Realism in Middle-earth

[Glorelendil]

Clearly one issue here is vocabulary that carries imprecise meanings. Gritty, for instance, has a wide range of meanings. I'm all for dark and disturbing elements, but not as the default state of things.

I see Westeros (Game of Thrones) as being essentially Hobbesian: the 'state of nature' is selfishness and violence and the role of governments is to dissuade people from reverting to this natural state.

I see Middle Earth as more in line with Locke or Rousseau: people are essentially good and evil is an aberration. The role of institutions is to protect all the good people from the aberrations.

. I don't think gritty and dream-like are mutually exclusive and actually feel that they are very complimentary in my game - the grittiness enhances the dream like elements and makes them better. I think like you say, for you and others, how much grittiness could be about finding the balance rather than complete exclusion - which are just dials that we all apply to our own gaming groups.

Yes. 100% agree with this.

[atgxtg]

I believe the reason we don't hear about dentists is because the one Elf who wanted to be one was ridiculed for his desire to do so.

But considering that Tolkien elves don't suffer from tooth decay, I can see why they ridiculed him.

[Halbarad]

I’m not sure that I agree that people are essentially good in Middle Earth. I think that the stories themselves(The Hobbit and the LotR) are certainly written from the perspective of folks who believe that though.

The Appendices seem to show a different world. Imperialism , Colonialism, Cultural and Racial Elitism, massacre, murder and ethnic cleansing all appear in there and are all things that are considered ‘not so nice’ by modern standards. All carried out by the ‘good guys’, often on each other or, at least, on those who might not be in the camp of the Enemy.

However, although these are apparent and obvious to me, I still tend to have my player characters inhabit a Middle earth where they are naive enough to believe good is the natural order of things and evil is an aberration. It just seems to be the thing that separates ME from Westeros and the like.

I don’t have brothels in my Dale, but I do have a non player character who works as the hired help in a hostelry in Laketown. She always seems to have plenty of coin and as well as being a serving wench and a passable singer, she ‘turns down the beds’ which I use as a euphemism in this case. It is an innocent enough phrase and I’m not even sure that the characters ever caught on to what was implied by this until a regular at the hostelry referred to her as his ‘little soiled dove’.
Even now that they do know of this other profession, they are still ‘Tolkienesque’ characters and do not partake in ‘turning down the beds’. One character, in fact, hopes that he might convince her to become an ‘honest woman’ if he can gather enough treasure to retire.

I borrowed the idea from Dickens and his treatment of the Nancy character from Oliver Twist, who viewed through the eyes of the innocent hero is seen as a virtuous woman, despite that she is not.

[feld]

I see Middle Earth as more in line with Locke or Rousseau: people are essentially good and evil is an aberration. The role of institutions is to protect all the good people from the aberrations.

Glorelendil, I gotta go with Halbarad on this one and recommend a different philosophical map of Middle Earth. More specifically, while it is literally true that Middle Earth is a place where people are essentially good, this is also explicitly a world where evil got into Men (and everything else) very very early in the game and started doing its work. Morgoth marred everything and he did it very early. No one is "essentially good" anymore. Feaanor and Turin Turambar are not personalities with whom "essentially good" are the first words that leap to my mind, at least. The closest we get to essentially good people in the Third Age are Gandalf and Aragorn. And it is explicitly stated that either of them would become, with the best of intent and of their own free will, a terrible tyrant given the Ring.

If I had to pick two philosophers to map MIddle Earth to I'd say Aristotle or, better still, Thomas Aquinas for my money.

None of what I said above is my trying to argue you out of your dream-like view of Middle Earth. If anything, the stories you prefer seem to be in better sync with the original author's worldview than I am with my Lake-town "crime lord".

In fact I have been wrestling with much the same realism question you posed as I try to find places where my players can make some interesting and important choices in the late Third Age without losing that very dream-like quality that you mention.

v/r
feld

[Glorelendil]

I don’t have brothels in my Dale, but I do have a non player character who works as the hired help in a hostelry in Laketown. She always seems to have plenty of coin and as well as being a serving wench and a passable singer, she ‘turns down the beds’ which I use as a euphemism in this case. It is an innocent enough phrase and I’m not even sure that the characters ever caught on to what was implied by this until a regular at the hostelry referred to her as his ‘little soiled dove’.

I really like this. I still probably wouldn't include that particular element in my own M-e games, but in general I very much like the approach of dropping subtle hints rather than having overt brothels or stereotypical crime lords.

[Glorelendil]

If I had to pick two philosophers to map MIddle Earth to I'd say Aristotle or, better still, Thomas Aquinas for my money.

Interesting. Why?

[Majestic]

Maybe this is a regional thing? I think we've mentioned it before somewhere but I'm pretty sure Brits (and perhaps other nationalities) embrace darker/grittier fantasy settings more than many Americans do. For instance, Dragon Warriors (still a hugely enjoyable RPG) was very popular in the 80s and in my circle of gamers and supplanted D&D as the preferred fantasy setting; it was darker and grittier with a mythology to match. And back to my reference to the NPC, Ash, a couple of my players mentioned he felt like a Game of Thrones character (and more real for them), which you've just mentioned above so there could certainly be some truth in that. I don't think gritty and dream-like are mutually exclusive and actually feel that they are very complimentary in my game - the grittiness enhances the dream like elements and makes them better. I think like you say, for you and others, how much grittiness could be about finding the balance rather than complete exclusion - which are just dials that we all apply to our own gaming groups.

Ah yes, that was an interesting discussion; I find it fascinating the different cultural differences we might bring into our gaming.

I was just discussing this with a friend last night, as he posited how dark Black Mirror was in it early episodes. As we discussed this, I recollected how dark (and often gritty) Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay could be, especially when compared to more 'traditional' American D&D.

FWIW, I tend to view Middle-earth a little more 'dreamlike' and idealized, as Glorelendil does, not ever delving into some of those grittier or 'more realistic' elements.

[Glorelendil]

In terms of a Yank/Brit difference, there may be an aggregate difference, but personally the preferences I’m expressing in this discussion apply only to Middle-earth. Although I’ve never enjoyed playing evil characters (or, really, with those who do) I don’t mind my heroes existing as lone beacons of good in dark, gritty, depraved settings.

[feld]

If I had to pick two philosophers to map MIddle Earth to I'd say Aristotle or, better still, Thomas Aquinas for my money.

Interesting. Why?

Because you mentioned the basic nature of people (being essentially good or evil) and that struck four chords with me:
1. Aquinas was the quintissential medieval philosopher and Tolkien liked to have medieval or "dark age" bits in his work alot.
2. Aquinas basically took the best organized system of knowledge known to him (Aristotle's system) and tried to synthesize it with his own Christian faith. Tolkien was both very interested in pre-Christian peoples and even if Middle Earth was our world in the past (as he sometimes said) it clearly predated Christianity. So going back to Aquinas' source seemed like another good bet.
3. The Middle Earth creation myth gives every indication of being more or less literally true within the setting and it shares a key point (the "Fall" of a very powerful being and their subsequent working of evil into the world on many levels) with the Judeo-Christian creation story. Both Thomas Aquinas and Professor Tolkien were quite devoted Catholics. Aquinas' work is a painstaking analysis of darn near everything from theology to psychology given the assumptions of that faith. Since Tolkien shares those assumptions it seems likely that their answers would be at least similar. I assume that his own worldview at least influenced Middle Earth a little.
4. Totally subjective: Tolkien and Aquinas both give me a feeling of having thought things through very deeply from multiple angles and put them back together in a way that Locke and Rousseau do not. Rousseau and Locke and definitely doing the Englightenment shtick of breaking a thing to figure out what it is. Not ciriticizing the analysis approach: I'm heavily trained in it and use it every day...it just doesn't feel like Middle Earth to me.

Anyway, another wall of text by me. Hope it has use.

v/r
feld

[Wbweather]

I see in Tolkien's Middle-earth a picture of a fallen world, yet one with hope of redemption. The children of Iluvatar, both elves and men were created in His image, for a purpose greater than even the Valar could foresee. They were created in spite of the knowledge of Melkor's treachery and in fact seem to be the ultimate "theme" that would resolve the conflict in the "music". Despite that, they have succumbed to darkness and have been marred along with the rest of Arda. Both races are capable of great accomplishments, but also of great evil. The thing about the heroes in Tolkien's stories, is that they are exceptional. The vast majority of elves stay behind in the darkness. The greatest of those that see the light still forsake Valinor for reasons of pride, arrogance, and greed. The vast majority of men fall under the influence of Melkor and later Sauron. Tolkien's heroes are those exceptional individuals that through their faithfulness, in spite of all odds, persist in doing what is right. They are not perfect, but the light still guides them.

Maybe Middle-earth seams idealized because the focus is not on the corruption, but the fight of those heroes against the corruption. While the effect of the darkness is seen and hinted at, Tolkien does not revel in it or go into explicit detail about it. We all know the depths of human depravity. It is enough to know it exists without filling his works with graphic descriptions. What is idealized is the ability of the Eldar and the Edain to fight back against the destructive work of the darkness. Tolkien focuses on the nobler virtues. He gives us true idealized heroes, he really doesn't give us modern antiheroes.

I see that as the difference between Middle-earth and Westeros. Game of Thrones doesn't give us truly good or truly bad figures. Everyone has a shade of grey. You get vivid depictions of a character's depravity to the point that it sometimes overwhelming. It might feel more "realistic" because it is a harsh reality that we experience in the real world.

To me at least, Middle-earth feels more idealized because of where the focus is placed. Add to that the fact that despite how dark things might seem, there is always the promise of hope and redemption driving the stories. We know that good will ultimately overcome evil. We know that one day Iluvatar will bring his music to completion and it will be a thing of beauty.

I read a book once that made the point that Tolkien's works differed from his contemporaries in that while many writers, after witnessing the pointless slaughter and atrocities of WWI, wrote about the futility and hopelessness of life. Tolkien's writings focused on a renewed hope for mankind. That's not an exact quote, but I think it at least summarizes the thought of the author.

I think that if someone wanted to make their game have a more Tolkien feel, they would not ignore the presence of human vices and depravity, but they would not focus on them either. To me Tolkienesque heroes don't live in a perfect world, they just are operating on a level above the the darker elements of the world.