The book reminded the world storytelling matters more than great prose or elaborately nuanced characters, and above all put courage back where it belongs as one of the great virtues
I think a lot of this stems from the whole orcs are racist controversy within D & D. This seemed to me to be more a comment on the racism of those who saw orcs as an ethnic underprivileged group than any racism on the part of Tolkien. I imagine C.S. Lewis is now considered racist because he was an outspoken Christian.
As an avid D&D (and other TTRPGs) player and GM the rather progressive stance taken by some people seems to miss the point - evil vs good. And if everything and everyone is fluffy and nice where can you explore the moral ambiguities of a N/G halfing thief character stealing and using a demon's skull for his own larcenary purposes?
I largely agree with you, at least from the point of pure storytelling, although I prefer it when the character arc shifts in the more positive direction in RPGs, because it's more realistic to real life. Have you heard of Cicero's De Officiis? Cicero makes an argument about a grain merchant. His argument is not that the more moral choice is the right choice for moral reasons, but rather that it's the right choice for perfectly pragmatic reasons.
This actually tends to work out in real life. Trust is far more important than many people realise. One boss told me never to lie or shade the truth too much to directors, because if I ever got caught, nothing I ever said would be trusted again. We had a local petrol station that price gouged during a shortage. After the crisis ended, six months later they went out of business. They lost all their regular customers.
Here is a great clip from Viktor Frankl. I apologise for the poor picture quality, it was the best I could find. It's only 3.20. It makes the point that we only achieve our full potential if we aim higher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DuzoBUrU0E
And here's the real kicker. There is such a thing as having the Just Universe paradigm/rug being pulled out from under your feet. It does happen. But the belief in a moral universe and that good things actually happen to good people actually helps people to achieve more than they otherwise would, as well as to live better lives. That's why I do like moral complexity in stories, but think it's better and more accurate for characters to move towards moral goodness than away from it.
One of the problems with the modern world is the belief that people at the top are necessarily exploitative. It's more accurate to say that they are constrained. Large organisations create an inherent tilt towards amoral decision making for the simple reason that distance and incentives inherently dehumanise through the imposition of standardised practices and arbitrary rules which are cold and unfeeling.
This doesn't mean that people at the top aren't ruthless. I've known a few. But mostly its because they've internally adopted a few lessons from economics on labour reallocation. On the ground, the labour reallocation is rarely as seamless and painless as theory would dictate, especially for older workers. I've become increasingly interested in the work of the labour economists and the likes of Nobel winner Angus Deaton.
Moral goodness may be a matter of social construction, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't have real value beyond the nominal or normative. Cynicism tends to sow its own downward life trajectory. Meanwhile the belief in basic goodness, when not paired with hopeless naivety about human nature, generally tends to act like a forcefield. It's crucial to getting back up when you've been knocked down.
It's worth noting that game theory eventually got around to rediscovering what Cicero already knew. Trust is therefore not merely a pleasant social virtue. It is economic infrastructure. It's why we should be really worried about the direction of travel in the West.
https://paulspooner2.substack.com/p/the-gardener-who-saved-the-world?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=7lg80u
I think a lot of this stems from the whole orcs are racist controversy within D & D. This seemed to me to be more a comment on the racism of those who saw orcs as an ethnic underprivileged group than any racism on the part of Tolkien. I imagine C.S. Lewis is now considered racist because he was an outspoken Christian.
As an avid D&D (and other TTRPGs) player and GM the rather progressive stance taken by some people seems to miss the point - evil vs good. And if everything and everyone is fluffy and nice where can you explore the moral ambiguities of a N/G halfing thief character stealing and using a demon's skull for his own larcenary purposes?
I largely agree with you, at least from the point of pure storytelling, although I prefer it when the character arc shifts in the more positive direction in RPGs, because it's more realistic to real life. Have you heard of Cicero's De Officiis? Cicero makes an argument about a grain merchant. His argument is not that the more moral choice is the right choice for moral reasons, but rather that it's the right choice for perfectly pragmatic reasons.
This actually tends to work out in real life. Trust is far more important than many people realise. One boss told me never to lie or shade the truth too much to directors, because if I ever got caught, nothing I ever said would be trusted again. We had a local petrol station that price gouged during a shortage. After the crisis ended, six months later they went out of business. They lost all their regular customers.
Here is a great clip from Viktor Frankl. I apologise for the poor picture quality, it was the best I could find. It's only 3.20. It makes the point that we only achieve our full potential if we aim higher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DuzoBUrU0E
And here's the real kicker. There is such a thing as having the Just Universe paradigm/rug being pulled out from under your feet. It does happen. But the belief in a moral universe and that good things actually happen to good people actually helps people to achieve more than they otherwise would, as well as to live better lives. That's why I do like moral complexity in stories, but think it's better and more accurate for characters to move towards moral goodness than away from it.
One of the problems with the modern world is the belief that people at the top are necessarily exploitative. It's more accurate to say that they are constrained. Large organisations create an inherent tilt towards amoral decision making for the simple reason that distance and incentives inherently dehumanise through the imposition of standardised practices and arbitrary rules which are cold and unfeeling.
This doesn't mean that people at the top aren't ruthless. I've known a few. But mostly its because they've internally adopted a few lessons from economics on labour reallocation. On the ground, the labour reallocation is rarely as seamless and painless as theory would dictate, especially for older workers. I've become increasingly interested in the work of the labour economists and the likes of Nobel winner Angus Deaton.
Moral goodness may be a matter of social construction, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't have real value beyond the nominal or normative. Cynicism tends to sow its own downward life trajectory. Meanwhile the belief in basic goodness, when not paired with hopeless naivety about human nature, generally tends to act like a forcefield. It's crucial to getting back up when you've been knocked down.
It's worth noting that game theory eventually got around to rediscovering what Cicero already knew. Trust is therefore not merely a pleasant social virtue. It is economic infrastructure. It's why we should be really worried about the direction of travel in the West.