How's *this* for a new setting.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Just a thought - has anyone ever had a 'Narnia HERO' campaign?

 

It looks like a potentially pretty decent setting: magic, but no high powered spellcasting, all artifacts firmly under control, etc.

[assault]

Re: How's *this* for a new setting.

 

Originally posted by WhammeWhamme

Just a thought - has anyone ever had a 'Narnia HERO' campaign?

 

I haven't ever done it, but I have considered Narnia as an interesting setting.

 

The most obvious problem is the great big chunks of roaring allegory, but still, despite of this, it is a fine old setting.

 

I particularly appreciate the fact that Dwarves can be found on both sides... I've long thought that the difference between a Hobbit and a Goblin is that a Hobbit pays tax. The difference between a Dwarf and an Orc is similar.

 

Narnia, of course, has a very strong spiritual polarity. None the less, however, there is still a very strong element of free choice in people's allegiances. It is entirely possible for people (humans, dwarves, whatever) to pick "the wrong side" without it being quite as cartoonish as in some other worlds.

 

So yes, this is potentially a good idea.

 

Alan

[Markdoc]

>> the difference between a Hobbit and a Goblin is that a Hobbit pays tax<<<

 

I LOVE that.

 

As to Narnia, it would be a great setting for a GM with a good group of players who wanted to tell a story. My blood runs cold at the thought of agroup of hak-n-slashers being let loose in Narnia.

 

cheers, Mark

[assault]

Originally posted by Markdoc

My blood runs cold at the thought of agroup of hak-n-slashers being let loose in Narnia.

 

"You see a lion."

 

Alan

[noumena]

Originally posted by assault

"You see a lion."

Alan

Player: I kill him.

GM: OK. Tomorrow comes. You see a lion.

 

That brightened up my day. Thanks

-noumena

[Bazza]

Re: Re: How's *this* for a new setting.

 

Originally posted by assault

I particularly appreciate the fact that Dwarves can be found on both sides... I've long thought that the difference between a Hobbit and a Goblin is that a Hobbit pays tax. The difference between a Dwarf and an Orc is similar.

Interesting. As a fan of Arthur Machen and his Little People I've noticed that both hobbits, goblins, dwarves etc are all from the same race of faerie folk. I beleive that Tolkein using the same influences (and ground already tred by Machen) invented a strain of that race aned named them "Hobbits".

 

As according to "the Little People" they can be both good (as seen in Dunsany's The King of Elflands Daughter) or evil in Tolkien's epic. As CS Lewis was a close friend of Tolkein's I'm assuming that Tolkein provided his expertise in this area.

[Rage]

Re: Re: Re: How's *this* for a new setting.

 

Originally posted by Bazza

Interesting. As a fan of Arthur Machen and his Little People I've noticed that both hobbits, goblins, dwarves etc are all from the same race of faerie folk. I beleive that Tolkein using the same influences (and ground already tred by Machen) invented a strain of that race aned named them "Hobbits".

 

As according to "the Little People" they can be both good (as seen in Dunsany's The King of Elflands Daughter) or evil in Tolkien's epic. As CS Lewis was a close friend of Tolkein's I'm assuming that Tolkein provided his expertise in this area.

 

I don't know, CS has always seemed to be more into spiritual/mythological crap than Tolkien. Tolkien is just more famous (and likes Baewulf... alot.)

[Markdoc]

I can't really see much connection between Tolkein's hobbits and Machen's "under the hill" folk, apart from the fact that they both live underground.

 

Hobbits are basically english yeomanry made small (in the initial stories) to appeal to a childish audience.

 

Machen's dark folk were the remnants of the pre-celtic races and therefore indubitably human, if a bit twisted.

 

Likewise goblins, which in english folklore can be small enough to hide in mouseholes, large enough to carry horses, cunning and tricksy or thick as two short planks, seductivley beautiful or just...ugh.

 

Nothing much to do with hobbits - and only slightly more to do with Tolkien's goblins, which draw more on earlier works of modern fantasy.

 

Some people have suggested that Hobbit is related to hob (an old english word meaning a haunt or goblin) which later became a taunt for someone who was bit crazy, but Tolkein himself denied this (and indeed he uses Hob in the Hobbit as a taunt, so he was clearly aware of the word's normal use). Tolkein also states that Hobbit came first, then the concept of the characters and finally the "real name" Hobytla, that he uses, was consciously created to provide a root-word.

 

There's nothing about goblins there. Where do people get these ideas from?

 

puzzledly, Mark

[Bazza]

Re: Re: Re: Re: How's *this* for a new setting.

 

Originally posted by Rage

I don't know, CS has always seemed to be more into spiritual/mythological crap than Tolkien. Tolkien is just more famous (and likes Baewulf... alot.)

I know that Machen for a time was looking for some spiritualiy in his life, and found it in an unlikely organisation. Also Machen was deeply into the British Celtic mythology/folklore/church. So deep that he wrote about them in The Bowmen. As archermoo pointed out in the "Warriors, Heroes, and Cultural Icons" thread in NGF the welsh were extremly able with the long bow and it is no coincidence that Machen was Welsh, knew this and used it in his story.

[Bazza]

Originally posted by Markdoc

I can't really see much connection between Tolkein's hobbits and Machen's "under the hill" folk, apart from the fact that they both live underground.

 

Hobbits are basically english yeomanry made small (in the initial stories) to appeal to a childish audience.

 

Machen's dark folk were the remnants of the pre-celtic races and therefore indubitably human, if a bit twisted.

 

Likewise goblins, which in english folklore can be small enough to hide in mouseholes, large enough to carry horses, cunning and tricksy or thick as two short planks, seductivley beautiful or just...ugh.

 

Nothing much to do with hobbits - and only slightly more to do with Tolkien's goblins, which draw more on earlier works of modern fantasy.

Just my opinion:

I read somewhere that Mr Machen at one stage wanted to revive the Christinized Celtic Church and was certainly aware of its mythological/folkloric aspects (cf. The Great God Pan, The Bowmen). To me hobbits/'the little people' are one and the same -- the small faerie folk (races) of Celtic lore (inc golbins, kobolds, gnomes, glamour using elfs).

 

To me, Tolkien created the small hobbits in that tradition, and are firmly his creation (and thus copyrightable). Machen used that same folklore and emphasized its horrific nature (like the boogeyman) in his stories.

 

Tolkien used it as a symbol(?) in it gaiety aspect in his creation of the Hobbits of The Shire. Tolkien's was fictional and the hobbits used to give an aura of "prehistory" and Machen mentioned that his Little People are survivors from prehistory.

 

Hope that sort of helps.

[assault]

Of course my original comment wasn't related to the folklore/literary aspects of the hobbit/goblin matter.

 

I was actually referring to how "commoners" can either be sentimentalised respectable yeomen or demonised murderous fiends, depending on their degree of submission to their "betters". The very same individuals can potentially be found in both these roles at different time!

 

To put it simply: Spartacus was a goblin.

 

Alan

[Bazza]

Alan:

 

I realise our posts were different. I found the part of your post I quoted interesting and enlightening and then explained why (well tried too). I hope that clears things up.

 

 

edit: ps: will you be watching the Rugby Union World Cup grand final?

[Markdoc]

>>>I was actually referring to how "commoners" can either be sentimentalised respectable yeomen or demonised murderous fiends, depending on their degree of submission to their "betters"<<<

 

Ah. OK, got it. And to Bazza, no, I won't be watching the final. Not that I'm bitter or anything

 

cheers, Mark

[assault]

Originally posted by Bazza

edit: ps: will you be watching the Rugby Union World Cup grand final?

 

probably

 

Alan

[AnotherSkip]

uhm some comments fly directly in the face of certain details about CS LEwis And Tolkien as well as some understood details about the man and exactly where the concepts came from.

 

especially those about hobbits.

 

 

of course it is all specious speculation but still,

[Kaze9999]

Re: How's *this* for a new setting.

 

Just a thought - has anyone ever had a 'Narnia HERO' campaign?

 

It looks like a potentially pretty decent setting: magic, but no high powered spellcasting, all artifacts firmly under control, etc.

 

Hm...well, this was posted 2 and more years ago now, but I am trying to ramp up such a campaign now. Well, with a twist or two.

 

http://www.herocentral.net/campaignInformation.htm?campaignId=462474

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: How's *this* for a new setting.

 

I know! I'm one of your gosh darn potential players!

 

[Lucius]

Hobbits

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again;

 

Whatever else he invented, Tollkein did not invent the word "Hobbit." It appears in the Denham Tracts; I forget their exact date, but I think it was 1840 or 1860 something.

 

The word is pretty obviously a diminutive of "Hob" which is a word that is centuries old. Hobs were also at least sometimes said to live in holes, but then that was said of fairies of all sorts; in holes and under hills, just as Mr. Baggins lived. Well, not "just" like that.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

(-: :-)

[Markdoc]

Re: How's *this* for a new setting.

 

I tend to disagree - the word hobbit has popped up in old english folk legends, as does Hob, Hobbs and Hoppit. But those are all simply derivatives of the old word for spirit/fairy and is generally used in the same meaning as goblin. So Hob Gamling (old Hob, in translation) from Yorkshire is a bad-tempered giant. Hardly a protype for Mr Bilbo Baggins!

 

Tolkein reused Old English or Norse words when he wanted to give prototypical english or norse feeling. He acknowledges this himself in explaining the derivation of "hobbitish" names. But Hobbits, as described in his books, are an entirely original creation. And one with legs, too when one looks at all the derivatives kicking around in fantasy literature/games.

 

For that matter, Tolkien also seems to have invented Orcs (even though the word was also around earlier) and to a large extent, the modern idea of Elves and Dwarves is largely of his construction, too.

 

cheers, Mark

[Thia Halmades]

Re: How's *this* for a new setting.

 

Very true, Mark, well said. Also, while they were contemporaries, Lewis wasn't a major fan of Tolkien, and considered his writings to lack a level of seriousness which he felt was required. I think he'd flip if he considered Narnia being used as a game, because it was written as allegory. Children's allegory that adults could read, certainly, but allegory.

 

Within that framework, however, there's a small leap if you want to use Narnia as a setting. You'll have an easier time setting it in the last war, or creating new parts of Narnia based on the Chronicles, rather than binding yourself to the original plot arcs. I'd say the same thing about Tolkien; we all know how the War of the Ring ends, so playing in it is somewhat pointless unless you're going to let Sauron (or Tash) win if the PCs fail.

[hancock.tom]

Re: How's *this* for a new setting.

 

I'd say the same thing about Tolkien; we all know how the War of the Ring ends' date=' so playing in it is somewhat pointless unless you're going to let Sauron (or Tash) win if the PCs fail.[/quote']

 

Here comes another drive-by threadjacking.

 

The best LOTR campaign I ever played in, the plot began with news spreading from Moria that Sauron had recovered the one ring. They never really explained what happened to Frodo, whether the ringwraiths got him, or gollum, or he was corrupted. It didn't really matter. The fellowship had failed and we had to pick up the pieces. Easily the best LOTR campaign I was ever in, even if it did feel a little hopeless at times.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: How's *this* for a new setting.

 

Ah, ah, but you're exactly proving my point. The entire focus of the game is now shifted. We know in LOTR that a single band of heroes is critical to campaign success, and we know how the War of the Ring ends. What your DM did (and did correctly, I might add) is subtly (comparatively) alter the time line. One shift.

 

"Frodo fails. Now what?"

 

BAM, instant plotline. You have enemies, he can create new dungeons, there's giant mosh battles. Ah, the goodness of it all. I know that game because I'm writing & running something similar to it right now. Hopelessness and all. Because if your resolve is never challenged, then you really aren't doing Epic War correctly. The genre demands at some point you look at the opposition and say "Oh. Oh no. Heck with this, I'm going to go home and wait outside with a lemonade until they run me down. Easier, safer, and I'll enjoy the end days a bit more with lemonade."

[The Monster]

Re: How's *this* for a new setting.

 

One of the interesting things about Narina is that, while there are certainly sides, the sides are *not* always as clear to the characters as we might think. In The Last Battle, Aslan points out that, even though the Calormenes worship the rather nasty Tash, it is possible to be a good guy and worship Tash - if you are trying to do all the good things that you know are good in stpite of the nastiness all around you. Also, several characters - Edmund and Eustace are the primary examples, of course, but others as well - end up switching sides on a temporary or permanent basis, or cavil for an awfully long time about choosing sides, some more than once.

 

BTW, there is a friend of mine who's been working on and off for years on a systematic "funny animals" Hero module, which has struck me that it would work very well for making Narnian talking animal characters.

 

And more BTW: Tolkein and Lewis were nto very enamored of each other's work in this arena. Lewis thought the LotR stuff was way too long and detailed (especially during the way-too-many Inkling sessions where Tolkein would read his new stuff), and Tolkein thought Narnia was just way too allegorical to be a really good story. At least that's how I've heard it.

[Cancer]

Re: How's *this* for a new setting.

 

And more BTW: Tolkein and Lewis were nto very enamored of each other's work in this arena. Lewis thought the LotR stuff was way too long and detailed (especially during the way-too-many Inkling sessions where Tolkein would read his new stuff)' date=' and Tolkein thought Narnia was just way too allegorical to be a really good story. At least that's how I've heard it.[/quote']

 

I think it's in the preface to LotR that Tolkien says he despises [? that's not the right word, but I can't recall the correct one] allegory in all its forms. It would be interesting to know if that was cause or effect of JRRT not liking CSL's Narnia work.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: How's *this* for a new setting.

 

I mentioned this prior, but you've got the gist of it. They respected each other, but didn't see eye to eye in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Tolkien almost didn't publish LOTR after Lewis' review of the material. Now that's criticism.