Following a discussion on the 'No wrong way to play D&D mentality', (link), I have been wondering about the viability of flawed protagonists in a true high fantasy game. In my personal opinion, the two are, if not mutually exclusive, at least hard to make co-exist. This is because of one of the foundations of high fantasy- the objective morality. Put simply, if the heroes are fighting an objectively Evil villain, the assumption can be made that they are objectively Good, in the sense of acting to lower the total Evil in the world. If that is the case, it severely limits the possibility for moral relativism, meaning there cannot be a real argument made for the characters being evil. In my campaigns, this is a crucial point, as the more inhumane tactics are often far more effective, but lead to the players being reviled for their actions, meaning they have to dance the knife edge between being a complete monster and simply being too good to be effective. I personally cannot see how flawed protagonists of this sort can exist in a high fantasy game, but I could be wrong. Anyone got any points to make?
I can see this discussion turning into a quagmire quickly, mostly over definitions, but what the heck.
The enemies in "high fantasy" are often so unredeemable that there are no methods that can be used against them that would cause any revulsion. Take orcs in LotR: as far as I can tell, there are no orc babies or women, or farmers, or scholars. They're brutal, barbaric warriors, not part of the natural order, and killing them can only be righteous. Other stories have armies of undead, which amount to the same thing: there's basically no wrong way to put paid to them. I'm put in mind of "The Soldier and Death" in which the protagonist cheats a pack of devils with some magic cards, tricks them into a magic sack, and then beats them mercilessly. And he's the hero of the land.
As soon as the heroes' enemies are just like the heroes but on the other side of an issue, you're likely to move out of high fantasy. Into what, I'm not sure.
If heroes in high fantasy are flawed, it often because they have been tainted or tricked. Boromir was not evil; the Ring was evil. Even if orcs do have families, as long as they're the unwitting pawns of some purely evil force, the heroes' actions will eventually be redeemed by facing that force. They might even save the orcs in the process.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
That's pretty much exactly my point. As for the definitions, maybe we should agree on something now. For example, it's high fantasy if the protagonists are fighting against an objectively Evil antagonist, whereas in my style of games the antagonist's oly crime is disagreeing with the players.
That's pretty much exactly my point. As for the definitions, maybe we should agree on something now. For example, it's high fantasy if the protagonists are fighting against an objectively Evil antagonist, whereas in my style of games the antagonist's oly crime is disagreeing with the players.
High fantasy can have that latter aspect, of course, but any warcrimes or atrocities are either off-screen, are committed equally by all parties, or are actually driven by the objectively Evil antagonist.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
Following a discussion on the 'No wrong way to play D&D mentality', (link), I have been wondering about the viability of flawed protagonists in a true high fantasy game. In my personal opinion, the two are, if not mutually exclusive, at least hard to make co-exist. This is because of one of the foundations of high fantasy- the objective morality. Put simply, if the heroes are fighting an objectively Evil villain, the assumption can be made that they are objectively Good, in the sense of acting to lower the total Evil in the world. If that is the case, it severely limits the possibility for moral relativism, meaning there cannot be a real argument made for the characters being evil. In my campaigns, this is a crucial point, as the more inhumane tactics are often far more effective, but lead to the players being reviled for their actions, meaning they have to dance the knife edge between being a complete monster and simply being too good to be effective. I personally cannot see how flawed protagonists of this sort can exist in a high fantasy game, but I could be wrong. Anyone got any points to make?
A few points:
1. The DM should learn the motivations of his characters before he builds very much of his campaign. Whatever motivates them are strong indicators of the type of antagonists the DM should be creating. Good and evil are very subjective, obviously, but as long as the DM creates opportunities for the characters to pursue the things that motivate them most, it doesn't really matter who is good and who is evil. It is, at best, an outside judgement, IMO.
2. The 'evil villain' does not think of himself as evil. He thinks his goals are the correct ones, and pursues them accordingly. You could take many examples from history about people or organizations who never thought of themselves as evil, but are certainly regarded as such by most. I hesitate to suggest real life samples, but hopefully no one will object to me saying that The Inquisition was a good example of this.
3. If the characters act in an inhumane manner, it's an absolute guarantee that someone else in the world will see their actions as such. Maybe that someone else will do something about it... Unless your characters are the most powerful beings in the world, or they exist in a largely inhumane world already, it's inevitable that their will be consequences for thier actions. As a DM, I don't feel this is punishing, but rather a reasonable extrapolation of what might happen if the party started acting in an inhumane way.
4. Flawed doesn't have to mean inhumane, I would think that's an extreme. It might mean frequently selfish, or have an addiction, or be rude, have a limp or lisp, be racist, shallow, arrogant, covered in warts, etc etc.
Following a discussion on the 'No wrong way to play D&D mentality', (link), I have been wondering about the viability of flawed protagonists in a true high fantasy game. In my personal opinion, the two are, if not mutually exclusive, at least hard to make co-exist. This is because of one of the foundations of high fantasy- the objective morality. Put simply, if the heroes are fighting an objectively Evil villain, the assumption can be made that they are objectively Good, in the sense of acting to lower the total Evil in the world. If that is the case, it severely limits the possibility for moral relativism, meaning there cannot be a real argument made for the characters being evil. In my campaigns, this is a crucial point, as the more inhumane tactics are often far more effective, but lead to the players being reviled for their actions, meaning they have to dance the knife edge between being a complete monster and simply being too good to be effective. I personally cannot see how flawed protagonists of this sort can exist in a high fantasy game, but I could be wrong. Anyone got any points to make?
It only negates prescriptive moral relativism, which is negated in the real world anyway, as no sane person would ever seriously give credence to it, not even other moral relativists. Descriptive moral relativism can still exist quite easily for a variety of reasons. One, who says the "hard and fast rules of good and evil" have to be widely known? If no one knows "the rules," everyone will do what is right in their own eyes.
Two, even if they are widely known, who says anyone has to give a rat's ass? Would I rather be "good," or have what I want? Maybe someone places more personal value on accomplishing a goal, rather than maintaining moral purity. Once you qauntify moral purity, you can judge it's value against other things that have already been qauntified, and moral purity may not come out to be the most desired thing for a lot of people. After all, evil people don't see being evil as a bad thing.
Three, (And this is where I'm going to draw the wrath of the entire forums down on my head but I don't care.) The nature of morality is a stupid theme to explore in a story anyway. Springboarding off reason two, it's much more interesting to examine the human (Mortal?) condition, ideas like love, death, hopes, dreams, fears, what people do, and why. This is why A Song of Ice and Fire does so well, because it doesn't even deal with morality at all. It questions perception, presents a faithful yet fantastic re-creation of worldly society, and shows you what real heroes and real villains are, and still allows them to fall flat on their faces.
Another good example of this is half of the quality anime out there. Ghost in the Shell, Iria, Berserk, Outlaw Star, Cowboy Bebop, the list goes on. If you're more into bookish literature (Hehe, see what I did there? ) there's To Kill a Mockingbird, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Watchmen, or Gulliver's Travels. If you're more into fantasy books for this kind of stuff, Fafrhd and the Grey Mouser, Elric of Melnibone, or Acts of Caine will scratch that itch. None of those bother with waxing philosophically about morality because no one cares.
I'll never forget what Stover once said in an interview. To paraphrase, a lot of people think it's not literature unless the protagonist gets their ass kicked by life, but just because the protagonist has their ass kicked by life, doesn't mean they can't do some ass-kicking of their own. In another interview, he said the most inspiring characters he had ever seen, were not the ones that had potential and fell, or the ones that had potential and lived up to it, but the ones that had potential, fell, and then rose from the ashes to live up to that potential.
Epic heroic journies make for a much better story than satire or didactic pieces, because all they do is preach. Now, satire can be well-written, and have compelling characters, but too many times satire relies on it's message to keep readers interested amidst the boring characters and their worthless struggles no one can be assed to care about. High fantasy and flawed protagonists can work quite well together, because high fantasy is a ripe spot for the epic heroic journey. Just look at Star Wars. Luke was pretty flawed, and there was a kind of objective good and evil posited in the setting.
Descriptive moral relativism can still exist quite easily for a variety of reasons. IMHO, moral relativism is an exercise in futility. All is really says is "morality does not exist" and any code of behavior is based purely on subjective fancy; but it masks this by attempting to redefine what morality means. Morality refers to the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad conduct. If this term is used in a subjective sense, it only functions as a useful semantic tool when describing the actions/motivations of a culture or group of people. Otherwise, it's pointless.
Three, (And this is where I'm going to draw the wrath of the entire forums down on my head but I don't care.) The nature of morality is a stupid theme to explore in a story anyway. Okay, serious note, I disagree on this. I've read the Song of Ice and Fire, and I find morality to be a potent theme in the stories. It doesn't deal with Good and Evil the way D&D does, but it still deals with morality and the nature of right and wrong. If you disagree on that, then we can discuss The Lord of the Rings, one of the best literary masterpieces ever written. I don't think you could logically deny that the nature of right and wrong is a central theme of those books, and expressed in various ways (i.e. the proper use of power, the inherently evil nature of war (even when done for good reasons), and so on). You may not like stories that have moral themes, but that doesn't make them bad stories.
I think you see the term "Morality" and think "D&D Good and Evil". If that's how you see morality, then yeah, it's gonna be boring to explore it's nature. One of the best quotes in Lord of the Rings: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." In classic by-the-book D&D (ignoring complex moral themes), you cast "detect evil" then smite anything that glows, and you're doing "the right thing". But if your story has a more complex (and realistic) approach to morality (the nature of right and wrong and a proper code of conduct), then it's a good darn story indeed. Gandalf was talking about what people deserve, and that seeing/understanding the nature of people (or what they deserve) is very difficult. But it's not nonexistant, nor entirely subjective; otherwise, there's nothing to discuss on what people "deserve", or what there is for the wise to "see". It's whatever the heck you feel like. This one single quote could be analyzed regarding it's context of morality, the nature of right and wrong, the nature of people and the world, and the immense complexity of it all. And that's just one quote; the book is chalked full of this stuff. And this book rocks.
In my personal opinion, the two are, if not mutually exclusive, at least hard to make co-exist.
Wrong. The traditional heroic protagonist is DEEPLY flawed. Gilgamesh, Achilles, Lancelot, all heroes defined as much by their moral failings as their material accomplishments.
This is because of one of the foundations of high fantasy- the objective morality.
Nope. The foundations of "high fantasy" make no statement about morality, much less objective morality. High fantasy is defined by its well-formed fictional universe and the world-spanning scope of its plotline.
Put simply, if the heroes are fighting an objectively Evil villain, the assumption can be made that they are objectively Good
Complete and utter crap. The obvious counterexample being Stalin v. Hitler.
If that is the case
It isn't.
it severely limits the possibility for moral relativism
It doesn't.
meaning there cannot be a real argument made for the characters being evil.
There can.
In short, from his definitions to his conclusions, every single thing Max has said is wrong. I blame the 3.5 fundamentalists --and more specifically the alignment supporters-- for miseducating him. This sort of cultural ignorance is the direct result of pretending your little pigeon-holes were meaningful.
) there's To Kill a Mockingbird, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Watchmen, or Gulliver's Travels. If you're more into fantasy books for this kind of stuff, Fafrhd and the Grey Mouser, Elric of Melnibone, or Acts of Caine will scratch that itch. None of those bother with waxing philosophically about morality because no one cares.
