How do you not get depressed by dark settings?

[Ishmayl-Retired]

See my earlier post on how idiotic I feel that is.

Yeah, but you've taken that quote completely out of context!  Xathan has a good point.  He's not saying, "You can't light a candle unless it's already dark."  He's saying, "Lighting a candle in a dark room makes more of an impact than lighting a candle in a light room."  And that's a simple fact.  I've got a candle lit in my office right now, but for the smell, you wouldn't be able to tell.  However, if I turned all the lights in the building and office off, my candle would be providing a very obvious light.

[RedBullBear]

I just disagree.  One of the first important things I like to read about a world (other than beautiful flavor text) is what the conflicts in the world are.  To me, that is what sets the stage for the entire story of the world

I agree.  I always look to find out what the possibilties are to get involved in the shooty-stabby-fun.  However, it's another thing to find out that no matter how much you stab and shoot the great Cthulu is inevitably going to win.  I like to think that my character's goals either have a chance of succeeding or can contribute to a movement which may eventually succeed.  Playing the fiesty rearguard of a doomed concept or group is not my kind of roleplaying fun. :fencing:

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

â,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦you've taken that quote completely out of context!

I felt that I haven't: darkness and light should be appreciated seperately, or one does not appreciate that element.

Perhaps what I look for in a setting is a place to explore, not a goal to defeat.  I don't mind the idea that there's something to take on, I just don't like the feeling that this one thing (or even group of things) is the soul purpose of the world.  I like the world to stand on its own.  That's what I've tried to do with all my settings.

[Xathan]

â,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦you've taken that quote completely out of context!

See, I disagree on this point fundamentally, though I wouldn't call it idiotic...everyone has different tastes. Lets use, by way of analogy, suffering and joy. Imagine someone who spends their entire life without suffering, but just in a constant state of joy. Now, imagine someone who goes through trials and tribulations like everyone else, but in the end manages to reach a joy equal to that of the first person. The person who experienced something other than joy will likely be able to better appreciate the joy he now experiences because of the suffering he endured, while the person who spent their entire life with nothing but joy would not be able to fully appreciate the gift he has, because he never knew anything else. And, by extension, I would argue that someone who has suffered more is better able to appreciate joy that someone who had some suffering, but suffered less (and I am pretending that there is an objective measure of suffering and joy, just like you can objectively measure the amount of light in a room.)

So it goes with the campaign settings and darkness and light. The more darkness there is, to a certain extent, the more you can appreciate what light you have. (There is a limit. If there is too much darkness, then the light does not offer sufficient illumination, and like a candle lit in a huge, empty cave, only makes the darkness seem more oppressive because of it's now perceived vastness.)

Perhaps what I look for in a setting is a place to explore, not a goal to defeat.  I don't mind the idea that there's something to take on, I just don't like the feeling that this one thing (or even group of things) is the soul purpose of the world.  I like the world to stand on its own.  That's what I've tried to do with all my settings.

Well, now you're talking about an entirely different issue. That's not a matter of darkness in a setting, that's more a matter of having a metaplot - IE, a setting with a obvious threat/story to follow: a setting that is as much campaign as setting. You can have a metaplot setting without darkness, so the two don't directly correlate. Granted, darker settings tend to have more obvious threats, but you can have a dark setting and not have a plot or plots built in.

[SDragon]

â,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦you've taken that quote completely out of context!

See, I disagree on this point fundamentally, though I wouldn't call it idiotic...everyone has different tastes. Lets use, by way of analogy, suffering and joy. Imagine someone who spends their entire life without suffering, but just in a constant state of joy. Now, imagine someone who goes through trials and tribulations like everyone else, but in the end manages to reach a joy equal to that of the first person. The person who experienced something other than joy will likely be able to better appreciate the joy he now experiences because of the suffering he endured, while the person who spent their entire life with nothing but joy would not be able to fully appreciate the gift he has, because he never knew anything else. And, by extension, I would argue that someone who has suffered more is better able to appreciate joy that someone who had some suffering, but suffered less (and I am pretending that there is an objective measure of suffering and joy, just like you can objectively measure the amount of light in a room.)

So it goes with the campaign settings and darkness and light. The more darkness there is, to a certain extent, the more you can appreciate what light you have. (There is a limit. If there is too much darkness, then the light does not offer sufficient illumination, and like a candle lit in a huge, empty cave, only makes the darkness seem more oppressive because of it's now perceived vastness.)

Perhaps what I look for in a setting is a place to explore, not a goal to defeat.  I don't mind the idea that there's something to take on, I just don't like the feeling that this one thing (or even group of things) is the soul purpose of the world.  I like the world to stand on its own.  That's what I've tried to do with all my settings.

Interestingly enough, a bright anough "light" in a dark enough setting is quickly squashed. Can you imagine how long a real-world pope would last in a setting ten times as dark as Ravenloft? If nothing else, I'd say the short lifespan of a paladin-esque moral figure would be a hint as to the borders of "too hopeless", although any defined borderline is, of course, subject to individual opinion.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

See, I disagree on this point fundamentally, though I wouldn't call it idiotic...everyone has different tastes. Lets use, by way of analogy, suffering and joy. Imagine someone who spends their entire life without suffering, but just in a constant state of joy. Now, imagine someone who goes through trials and tribulations like everyone else, but in the end manages to reach a joy equal to that of the first person. The person who experienced something other than joy will likely be able to better appreciate the joy he now experiences because of the suffering he endured, while the person who spent their entire life with nothing but joy would not be able to fully appreciate the gift he has, because he never knew anything else. And, by extension, I would argue that someone who has suffered more is better able to appreciate joy that someone who had some suffering, but suffered less (and I am pretending that there is an objective measure of suffering and joy, just like you can objectively measure the amount of light in a room.)

See to me, this is a fallacy: suffering is bad, so having any at all is bad.  There is no balance between joy and suffering, they are seperate concepts.  That's been my experience.

[Poseptune]

See to me, this is a fallacy: suffering is bad, so having any at all is bad.  There is no balance between joy and suffering, they are seperate concepts.  That's been my experience.

Light and Dark, Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, Male and Female, Horizontal and Vertical*. While each of these terms can be defined separately, but are better defined when they are viewed with their contrast.


*I saw a study once of kittens that were raised in a room with nothing but vertical lines. They spent months in these rooms. When they got out they couldn't see horizontal lines.

[SA]

See to me, this is a fallacy: suffering is bad, so having any at all is bad. There is no balance between joy and suffering, they are seperate concepts. That's been my experience.

any[/i] given amount of suffering?  If there is x amount of suffering, and y amount of joy, would it make any difference at all if there is more y then x, or would the mere presence of x make the world a "bad" world?

Is there a good world to be found anywhere, then, but in such fantastic places existant only in the minds of the lobotomised and the drugged, where there are no sharp edges and no discordant melodies?

I'd argue that there are no two concepts more intertwined than joy and suffering.  There is little that objectively separates them, and it is specifically the existence of one that colours the definition and perceived nature (if not the validity) of the other.

For example, have you never been subjected to a horrid racket for an extended period, than found yourself thoroughly contented when the cacophany finally dissolved?  Sure, on an objective level it's the same silence as you've heard a million times before, but is it the same peace and quiet?

The two are not the same thing.

If we were to divide the two dichotomous notions (of pain and joy), labelling one bad and the other good (from gaming perspectives; if we agree that in-game suffering isn't "bad" as pertaining to the gaming experience, there's really nothing to debate), then how would we create a pleasurable roleplaying experience?

As Ishmayl said, conlficts often define a campaign setting.

As to the nature of said conflict, it is very easy to see why supposedly "dark" elements are so readily adopted by world builders.  Consider our world.  The real world.  The one with all the drug barons, child prostitution rings, conflict diamonds, farce trials, political wranglings, stillborns, race riots...

It would seem our own world ain't that peachy.

Of course, a lot of the settings you're referring to have far more extreme troubles: a decaying landscape, sadistic gods, tyrannical cabals, horrifyingly demonic sorceries and the like, but whatever the seeming nature of these troubles, they all essentially amount to conflicts, or, for the ones that can never be confronted, background.

I'll tell you now that if I didn't see the tragedies of our world as something to overcome, then I'd probably never bother waking.  To a great extent, suffering in-game serves the same (philosophical) purpose as it does in real life: to be transcended.  When all the struggles are forgotten, there can be no further triumph.  There are other dimensions to it, but this one is essential.

Now, how much woe one will tolerate is a very individual thing, and I think we can all agree that there is no actuall virtue in desensitisation, but the fact is that some people will just shrug their shoulders when they stumble upon the dismembered and zombified corpses of the BBEG's latest victims.  To them it's a challenge; a narrative device or poetic impetus. They don't tear their hair out, curse the Gods or recoil in disgust... they charge on, 'cos there's a job to be done.

So if I want my campagin to involve a rag-tag bunch of hackers and delinquents struggling against a monolithic primordial overfiend as it slowly reaches with grasping arms across the cosmos to cast all sentience into agony eternal, the question is never "Isn't that a bit negative?" but rather "Can they win?"

I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, but if you do, that is certainly your prerogative.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Well, SA, I think you've given a good close to this thread.  We're not going ot get anywhere with this arguement (at least, I'm not) because, as you've said, some people can accept amounts of suffering.  I can't.  I don't believe bad things are ever good things.  I would never wake up if I could.  I'd enjoy nothingness more than feeling anything.  It's not just some twisted psychosis but an actual analyzation of what the experience would actually be like.

[Elven Doritos]

Fiction, man.

[SA]

I would have put it that way myself, but then, it would not have made for a very interesting discussion, would it?

[Poseptune]

If you say "suffering is bad, so having any at all is bad", then what kind of setting is good? I turn to literature again. Is the world that Lord of the Rings is set in bad? While Gondor was suffering, Boromir said so in the council meeting. Does that make it a dark and evil setting?

Goodkind has the Old World, in his "setting". The people there are slaves to despair. They are taught from a very young age that they are worthless and should only think of serving others. If they think of themselves at all they are evil. They even have a place where people are tortured when someone has claimed they are evil. They are tortured until they confess at which point they are either fined or killed depending on what they confess. Now it has been this way for generations. The main character is forced to live there, or his love will die, and pretend to be one of them. Through his interactions he started to change peoples view, but it was only a few people in a world of millions (possibly billions). He was forced to carved people suffering on a building, which was torture to him. Because he was so good at it, he was asked to create a large statue for the front of the building. He created his statue in secret. He made it something he wanted, knowing he would likely be put to death for his "crimes". When the statue was unveiled, the people started a revolt. The statue showed them there is hope. They overthrew the government in and nearby their towns. The revolt continues to grow and gain momentum.

This area was very dark and depressing to read, even the main character wanted to give up a few times. But things have changed now. Because of this one act of defiance the people are changing the way they live. So basically one "adventure" changed the tone of the "setting".
Is this bad?

In my setting I have a nation that is ruled by a very Caesar-esque ruler. Dwarves in the nation suffer because of him (he hates them to the point of destroying their homeland and enslaving them.). The military is allowed to do what they want, just because they are the military. There is a resistance group that is trying to overthrow this dictator. Is this bad?

What kind of setting is good, if having any bad is bad?

[beejazz]

This might have been mentioned already, but what about the hidden optimism in alot of dark themes. In my setting, Earth is swallowed by the friggin' sun... and humanity somehow survives. Truth is, humanity might not even last long enough to see this happen (rest assured it will happen... whether we're there to see it and be pummelled by the solar winds and dangerous radiation or not) and that I'm running on the very optimistic assumption that humanity actually outlasts its homeworld.

[Bradford Ferguson]

I say this at great risk.  I believe strongly in this so I must speak up.

I suspect that people are debating someone who does not experience much joy in their life, thinks they are a victim to the people/circumstances in their life, and fantasizes as an escape to a world where there are no victims and suffering.  To them, they must imagine a world of pure joy because they cannot experience that?  

OR, someone who banishes all perceived "negative influences" from their lives and does not even think of "negative" things.  Some people who believe in peace and want peace in the world, do not even think of fighting.  Mother Theresa refused to attend Anti-War Protests, "but you can invite me to a Peace Rally any time."  Some people believe that the best way to get things done in the real world is to be FOR something instead of AGAINST something.  Mother Theresa was FOR peace and not AGAINST war.  I realize this may be a totally different way to think for some.

...

This gets me thinking about a guy known as the Miracle Man from Texas.  He survived a plane crash and was totally paralyzed (broken back, etc).  He could not speak.  Every day, the doctors told him that he would never walk again.  He still had his mind and strong spirit.  He told himself, "I am going to walk out of this hospital on Christmas."  He also said that he NEVER allowed himself to think a negative or limiting thought.  He didn't even have his body, just his mind and spirit.  The first time he walked again was on Christmas and he walked out of the hospital.

...

Struggle and hope.  Love you guys!

BTW, I totally dig the Law vs Chaos conflict!

[Piphtrip]

I agreee with beejaz, I mean, look at WH40K, its about as dark as you get, but there is the lighter side with the Tau, flourishing even as humanity crumbles. I have yet to see a setting that was completely dark, they all have some side of hope.