.

Option 2 could be viewed as dark-age nihlism. Cruel tyrants, backstabbing thief guilds, assassins, gamblers, drunkards, shady merchants, prostitutes, and corrupt police all rule the places of "civilization" and people tollerate it because being out there with the bloodthirsty monsters is much worse. Magic, even that of divine nature, is feared and coverted at the same time. This is more AD&D/City of Greyhawk material, a world jaded by its own failings and unable to quite cope with the fact Man's time is nearly over here. Quests here are often done for personal gain in treasure and power, and if that makes the world a better place, that's a fringe benefit.

This is a very different choice from the one you originally presented. But I enjoy both of these options as well, and still have no preference either way.

However, neither Middle Earth vs. Cimmeria or Oerth vs. Faerun = Hope vs. Cynicism.

Indeed. I think there are a number of different dichotomies at play here, many of which tend to overlap, or at least bear similarities, but are not identical.

 

[haakon1]

Which option is this:

The last great human kingdom was sundered centuries ago. Humanity exists in isolated pockets of civilzation, while other races also keep to themselves. Undead stalk the abandoned boneyards of old, while pirates prowl the coasts. The coutryside is dotted with ruins of golden ages, now filled with demonic horrors and evil beings. Forests are haunted places where men dare not enter. Mountains are the hunting grounds of savage giants and covetous dragons.

Answer:Lord of the Rings, which is Option 2 rather than Option 1.

Lord of the Rings without the Shire and Rivendell isn't Middle Earth. Having something worth fighting for a key concept that Option 1 has, and Option 2 doesn't seem to.

 

[haakon1]

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.

Put it in its historical context. Tolkien wasn't writing his English mythology to be anti-black, anti-Irish, or anti-anybody else. He was writing it because, as scholar of Anglo-Saxon literature, he saw that something had been lost to history, and wanted to create something to fill in the blank. He was creating an English language equivalent to the Icelandic sagas or the Finnish Kalevala, to fill out the lost English world you can glimpse in Beowulf or Sir Gawain and Green Knight.

It's very much in the context of late 19th century romantic nationalism. You hear "race" or "nationalism" and think of oppression and jackboots, that it means hating the other. I think of the revolutions of 1848, when European romantic nationalist and liberals were overthrowing the multiethnic empires of old, to set up self-ruling nation states. To me, Hungary for the Hungarians, Finland for the Finns, etc. wasn't evilly fascist, but progressive -- and it was both a political and artistic movement, with rediscovery of folk art, folk music, and pre-Christian mythology that had been considered backward and were endangered at the time. It's closer to the "locavore" movement than fascism . . .