Worlds of Design: Escaping Tolkien

In my previous article we discussed technological differences; this article focuses on cultural differences. Perhaps the cultural differences aren’t as clear in one’s awareness, but can be very important and just as far-reaching. Don’t underestimate culture!

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Part of world building is figuring out the consequences of changes you make from the technological and cultural background that you start with. You always start with something. For example, there’s often an assumption that there are horses large enough to be ridden in the world, even though for thousands of years of real-world history, they weren’t large enough to ride.

Trapped by Tolkien​

Some world builders get “trapped by Tolkien” as I like to put it. They think elves must be like Tolkien’s (even though those aren’t traditional), dwarves must be like Tolkien’s, etc. Imagine elves with the capabilities of Tolkien’s, but inclined to be Imperials! It’s a change of culture only, but a mighty one. Imagine if dwarves and orcs tended to work together! Similarly, monstrous humanoids aren’t necessarily antagonistic towards humans and vice versa. These are cultural changes that can differentiate your fantasy world from so many others and while subtle, but they can make a big difference. Turn your imagination loose, don’t let it be constrained by a single author or book.

Magical Attitudes​

Attitudes toward magic make a big difference on how a setting works. In one setting the magic users may be the rock stars, while in another they may be dreaded and avoided shadowy figures; they can be as rare as professional athletes or an everyday occurrence.

Modern Attitudes​

It’s probably inevitable that modern attitudes will shape how game masters create their fantasy worlds. Using slavery as one example, whether or not it “makes sense” in a world must also be balanced by how it will be represented in the game. If you are going to take on mature topics for a fantasy world that has a long history similar to our world (including the unpleasant parts), you should consider how your players will deal with the topic.

Intentions​

I haven’t said much about intentional versus unintentional change to a fantasy world, because in the end it’s the change that matters, not the intention. I suppose you’re more likely to figure out what changes will occur, when you’re intending to introduce changes. But a world is a huge collection of interactions, and any change is likely to affect more than you intended.

Your Turn: In your experience, what was the change (from the “default”) in world-setting that made the biggest difference?

 

[Aldarc]

I understand and did not miss your point. You are missing the point that when D&D talks about gods, be it magic, classes, races, etc. they are discussing a religion. You are being dismissive of all the lore, all the spell descriptions, all symbolism, all history that involves the god, and therefore - their religion.

I hope you can understand that hand waving the thousands of pages of evidence because it not talking about the priest's tippet or amice is being short sighted.

Maybe you can give me something you think D&D lacks when discussing their religions. Then maybe I will better understand your side.

@Cadence does a good job giving you a rundown of what I am talking about.

This is not to say that religion is bad in all D&D settings - Eberron is a pretty good exception for a variety of reasons - but that religion is mostly an afterthought for most D&D. Consider, for example, that in Greyhawk "religion" wasn't really composed as an integral part of the setting. It came piece meal as Gygax began gradually introducing deities in his dungeon (e.g., St. Cuthbert, Hextor, Heironeous, etc.). It was mostly invented as he went along with a heavy dose of whimsy. Forgotten Realms was basically the world of a teenager who imagined gods from different mythologies finding their place in his world, but it also has the sort of religious depth that one would expect from a teenager as well whose understanding of ancient religions amounts to mostly a list of what gods they had.

For a better sense of D&D's deficiencies in religion, I would recommend taking a look into RuneQuest or Tekumel.

* In particular, Eberron creates religions that deal with possible worldviews that my stem from the world's mythos: e.g., avoiding the realm of the dead, the sacrifice of the couatls, eschatological apocalypse of the dream world, etc.

 

[Umbran]

Not to debate this because this ....

Mod Note:

Morrus very specifically and explicitly told folks to not respond further to this. When you also acknowledge that you shouldn't be debating it... you make it very difficult for us to overlook it.

Next time, resist the urge.

 

[VelvetViolet]

I think the easiest way to "escape Tolkien", if you feel so inclined, is to simply set one's world in a Greek, Egyptian or other non-Nordic, non-Celtic setting. That way, you can have satyrs and centaurs, for example, instead of halflings, elves, and dwarves. Another option would be an Arabian Nights type setting: humans, peris (Persian fey-like beings) and jinn.

Middle Earth isn't especially Nordic or Celtic. It certainly draws from it, but it lacks a lot of other trappings from Indo-European mythology. The elves and dwarves are archetypal figures in pre-Tolkien European folklore. Their original versions are lot scarier and surreal. Nobody argues that fairytales are trapped in Tolkien's shadow.

 

[Ravenbrook]

@Cadence does a good job giving you a rundown of what I am talking about.

This is not to say that religion is bad in all D&D settings - Eberron is a pretty good exception for a variety of reasons - but that religion is mostly an afterthought for most D&D. Consider, for example, that in Greyhawk "religion" wasn't really composed as an integral part of the setting. It came piece meal as Gygax began gradually introducing deities in his dungeon (e.g., St. Cuthbert, Hextor, Heironeous, etc.). It was mostly invented as he went along with a heavy dose of whimsy. Forgotten Realms was basically the world of a teenager who imagined gods from different mythologies finding their place in his world, but it also has the sort of religious depth that one would expect from a teenager as well whose understanding of ancient religions amounts to mostly a list of what gods they had.

For a better sense of D&D's deficiencies in religion, I would recommend taking a look into RuneQuest or Tekumel.

* In particular, Eberron creates religions that deal with possible worldviews that my stem from the world's mythos: e.g., avoiding the realm of the dead, the sacrifice of the couatls, eschatological apocalypse of the dream world, etc.

I think religion works well enough in D&D for what the game sets out to do. More depth probably isn't needed unless your players really want it. However, I've never come across any players that wanted more detail than is available in, say, the Greyhawk setting.

 

[Aldarc]

I think religion works well enough in D&D for what the game sets out to do. More depth probably isn't needed unless your players really want it. However, I've never come across any players that wanted more detail than is available in, say, the Greyhawk setting.

Sure, but I think it's important to recognize that it's fairly vestigial, and your second and third sentence does support that point. It's basically lip service to the fact that religion exists in some form or another, and this is fine for many people who play the game.

 

[Cadence]

I think religion works well enough in D&D for what the game sets out to do. More depth probably isn't needed unless your players really want it. However, I've never come across any players that wanted more detail than is available in, say, the Greyhawk setting.

Definitely. I play Clerics all the time, and don't need or want much more religion than the game has most of the time. When I world build I put more in... but more cosmology than religion I think.


But I agree with...

Sure, but I think it's important to recognize that it's fairly vestigial, and your second and third sentence does support that point. It's basically lip service to the fact that religion exists in some form or another, and this is fine for many people who play the game.

My only point was that D&D doesn't actually give much detail on Religion. Of course, thereare lots of other things it doesn't give lots of detail on, because D&D doesn't seem ot go heavy simulation at most tables. And that works just fine for me.
.

 

[Aldarc]

Definitely. I play Clerics all the time, and don't need or want much more religion than the game has most of the time. When I world build I put more in... but more cosmology than religion I think.

Clerics and druids are probably my most played classes in D&D by far. Partially because of the play style and partially because of the spiritual aspects that make for a great character/campaign hook.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I think the easiest way to "escape Tolkien", if you feel so inclined, is to simply set one's world in a Greek, Egyptian or other non-Nordic, non-Celtic setting. That way, you can have satyrs and centaurs, for example, instead of halflings, elves, and dwarves. Another option would be an Arabian Nights type setting: humans, peris (Persian fey-like beings) and jinn.

And then risk getting called out for cultural appropriation if you are not a member of one of those cultures, if recent pleathora of threads are of any indication, albeit that is an entirely different topic of discussion. This is particularly likely to occur if one's attempt at modeling said cultures is blatantly half-assed (again it's almost as people's objections are to bad and lazy writing on the part of authors).

Middle Earth isn't especially Nordic or Celtic. It certainly draws from it, but it lacks a lot of other trappings from Indo-European mythology. The elves and dwarves are archetypal figures in pre-Tolkien European folklore. Their original versions are lot scarier and surreal. Nobody argues that fairytales are trapped in Tolkien's shadow.

Precisely. Even the story of Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are arguably liberal retellings of Ring of the Nibelung. Thorin and his family (as well as Smaug's) obsession with gold is taken directly out of Nordic folklore in where dwarves become corrupted by their lust for gold or treasure and turn into dragons. Smaug is hands down modeled after Fafnir.

 

[MGibster]

It might not be important to your cleric players. Many of the ones I have played with it matters quite a bit.

I find it best practice to assume most posts in these threads are prefaced with “In my experience.” It’s great that religion has been a significant part of your gaming. In my experience, that is not the typical D&D experience with religion.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Precisely. Even the story of Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are arguably liberal retellings of Ring of the Nibelung. Thorin and his family (as well as Smaug's) obsession with gold is taken directly out of Nordic folklore in where dwarves become corrupted by their lust for gold or treasure and turn into dragons. Smaug is hands down modeled after Fafnir.

It's also related to Plato's Ring of Gyges.