I just read Poul Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions" for the first time, and I thought it was very illuminating about D&D's roots - moreso than most of the others.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2023, 06:53:13 PM
Poul Anderson is another example. I find "the broken sword" much better than "three hearts and three Lions", but 3H3L has more D&D stuff.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 22, 2023, 03:38:53 PM
Anderson's most famous fantasy novel is "Three Hearts and Three Lions", from which D&D derives the Paladin class and probably its alignment system. If you're only going to read one, though, I recommend "The Broken Sword", which is IMO his finest work, and will change the way you think about elves and trolls forever. If you want sci fi, Anderson's "Flandry of Terra" series, which starts with "Ensign Flandry" is tons of fun, too. Basically James Bond in space.

Quote from: Brad on April 22, 2023, 03:47:19 PM
Anderson, you must read the three books in the appendix. Three Hearts and Three Lions is where Gygax got trolls and paladins and swanmays and a bunch of other stuff, The High Crusade is great because it's EXACTLY how I'd envision an alien landing taking place, and The Broken Sword is just badass. It's his version of creating a new myth using old ones, and fantastic for understanding how the fae are supposed to operate in D&D (including elves).

Things that struck me about Three Hearts and Three Lions was especially how Anderson approached myth from a scientific viewpoint - with comments about the energy needed for magic, genetics of lycanthropy, and thermodynamics of dragons. AD&D doesn't use most of these specifics - but it has a lot of that mindset, like having "infravision" for seeing in the dark as seeing in infrared, psionics, and discussion of the energy of magic.

Also, I think Anderson's version of Law vs Chaos is the closest I've seen to D&D's early alignment systems. Law vs Chaos was a common trope of 1970s fantasy like in Moorcock's Elric and Roger Zelazny's Amber series. However, both of these seemed very different from OD&D's version. Anderson's version seems much closer, linking into Christian myth. Anderson curiously has a pseudo-Europe that had Charlemagne in the past - but Muslims are defined as a part of Law, while Chaos is a giant empire of fey in the East repelled by iron and Christianity. D&D doesn't adapt this directly, but it seems most similar in feel.

Especially, AD&D elevates a distinctly Carolingian paladin as its most iconic symbol of good - which is taken quite directly from Three Hearts and Three Lions. It drops the stuff about fey, and substitutes demons and devils, but I think the ethos is similar.

Quote from: SHARK on April 24, 2023, 03:07:41 PM

Quote from: S'mon on April 24, 2023, 02:55:36 PM
Moorcock definitely needs to be read as a teenager. Preferably disaffected and convinced of one's own importance.

[...]

I also fondly remember Eddings, and the Belgariad series. I enjoyed it immensely. However, as the years went on, and he came out with new series, I found his writing to be...shallow and uninteresting. Not to be too harsh, as I was hugely inspired by his characters, dialogue, and storytelling in the first series, but afterwards, the Diamond Throne thingy, yeah. Just "Heh".

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

He basically reused the plot and characters for his initial series for the three other major series he wrote.  And starting with the third one, he tried to get edgy and mature, which lasted for about the first 3 chapters of the first book.  Still fun to read, but I got a very been-there/done-that feeling about the whole thing.  Some of his other works were more original, but not all of them.  I'm reminded of an author who said that each writer has a limited cast of characters in his mind, which he reuses for all of his stories, dressed in different costume.

Sounds like I need to read some of Anderson's fantasy.  I'm a huge fan of his SF work, but the only fantasy book I read by him was Operation Chaos, which is definitely not D&D.

About Anderson, Moorcock, and alignment, this might be useful, as it explains most of the confusion:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html

Quote from: jhkim on April 24, 2023, 03:27:13 PM
Anderson curiously has a pseudo-Europe that had Charlemagne in the past - but Muslims are defined as a part of Law

Likewise Gygax has Dervishes in the 1e MM as Lawful Good, whereas the Master of the Desert Nomads has the Iran-ish Desert Nomads as Chaotic. Emirates of Ylaruam has the Sunni-ish Preceptors as Lawful and the Shia-ish Kin faction as Chaotic, reflecting the US alliance with Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia. From my own reading, in Islam the universe is upheld at every moment solely through the Will of Allah, with no notion of Natural (scientific) Law, making it much more Chaotic (& rather akin to Nietzsche & Rousseau's emphasis on Will) than Christianity with its typical emphasis on Natural Law; God creating laws to guide the universe, and only occasionally intervening.

Hmm......

The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Sword and the Sorcerer, Dreams in the Witch House, and Conan the Barbarian.

Quote from: jhkim on April 24, 2023, 03:27:13 PM
I just read Poul Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions" for the first time, and I thought it was very illuminating about D&D's roots - moreso than most of the others.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2023, 06:53:13 PM
Poul Anderson is another example. I find "the broken sword" much better than "three hearts and three Lions", but 3H3L has more D&D stuff.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 22, 2023, 03:38:53 PM
Anderson's most famous fantasy novel is "Three Hearts and Three Lions", from which D&D derives the Paladin class and probably its alignment system. If you're only going to read one, though, I recommend "The Broken Sword", which is IMO his finest work, and will change the way you think about elves and trolls forever. If you want sci fi, Anderson's "Flandry of Terra" series, which starts with "Ensign Flandry" is tons of fun, too. Basically James Bond in space.

Quote from: Brad on April 22, 2023, 03:47:19 PM
Anderson, you must read the three books in the appendix. Three Hearts and Three Lions is where Gygax got trolls and paladins and swanmays and a bunch of other stuff, The High Crusade is great because it's EXACTLY how I'd envision an alien landing taking place, and The Broken Sword is just badass. It's his version of creating a new myth using old ones, and fantastic for understanding how the fae are supposed to operate in D&D (including elves).

Things that struck me about Three Hearts and Three Lions was especially how Anderson approached myth from a scientific viewpoint - with comments about the energy needed for magic, genetics of lycanthropy, and thermodynamics of dragons. AD&D doesn't use most of these specifics - but it has a lot of that mindset, like having "infravision" for seeing in the dark as seeing in infrared, psionics, and discussion of the energy of magic.

Also, I think Anderson's version of Law vs Chaos is the closest I've seen to D&D's early alignment systems. Law vs Chaos was a common trope of 1970s fantasy like in Moorcock's Elric and Roger Zelazny's Amber series. However, both of these seemed very different from OD&D's version. Anderson's version seems much closer, linking into Christian myth. Anderson curiously has a pseudo-Europe that had Charlemagne in the past - but Muslims are defined as a part of Law, while Chaos is a giant empire of fey in the East repelled by iron and Christianity. D&D doesn't adapt this directly, but it seems most similar in feel.

Especially, AD&D elevates a distinctly Carolingian paladin as its most iconic symbol of good - which is taken quite directly from Three Hearts and Three Lions. It drops the stuff about fey, and substitutes demons and devils, but I think the ethos is similar.

Three Hearts and Three Lions really helped me understand D&D's assumptions more than many other books

Quote from: S'mon on April 24, 2023, 04:06:26 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 24, 2023, 03:27:13 PM
Anderson curiously has a pseudo-Europe that had Charlemagne in the past - but Muslims are defined as a part of Law

Likewise Gygax has Dervishes in the 1e MM as Lawful Good, whereas the Master of the Desert Nomads has the Iran-ish Desert Nomads as Chaotic. Emirates of Ylaruam has the Sunni-ish Preceptors as Lawful and the Shia-ish Kin faction as Chaotic, reflecting the US alliance with Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia. From my own reading, in Islam the universe is upheld at every moment solely through the Will of Allah, with no notion of Natural (scientific) Law, making it much more Chaotic (& rather akin to Nietzsche & Rousseau's emphasis on Will) than Christianity with its typical emphasis on Natural Law; God creating laws to guide the universe, and only occasionally intervening.

Regarding US alliance with Saudi Arabia -- yeah, it makes sense as a modernist take. From a historical perspective, it's weird to have a Christian Carolingian knight as the hero with lots of medieval references - but then have Muslims be on the same side. The book suggests that one of Chaos' strategies is to get Law to fight itself.

And this is a key point in the book since the protagonist's partner in the second half is a Saracen knight, though he is a Christian convert.

As the modernist interpretation, I suppose the evil anti-Christian fey empire in the east would be a metaphor for the Soviets. The details aren't strongly parallel, but it is pretty clear that they're in the region of Germany - and fighting the godless creatures to the east.

Quote from: Poul AndersonWell, you see, the world of Law– of man– is hemmed in with strangeness, like an island in the sea of the Middle World. Northward live the giants, southward the dragons. Here in Tarnberg we are close to the eastern edge of human settlement and know a trifle about such kingdoms as Faerie and Trollheim. But news travels slowly and gets dissipated in the process. So we have only vague distorted rumors of the western realms– not merely the Middle World domains out in the western ocean, like Avalon, Lyonesse, and Huy Braseal, but even the human countries like France and Spain.

Quote from: Poul AndersonWell, you see, the world of Law– of man– is hemmed in with strangeness, like an island in the sea of the Middle World. Northward live the giants, southward the dragons. Here in Tarnberg we are close to the eastern edge of human settlement and know a trifle about such kingdoms as Faerie and Trollheim. But news travels slowly and gets dissipated in the process. So we have only vague distorted rumors of the western realms– not merely the Middle World domains out in the western ocean, like Avalon, Lyonesse, and Huy Braseal, but even the human countries like France and Spain.

I see where B2's "The Realm of Man is Narrow and Constrained" came from!

Quote from: jhkim on April 24, 2023, 03:27:13 PM
I just read Poul Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions" for the first time, and I thought it was very illuminating about D&D's roots - moreso than most of the others.

Things that struck me about Three Hearts and Three Lions was especially how Anderson approached myth from a scientific viewpoint - with comments about the energy needed for magic, genetics of lycanthropy, and thermodynamics of dragons. AD&D doesn't use most of these specifics - but it has a lot of that mindset, like having "infravision" for seeing in the dark as seeing in infrared, psionics, and discussion of the energy of magic.

Especially, AD&D elevates a distinctly Carolingian paladin as its most iconic symbol of good - which is taken quite directly from Three Hearts and Three Lions. It drops the stuff about fey, and substitutes demons and devils, but I think the ethos is similar.

I have a pet theory about fantasy as a genre. I usually describe it to neophytes as a composite genre, with the chief ingredients being science fiction, historical fiction, and folklore/mythology. Most of the great authors use all three, but they can be classed according to which of the three ingredients they most emphasize. Personally, I find this to be a more useful method of categorization than nebulous terms like "epic fantasy" or "dark fantasy".

Tolkien, Lewis and Alexander I would say are folklorists first. Howard and Martin clearly emphasize the historical element. Leiber, Vance and Moorcock take a more science fiction based approach. Under that schema, Poul Anderson is a bit of a strange case. Depending on the book, he mixes all three elements pretty evenly. 3H3L is roughly an even split between science fiction and folklore. The Broken Sword is almost purely in the myth/folklore camp, while Mother of Kings is much heavier on the historical fiction angle. Terry Pratchett is that way too, where he shifts up the proportions from book to book.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 24, 2023, 08:20:02 AM
On the subject of "good, but not really Appendix N", I'd throw in Lloyd Alexander's "Chronicles of Prydain". They're more in the Tolkien/Lewis vein of fantasy than the Howard/Leiber one, and they're targeted at a younger audience (much in the same way that the Narnia books are), but I recommend them highly nevertheless. Great inspiration material if you want to incorporate a more authentic Anglo-Celtic tone into your D&D.

I have vivid memories of watching The Black Cauldron, and being very pleased that my school library had The Book of Three.

Hell a couple of years ago I bought a copy of the very same printing, just so I'd have it.

Quote from: S'mon on April 24, 2023, 02:55:36 PM
Moorcock definitely needs to be read as a teenager. Preferably disaffected and convinced of one's own importance.

I'm still enjoying him, but I'll admit as an adult there is a bit of irony in my enjoyment compared to the earnestness of my youth.

Also, the rankings of Moorcock I read are varying. I enjoy early Elric more than middle and later today compared to then (writing chronology, not internal) and the proto-Steampunk appeals much more than back then.

Quote from: SHARK on April 24, 2023, 03:07:41 PM

Quote from: S'mon on April 24, 2023, 02:55:36 PM
Moorcock definitely needs to be read as a teenager. Preferably disaffected and convinced of one's own importance.

Greetings!

Strange how Moorcock has such a profound effect upon adolescent readers--and yet, adult readers have generally reacted to Moorcock as being...distinctly uninspiring and mediocre. *Laughing*

I also fondly remember Eddings, and the Belgariad series. I enjoyed it immensely. However, as the years went on, and he came out with new series, I found his writing to be...shallow and uninteresting. Not to be too harsh, as I was hugely inspired by his characters, dialogue, and storytelling in the first series, but afterwards, the Diamond Throne thingy, yeah. Just "Heh".

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Eddings wrote his two main theories twice, longer and less fun the second time both times. I didn't read the standalone Polegra or Belgarath books. I did like the Riven Codex but it was like a poor man's Silmarillian in some ways.

Quote from: jhkim on April 24, 2023, 03:27:13 PM
I just read Poul Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions" for the first time, and I thought it was very illuminating about D&D's roots - moreso than most of the others.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2023, 06:53:13 PM
Poul Anderson is another example. I find "the broken sword" much better than "three hearts and three Lions", but 3H3L has more D&D stuff.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 22, 2023, 03:38:53 PM
Anderson's most famous fantasy novel is "Three Hearts and Three Lions", from which D&D derives the Paladin class and probably its alignment system. If you're only going to read one, though, I recommend "The Broken Sword", which is IMO his finest work, and will change the way you think about elves and trolls forever. If you want sci fi, Anderson's "Flandry of Terra" series, which starts with "Ensign Flandry" is tons of fun, too. Basically James Bond in space.

Quote from: Brad on April 22, 2023, 03:47:19 PM
Anderson, you must read the three books in the appendix. Three Hearts and Three Lions is where Gygax got trolls and paladins and swanmays and a bunch of other stuff, The High Crusade is great because it's EXACTLY how I'd envision an alien landing taking place, and The Broken Sword is just badass. It's his version of creating a new myth using old ones, and fantastic for understanding how the fae are supposed to operate in D&D (including elves).

Things that struck me about Three Hearts and Three Lions was especially how Anderson approached myth from a scientific viewpoint - with comments about the energy needed for magic, genetics of lycanthropy, and thermodynamics of dragons. AD&D doesn't use most of these specifics - but it has a lot of that mindset, like having "infravision" for seeing in the dark as seeing in infrared, psionics, and discussion of the energy of magic.

Also, I think Anderson's version of Law vs Chaos is the closest I've seen to D&D's early alignment systems. Law vs Chaos was a common trope of 1970s fantasy like in Moorcock's Elric and Roger Zelazny's Amber series. However, both of these seemed very different from OD&D's version. Anderson's version seems much closer, linking into Christian myth. Anderson curiously has a pseudo-Europe that had Charlemagne in the past - but Muslims are defined as a part of Law, while Chaos is a giant empire of fey in the East repelled by iron and Christianity. D&D doesn't adapt this directly, but it seems most similar in feel.

Especially, AD&D elevates a distinctly Carolingian paladin as its most iconic symbol of good - which is taken quite directly from Three Hearts and Three Lions. It drops the stuff about fey, and substitutes demons and devils, but I think the ethos is similar.

I don't think it's an accident that of the three versions of Law & Chaos you cited Anderson is the closest to AD&D.

Major reason: Gygax's faith and its strong influence on D&D via cleric spells initially and some magic items and later the paladin.
Minor reason: It's the oldest of the three so probably what Gygax read first.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 24, 2023, 10:05:16 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 24, 2023, 03:27:13 PM
I just read Poul Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions" for the first time, and I thought it was very illuminating about D&D's roots - moreso than most of the others.

Things that struck me about Three Hearts and Three Lions was especially how Anderson approached myth from a scientific viewpoint - with comments about the energy needed for magic, genetics of lycanthropy, and thermodynamics of dragons. AD&D doesn't use most of these specifics - but it has a lot of that mindset, like having "infravision" for seeing in the dark as seeing in infrared, psionics, and discussion of the energy of magic.

Especially, AD&D elevates a distinctly Carolingian paladin as its most iconic symbol of good - which is taken quite directly from Three Hearts and Three Lions. It drops the stuff about fey, and substitutes demons and devils, but I think the ethos is similar.

I have a pet theory about fantasy as a genre. I usually describe it to neophytes as a composite genre, with the chief ingredients being science fiction, historical fiction, and folklore/mythology. Most of the great authors use all three, but they can be classed according to which of the three ingredients they most emphasize. Personally, I find this to be a more useful method of categorization than nebulous terms like "epic fantasy" or "dark fantasy".

Tolkien, Lewis and Alexander I would say are folklorists first. Howard and Martin clearly emphasize the historical element. Leiber, Vance and Moorcock take a more science fiction based approach. Under that schema, Poul Anderson is a bit of a strange case. Depending on the book, he mixes all three elements pretty evenly. 3H3L is roughly an even split between science fiction and folklore. The Broken Sword is almost purely in the myth/folklore camp, while Mother of Kings is much heavier on the historical fiction angle. Terry Pratchett is that way too, where he shifts up the proportions from book to book.

This is an interesting idea, especially given the emergence of fantasy as a commercial genre label, separating it out from other fantastic fiction.

I need to think about this one a bit, especially if it works for older authors like Dunsany, Morris, etc.