One thing I have never tried with any of my creations here at the CBG is to create a high-fantasy setting. It's something I'm interested in for my next project, to see if I can create something suitably epic or "high" while still keeping the kind of flavour or moods that I enjoy in the settings I create.
This will be something of a challenge, I expect :)
So, I thought before I begin, or at least while I am in the early stages, I would ask the help of the community at large to help me come up with some kind of definition of high-fantasy for me to work with and, if need be, deform.
As I see it...
There must be an epic quality to the setting, even if it only in terms of scale - an empire to last a thousand years, a desert that stretches into eternity, and horde of countless orcs
There should be opportunity for heroism and villainy on a legendary scale, most probably supported by an absolute and tangible morality
There should be a multiplicity of sentient races (I'm not sure this one is entirely necessary, but in my mind it can definitely contribute to the high-fantasy aesthetic)
Magic should be a powerful force in the world, although probably not exactly commonplace.
Others please help me out by continuing :)
The PCs should through their actions be able to dramatically change the world they live in.
- Lots and lots of ancient ruins for PCs to explore.
- Lots of Magical places where few dare to tread
- Active Gods
- Lots of tiny kingdoms whose sole existence relies on the existence of super powerful mages and/or equally powerful artifacts.
An old thread (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?23524.post) I had on much the same topic. Perhaps some of the discussion there will spark some ideas.
- Dragons! Or something like them.
- Some concept of destiny, fate, or fortune as a tangible force in the world.
- A Destiny that is easily manipulated by benevolent and malevolent forces.
don't forget cliche names...
- Thurgorm Bronzebeard
- Me'shyka Lilydancer
- Fergurm Coppergears
- Dagan Sneakyblade
- Urgh Smashaxe
An entirely fictional start from scratch world.
Examples:
DC Earth and Marvel Earth don't count.
Hyborian Ages (Conan) doesn't count.
Middle Earth does count.
Narnia counts, sort of.
Xanth counts, sort of.
Discworld counts.
Young Kingdoms (Elric) count.
Newhon (Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser) counts.
It doesn't hurt if the world feels like an established real world mythology/religion.
I'm interested why you'd reject Conan's Hyborian Age, but accept Newhon as high fantasy.
If by "entirely fiction start from scratch" you mean "does not draw direct influence from anything in the real world" then Middle Earth, the Discworld and the Young Kingdoms don't actually count... but also, thanks for your feedback, everyone, it's all definitely stuff to bear in mind!
For the power-scale comment. I think the characters have to start out low (like a commoner/squire/woodsman) and eventually become uber. So the power curve is really steep, not just start out uber and doesn't change.
Giant monsters, be it dragons or something else (like Steerpike said) is an important part.
Nothing about space. I find as soon as this is mentioned... the high fantasy vibe is ruined.
Quote from: SteerpikeI'm interested why you'd reject Conan's Hyborian Age, but accept Newhon as high fantasy.
The Hyborian Age is postulated as lost history of our world with a little magic and a few monsters added.
As far as I can remember Newhon was not.
Ah - so it's the fact that the setting is technically earth that's the big deal? Wouldn't that disqualify Middle Earth (also a primordial earth)? Magic wise there might be a bit less in Conan than in Newhon and Middle but hardly a vast amount.
Quote from: SteerpikeI'm interested why you'd reject Conan's Hyborian Age, but accept Newhon as high fantasy.
Conan is Sword and Sorcery rather than High Fantasy.
Quote from: NomadicThe PCs should through their actions be able to dramatically change the world they live in.
I think that is probably the most important bit.
Heh the thread name made me think of hobbits smoking pipeweed... except it isn't pipeweed... and it gives them the munchies. On a more serious note this is my thoughts on what drives something into high fantasy territory.
- Again the actions of the characters can dramatically alter the world they live in
- Morality tends heavily towards black and white
- Good vs Evil is the central theme
- Magic is powerful (it can be either rare or common)
- Conflict is on an epic scale
- Often destiny driven
Of course people's concepts of high fantasy will differ, those are just the key things that for me make high fantasy "high".
Quote from: Nomadic- Again the actions of the characters can dramatically alter the world they live in
- Morality tends heavily towards black and white
- Good vs Evil is the central theme
- Magic is powerful (it can be either rare or common)
- Conflict is on an epic scale
- Often destiny driven
You hit the nail on the head! :detect: :yumm: :)
The concepts of fate and destiny seem obvious additions now that they've been mentioned, but I honestly hadn't thought of them. I think the interpretation of these ideas and how they are made manifest is something I should definitely look into exploring.
The original term "high fantasy" was coined to apply to Tolkien and Lewis, so I think that kind of sets the standard there. "Low fantasy" is intended only as a direct contrast to high fantasy (either because it's set in real world, or because the fantasy elements are reduced, or whatever); but it has no real meaning without the existence of high fantasy as a reference point.
And yeah, Conan is Sword & Sorcery, a separate genre, though it could be considered on the low end of the spectrum if we assume the high/low discussion means a spectrum of how prevalent the fantastic elements are in the setting.
We have, in the past, contrasted the level in fantasy in a setting from the level of magic, too. A setting can be high fantasy, even if magic is rare.
At the risk of letting the thread slip off-topic, I think the what Steerpike was trying to say about the Hyborian Age and Nehwon, is that they're both considered Sword & Sorcery, and yet Khyron1144 had said that he would view the latter as being a high-fantasy setting, so he was curious as to why.
Hmm, if all fantasy is a combination of real elements and fantastical elements than I'd say that High Fantasy could be defined as any fantasy where the fantastical elements outweigh the real ones. Not to say that it is unrealistic and every person necessarily has to be a one-dimensional archetype; it just plays by its own set of rules.
As such, I would say an important element of high fantasy is that it makes the impossible possible. This is connected to your idea about epic scale (which is somewhat profound i think :)), where a small bunch of heroes can defeat entire undead armies and survive a dozen mortal wounds while learning to ride dragons and annihilate cities with the power of the mind.
(on second thought, i might have mixed up the concepts of high fantasy and high magic fantasy... Well, I'll leave this in case you can use it.)
Quote from: KindlingThe concepts of fate and destiny seem obvious additions now that they've been mentioned, but I honestly hadn't thought of them. I think the interpretation of these ideas and how they are made manifest is something I should definitely look into exploring.
I agree about the importance of this.
At our most subconsiously mystical/metaphysical, destiny is very compelling and quite literally, 'Epic'. Prophecy is the narrative child of destiny, in terms of setting design.
Tolkien and Lewis, as has been mentioned, are archetypes for 'High Fantasy', and the use of prophecy and destiny are well documented.
And while I am not a big Eddings fan, it contained one of the more interesting uses of prophecy, with 'competing prophecies' rushing forward for millenia...
[blockquote=Kindling]I think the what Steerpike was trying to say about the Hyborian Age and Nehwon, is that they're both considered Sword & Sorcery[/blockquote]That's what I was trying to say.
Good Vs. Evil is a key component in High fantasy, in my opinion.
I'd agree - the big distinction to me between high and low fantasy would be the level of heroism. Bas-Lag might have more abudnant fantasy elements than, say, Wheel of Time, but I`d call WoT high fantasy and Bas-Lag... well maybe not low fantasy, but not high fantasy.
Hmm, a somewhat confusing terminology we use in context with speculative fiction... Really, what would Bas-Lag be? (considering it a subgenre of fantasy; not its own "weird" genre).
Maybe a good way to define high fantasy would be to define what it isn't.
High Fantasy entails many fantastical elements, the world adheres to less realistic rules, typically it focuses on a group pf adventurers who want to 'save the world.'
Low Fantasy has less fantastical elements, the world is more realistic but with a few fantasy changes (i.e. magic), and with this in mind, PC's are never out to save the world (though a Kingdom is reasonable).
Further, according to Wikipedia, High Fantasy settings are (mostly) set on other worlds, separate from our own; where as Low Fantasy is often set in the real world. With this in mind, Lord of the Rings, Narnia and Harry Potter are all classified as High Fantasy even though all three are supposedly grounded in the real world. The reason for this is that Middle Earth is different enough to be a separate world, Narnia itself is completely separate (you don't see the badgers in London) and the Wizarding World of Harry Potter is distinct and segregated away from muggle eyes (thus making a de facto alternate world).
But what about fantasy books which take place in another world, have many fantastical elements, but generally take on a gray-scale morality, employ anti-heroes, and are more "rough" than the classical high fantasy tale?
Quote from: SteerpikeAh - so it's the fact that the setting is technically earth that's the big deal? Wouldn't that disqualify Middle Earth (also a primordial earth)? Magic wise there might be a bit less in Conan than in Newhon and Middle but hardly a vast amount.
At the time, I was actually trying to define one element of high fantasy and not the entire genre: the fictional world.
I would second and agree with the epic scope of good versus of evil as another element of high fantasy.
Here's an odd question: are intellignet, not-exactly human but definitely humanoid races worth considering as part of the definition of high fantasy? I can't think of an example on my internal list of high fantasy that doesn't include them.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowBut what about fantasy books which take place in another world, have many fantastical elements, but generally take on a gray-scale morality, employ anti-heroes, and are more "rough" than the classical high fantasy tale?
If the story was fast paced then that would fall into the 'Sword and Sorcery' genre.
Of course none of these definitions are nearly as definite as they ought to be.
In my opnion we'd be better served by inventing our own categories than using these obtuse definitions.
Of course.
BTW, I do NOT place the huge Good vs Evil battle as a necessity. It's a factor, and can be done in a epic way, but not a critical ingredient.
Michael Moorcock and Roger Zelazny might agree with me. These guys had a good handle on creating Epic, High fantasy with protagonists on the outside of the Good vs Evil fight.
Quote from: LordVreegOf course.
Indubitably.
Quote from: LordVreegBTW, I do NOT place the huge Good vs Evil battle as a necessity. It's a factor, and can be done in a epic way, but not a critical ingredient.
Michael Moorcock and Roger Zelazny might agree with me. These guys had a good handle on creating Epic, High fantasy with protagonists on the outside of the Good vs Evil fight.
I believe the Good v. Evil aspect arises because so much of High Fantasy follows Joseph Campbell's concepts of A Hero's Journey, which typically entails a common boy finding out he's special and that he has a destiny to go on an epic journey to do defeat some terrible evil and save the kingdom/continent/world. All too often this leads to a black and white moral outlook.
Though I do not believe the Good v. Evil aspect is a key component of High Fantasy, it is none the less a piece that is typically rejected by the genre's mirror opposite, Low Fantasy, which takes a decidedly more morally gray approach.
Before I say anything else, I'll admit that I just read the first post and skimmed the rest of the thread. I'll try to avoid the discussion of what "fantasy" and "high fantasy" is entirely.
Your first post, particularly the mention of deserts that stretch out into eternity, made me think of something like the setting of the Dark Tower books by Stephen King. Maybe you could enjoy designing a world that is so ancient no one could possibly no all there is about it. Maybe the world can't be defined, mapped, or recorded in any way because it is itself alive in a way.
High Fantasy and Low Fantasy are just the two basic archetypes that describe any setting (unless your playing in the real world, which make it no fantasy.)
High Fantasy is like Eragon (if anyone's seen that). A place that is a completely new creation, even if its based on other settings. Lord of the Rings is High Fantasy, but it does not include flashy magic, destiny or many of the other things you mentioned. High Fantasy is a semi-realistic world with ALOT of fantasic elements added.
Low Fantasy takes place in the real world with some big things added, such as magic or destiny. Harry Potter, the TV show Heroes and the Spiderwick Chronicles are all examples of Low Fantasy.
Low Fantasy is the real world with some fantastic elements added.
Sword and Sorcery, High Magic, Low Magic, Mystery, Hack and Slash; all of these things come after deciding whether a setting is High Fantasy or Low Fantasy. They are not up there with High Fantasy and Low Fantasy.
Please Note: I am NOT a fan of Eragon or the Spiderwick Chronicles.
Hmm, I looked it up and you're totally correct... seems like "low fantasy" actually is very rare. Even Harry Potter might be considered High Fantasy according to the wikipedia entry on the subject, since the vast majority of the action takes place in the secondary world (Hogwarts etc) rather than the "real" world...
Colloquially I think we were all using the term to describe something quite different, a certain style of secondary-world fantasy.
Quote from: SteerpikeHmm, I looked it up and you're totally correct... seems like "low fantasy" actually is very rare. Even Harry Potter might be considered High Fantasy according to the wikipedia entry on the subject, since the vast majority of the action takes place in the secondary world (Hogwarts etc) rather than the "real" world...
Colloquially I think we were all using the term to describe something quite different, a certain style of secondary-world fantasy.
I remember having this debate before and I think we were all shocked to realize High Fantasy =/= High Magic.
Personally I much prefer the cbg version to the wikipedia version. The CBG version better splits things up. The other one is like... ok on one side there is a vast gigantic ocean of high fantasy... and over here we have the puddle of low fantasy
Quote from: NomadicPersonally I much prefer the cbg version to the wikipedia version. The CBG version better splits things up. The other one is like... ok on one side there is a vast gigantic ocean of high fantasy... and over here we have the puddle of low fantasy
Not necessarily. Like I said earlier, you can have High/Low Fantasy and then choose between lots of other things like steampunk, sword and sorcery, high/low magic, epic style, Good vs. Evil or the nuetral gray area. Deciding between high and low fantasy is simply
deciding how fantastic your world will be.
Quote from: SurvivormanQuote from: NomadicPersonally I much prefer the cbg version to the wikipedia version. The CBG version better splits things up. The other one is like... ok on one side there is a vast gigantic ocean of high fantasy... and over here we have the puddle of low fantasy
Not necessarily. Like I said earlier, you can have High/Low Fantasy and then choose between lots of other things like steampunk, sword and sorcery, high/low magic, epic style, Good vs. Evil or the nuetral gray area. Deciding between high and low fantasy is simply deciding how fantastic your world will be.
Except not taking place on earth doesn't make a setting more fantastic at all. Sorry but the wiki version not only doesn't make sense IMHO it doesn't make a good setting type divider.
and what good is a definition without differentiation? Especially in this case. In this, as in most things, CBG>Wikipedia.
Of course the only problem is that if we use CBG definitions, only we the privileged few, will know what we are discussing.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfOf course the only problem is that if we use CBG definitions, only we the privileged few, will know what we are discussing.
The world will come to know such things when we rule over them with an iron shell.
Quote from: NomadicQuote from: Elemental_ElfOf course the only problem is that if we use CBG definitions, only we the privileged few, will know what we are discussing.
The world will come to know such things when we rule over them with an iron shell.
I'd like to think our Iron Shell would be shrouded behind a rainbow colored veil. Why rule outright and earn the scorn of the masses, when you can rule in secret and reap the benefits of being the World Builder of the Real World?
Quote from: SurvivormanHigh Fantasy is like Eragon (if anyone's seen that). A place that is a completely new creation, even if its based on other settings. Lord of the Rings is High Fantasy, but it does not include flashy magic, destiny or many of the other things you mentioned. High Fantasy is a semi-realistic world with ALOT of fantasic elements added.
I wouldn't say that Lord of the Rings is completely without destiny. True, there aren't grand prophecies or extensive discussions about destiny, but there are implications of destiny. Aragorn's birthright, implications that Frodo was "meant" to have the ring (and destroy it), etc.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfI believe the Good v. Evil aspect arises because so much of High Fantasy follows Joseph Campbell's concepts of A Hero's Journey, which typically entails a common boy finding out he's special and that he has a destiny to go on an epic journey to do defeat some terrible evil and save the kingdom/continent/world. All too often this leads to a black and white moral outlook.
Ah, the monomyth. It is a very High Fantasy-ish idea. Not essential, but VERY characteristic of that kind of setting. They represent one of those cases where you can find each in the presence of the other, but they are really meant for each other. They feed into each other very well, even if it evokes a sense of cliche.
Quote from: SurvivormanEragon (if anyone's seen that).
I love that movie because it makes me laugh so much! It's like Lord of the Star Wars... Or Star Ring... Or Star of the Ring... Hehe x. :D
Quote from: Seraphine_HarmoniumQuote from: Elemental_ElfI believe the Good v. Evil aspect arises because so much of High Fantasy follows Joseph Campbell's concepts of A Hero's Journey, which typically entails a common boy finding out he's special and that he has a destiny to go on an epic journey to do defeat some terrible evil and save the kingdom/continent/world. All too often this leads to a black and white moral outlook.
Ah, the monomyth. It is a very High Fantasy-ish idea. Not essential, but VERY characteristic of that kind of setting. They represent one of those cases where you can find each in the presence of the other, but they are really meant for each other. They feed into each other very well, even if it evokes a sense of cliche.
Unlike Survivorman's concept, High Fantasy includes more than a created world; the concept of fate/destiny and magic are all integral to the genre. The Monomyth eats up those added aspects, to the point where it becomes quite difficult to think of a High Fantasy setting that does
n't follow the Hero's Journey. Having said that, I can think of quite a few settings/books/movies that follow the monomyth and are not High Fantasy. Thus the High Fantasy genre acts as a remora to the much broader concept of the Heroe's Journey.
Eragon IS very funny. When I saw it, I renamed every character after Star Wars characters. It was so easy, every single one fit. And Eragon, Dragon, one letter difference, really?
Quote from: SurvivormanEragon IS very funny. When I saw it, I renamed every character after Star Wars characters. It was so easy, every single one fit. And Eragon, Dragon, one letter difference, really?
Don't forget the obvious phonetic similarity between Aragorn and Eragon.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: SurvivormanEragon IS very funny. When I saw it, I renamed every character after Star Wars characters. It was so easy, every single one fit. And Eragon, Dragon, one letter difference, really?
Don't forget the obvious phonetic similarity between Aragorn and Eragon.
It's also an anagram for rage on... oddly appropriate...
Quote from: NomadicQuote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: SurvivormanEragon IS very funny. When I saw it, I renamed every character after Star Wars characters. It was so easy, every single one fit. And Eragon, Dragon, one letter difference, really?
Don't forget the obvious phonetic similarity between Aragorn and Eragon.
It's also an anagram for rage on... oddly appropriate...
And yet the kid was very indecisive and pretty much relied on other people telling him what to do (be that Obi-Wan, Leia, Han or the Boer King).
Quote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: SurvivormanEragon IS very funny. When I saw it, I renamed every character after Star Wars characters. It was so easy, every single one fit. And Eragon, Dragon, one letter difference, really?
Don't forget the obvious phonetic similarity between Aragorn and Eragon.
Now that is the part that is truly annoying.
Speaking of the similarities between Star Wars and Eragon, wouldn't Star Wars be considered High Fantasy? It completely fits my definition, and fits everybody elses really well also. For example, it is epic in scope with lots of magical stuff (the force is always referred to and all over the place) and destiny is a huge aspect of it. It also has a very black and white view of the good vs evil most of the time, and has dozens of different fantastical races.
It does have many sci-fiish elements, but I think that the fantasy kind of overrules them.
Quote from: SurvivormanSpeaking of the similarities between Star Wars and Eragon, wouldn't Star Wars be considered High Fantasy? It completely fits my definition, and fits everybody elses really well also. For example, it is epic in scope with lots of magical stuff (the force is always referred to and all over the place) and destiny is a huge aspect of it. It also has a very black and white view of the good vs evil most of the time, and has dozens of different fantastical races.
It does have many sci-fiish elements, but I think that the fantasy kind of overrules them.
I believe Star Wars is (or should be) classified as Sci-Fantasy.
Quote from: SurvivormanSpeaking of the similarities between Star Wars and Eragon, wouldn't Star Wars be considered High Fantasy? It completely fits my definition, and fits everybody elses really well also. For example, it is epic in scope with lots of magical stuff (the force is always referred to and all over the place) and destiny is a huge aspect of it. It also has a very black and white view of the good vs evil most of the time, and has dozens of different fantastical races.
It does have many sci-fiish elements, but I think that the fantasy kind of overrules them.
I got thoroughly thrashed (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?71697.0) for my genre classification of A New Hope, but it's interesting that we bring up many of the same points.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuote from: SurvivormanSpeaking of the similarities between Star Wars and Eragon, wouldn't Star Wars be considered High Fantasy? It completely fits my definition, and fits everybody elses really well also. For example, it is epic in scope with lots of magical stuff (the force is always referred to and all over the place) and destiny is a huge aspect of it. It also has a very black and white view of the good vs evil most of the time, and has dozens of different fantastical races.
It does have many sci-fiish elements, but I think that the fantasy kind of overrules them.
I got thoroughly thrashed (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?71697.0) for my genre classification of A New Hope, but it's interesting that we bring up many of the same points.
The problem is that Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Horror are all just names we give to what we perceive are common threads in Speculative Fiction. Is a setting where a Space Bus crash lands on a remote forest island filled with hostile natives that manipulate unique electro-magnetic fluctuations to preform what some might call magical effects, Sci-Fi or Fantasy? Is a setting where Humans have colonized a desert moon and wage war with Laser Swords while sitting atop massive dragon-like cyborg creatures, Sci-Fi or Fantasy? Is a setting where Humans explore the galaxy through a mystical portal and fight with beings who believe themselves to be Egyptian Gods with alien technology so advanced, laymen would call it magic, Sci-Fi or Fantasy?
In the end the lines are blurred because there are no lines, they're completely artificial, imposed by humans who have an insatiable urge to define and categorize things.
I would define science fiction as fiction that is founded firmly on a scientific world view (appropriate to the time of it's writing). Sadly, this is not a commonly accepted definition, and many works that are labeled as "sci-fi" don't fit it.
The definition of fantasy should not make any assumptions about technology and stages of civilization. Space fantasy should be just as much a part of the fantasy genre as medieval fantasy. The defining characteristic of all fantasy fiction should be the presense of something deemed supernatural at the time of writing (making it incompatible with a scientific world view). This is admittedly problematic, since traditionally "fantastic" elements may in fact have entirely non-supernatural interpretations.
For example, some mythical creatures such as unicorns may be commonly thought of as fantastic - but are they really? Considering an interpretation where a unicorn is nothing more than a mammal that is anatomically like a horse except having a single horn, a lion-like tail and cloven hoofs, does it actually break the laws of physics? Is it biologically unfeasible?
Unicorns did not evolve on Earth, but would it be impossible for such animals to evolve on a different planet? If someone was to write about a planet where unicorns do exist, and keep it 100% scientifically plausible (no matter how unlikely), would it still have to be considered fantasy? According to my definition it couldn't be fantasy, since no supernatural elements -> non-fantasy.
SH,
you are very right about the LotR point...Destiny and the tying together of threads is certainly present.
.
DR, I have to say the presence of our own reality in a setting does little to make it high or low fantasy, at least in my estimation.
However, Star Wars as High Fantasy certainly is no problem here. Definitions are also viewpoints, and when we look at Star Wars theough the Lens of 'High Fantasy', it certainly matches many criterion.
Except I still think that the 'Good vs Evil' thing is incidental to the definition.
Nomadic, we do need a CBG dictionary to guide the poor sheep outside our walls of erudition.
I would agree that star wars is sci-fantasy (space sci-fi + high fantasy), taking aspects from both but being neither fully in one or the other. Mainly because both science fiction and fantasy have over time evolved into two super-categories separate from each other (yet having points where they intersect). What ghostman defines as sci-fi in general is generally held to be the definition of one subgenre of it known as hard science fiction (Arthur C. Clarke's work being a good example). At one time sci-fi was considered a sub-genre of fantasy, but imho I don't think you can honestly say that it is anymore.
High Fantasy= Epic quests, fantastical creatures, powerful foes and wondrous locations of splendor/decay. It should have the sense of destiny behind it all.
Throw in a couple of damsels in distress for starters and then rescue the king from a evil plot while preparing to fight off the hordes of demons entering through a dimensional rift that threatens to destroy the world....
Something like that
Quote from: DungeonMasterHigh Fantasy= Epic quests, fantastical creatures, powerful foes and wondrous locations of splendor/decay. It should have the sense of destiny behind it all.
Throw in a couple of damsels in distress for starters and then rescue the king from a evil plot while preparing to fight off the hordes of demons entering through a dimensional rift that threatens to destroy the world....
Something like that
Don't forget the heroes seemingly useless but ultimately vital (and possibly comedic) sidekick.
You watched that D&D movie too many times...or too many red suited star trek fellas...nope...if there's a npc called "sacrifice", I'm not a subscriber.
Quote from: DungeonMasterYou watched that D&D movie too many times...or too many red suited star trek fellas...nope...if there's a npc called "sacrifice", I'm not a subscriber.
I was referring more to people like samwise gamgee. Of course if Hu Mon Sakrofays wants to be the heroes sidekick who am I to stop him.
Sam was the icon of uber-loyal side-kick and co-protagonist...shame on you.
Quote from: NomadicQuote from: DungeonMasterYou watched that D&D movie too many times...or too many red suited star trek fellas...nope...if there's a npc called "sacrifice", I'm not a subscriber.
I was referring more to people like samwise gamgee. Of course if Hu Mon Sakrofays wants to be the heroes sidekick who am I to stop him.
Samwise is the glue that kept Frodo's mind intact. If not for Samwise, Frodo would have become another Golem. Plus, we all know Pippin and Merry were pretty useless until the last fight. I think they're more of the character archetype you're looking for.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: NomadicQuote from: DungeonMasterYou watched that D&D movie too many times...or too many red suited star trek fellas...nope...if there's a npc called "sacrifice", I'm not a subscriber.
I was referring more to people like samwise gamgee. Of course if Hu Mon Sakrofays wants to be the heroes sidekick who am I to stop him.
Samwise is the glue that kept Frodo's mind intact. If not for Samwise, Frodo would have become another Golem. Plus, we all know Pippin and Merry were pretty useless until the last fight. I think they're more of the character archetype you're looking for.
Merry and Pippin definately fit the bill. However Sam WAS 'seemingly' useless. Don't think about it from the perspective of a reader who can look in and see things from a whole ton of angles the characters can't. Look at it through the eyes of some character meeting Sam and Frodo for the first time. Could you honestly look at those two and think this little hobbit gardener would make a difference in helping his master succeed in his quest against the most powerful being in middle earth? Will he in the end? Heck yes, but not in any way you would probably imagine. Thus at first he would seem quite laughably useless in this apparently hopeless quest.
Ah yes from that perspective, Samwise would seem out of place and not much more than a meatshield.
He hit the orcs with a frying pan....
Quote from: SurvivormanHe hit the orcs with a frying pan....
He took improved improvised weapon
Sam is my favirote character in the lord of the rings (Along with Aragorn, Legolas, Frodo, Gandalf, Faramir and Pippin). He was a very interesting character, and made a big difference even though he barely ever did much fighting. I absolutely love two parts specifically: Sam talking to Frodo after Osgiliath fell talking about the great stories and those folk didn't give up, and when Gollum set up Sam saying that he ate the bread and Frodo told him to stay behind.
The first represents how inspirational Sam is, and his amazing bravery in the face of huge danger despite his lack of skills or experience. I think this helped make for a great story, and may be an important part of high fantasy. That one character who "steps up" and helps the rest of the world through sheer bravery. Although such a thing is very unrealistic in the real world, it works very well in high fantasy.
That mixed with destiny can also be very interesting.
Quote from: SurvivormanSam is my favirote character in the lord of the rings (Along with Aragorn, Legolas, Frodo, Gandalf, Faramir and Pippin). He was a very interesting character, and made a big difference even though he barely ever did much fighting. I absolutely love two parts specifically: Sam talking to Frodo after Osgiliath fell talking about the great stories and those folk didn't give up, and when Gollum set up Sam saying that he ate the bread and Frodo told him to stay behind.
The first represents how inspirational Sam is, and his amazing bravery in the face of huge danger despite his lack of skills or experience. I think this helped make for a great story, and may be an important part of high fantasy. That one character who "steps up" and helps the rest of the world through sheer bravery. Although such a thing is very unrealistic in the real world, it works very well in high fantasy.
That mixed with destiny can also be very interesting.
It happens in the real world too, bravery can inspire incredible things. I wouldn't discount it in the real world.