Tolkien's "Eucatastrophe"

At the Chronicles of Atlantis blog, there is a brief introduction to Tolkien's literary idea of "eucatastrophe", a word he coined and which would translate (from the Greek) roughly as "good destruction".

Athos (the blog's inestimable author) also graciously provides handy links to the Tolkien Gateway website, which (in Wikipedia fashion) gives information about Tolkien, his life and work.

Tolkien's "eucatastrophe" - good destruction - is not to be confused with the mere modern taste for tearing things down... quite the opposite. No, not even the opposite - the cure for such an affliction of mind. Eucatastrophe entails making great sacrifices to preserve what is good and beautiful in the teeth of destruction.

It expounds on the biblical principle that "all things work together for good to them that love God", along with its negative corollary - all things work together for ill to them that hate God. This triumph of good, far from being accomplished via a deus ex machina, is completely organic, woven into the fabric of creation. Evil always carries the seeds of its own destruction. This is also why the proverb warns "Do not envy the wicked".

The job of the hero, the one who overcomes, is simply to persevere in doing right, "Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him." - James 1:12.

The hero's job is explicitly not to overcome by any means possible. This, in fact, may be his/her chief temptation... to secure a victory on the ground by doing evil, to move in his/her own strength and understanding - even on behalf of "the good guys". Of course, the other major temptation wil be to quit... or even to rest.

Perseverance in doing right may cost the hero dearly, but the worst that can happen is that he/she will be defeated and die defending the Good... and receive a heavenly reward - what Tolkien calls, "the consolation of the Happy Ending" characteristic of the Fairy Story. Choose to ignore the moral law - even (or perhaps especially) in a "good" cause, and the best that can happen will be that one become a citizen of Hell for eternity in exchange for a hollow and very temporary earthly victory.

In Eucatastrophe, It is not the destruction that is good, but good that is suddenly brought out of destruction... a crisis that stirs up self-forgetting love and courageous action in the hero.

Comments

[Pierce O.]

"The hero's job is explicitly not to overcome by any means possible. This, in fact, may be his/her chief temptation... to secure a victory on the ground by doing evil, to move in his/her own strength and understanding - even on behalf of "the good guys". Of course, the other major temptation wil be to quit... or even to rest."

Does anyone have any idea how I might work this idea into my roleplaying game sessions? The main problem being that since the players are not experiencing any of the hardships their characters might go through, there is no reason why they would give up or quit...that and the fact that most of my group just wants to kill goblins :(

[Shakespeare's Cobbler - who forgot how to log in]

Pierce,

I can think of lots of ways, but don't know that they will materialize when I'm around here -- more likely they will materialize either A) while I am lying awake at night or B) while I am playing games myself and wander off imagining making my own (I'm more of a console gamer, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Legend of Zelda). However, if you'd like to find someplace I can make note to drop in and expound on anything that comes to me should the opportunity arise, I'd be delighted to see it put to good use!

One simple method to begin with is to allow one or two cheap ways of winning that bring forth mediocre, shallow outcomes story-wise. Something perhaps bigger would be to keep in mind that you do, in fact, have the power to annoy your players to heck, but I can't off the top of my head think how to do that and make it successful and helpful to the experience given that there are any number of ways it could backfire (e.g. annoyance isn't a particularly literary/artistic quality, so it could easily conflict with the drive to make the game, well, not all bleh).

[Shakespeare's Cobbler - who forgot how to log in]

And actually, there is always the possibility that to some extent a player's characters do set an example for him or her. If I immerse myself in Grand Theft Auto, I could treat it as silly and come off fine, or I could get into it seriously and have my conscience and sense of evil twisted. If I immerse myself in a game that, like a good book, connects me genuinely with a hero taking the hard path of righteousness, I can still blow it off or twist it in my own mind, but I can also allow myself to be inspired to follow that path in reality. One thing I've found solace in playing great games is the sense that man (albeit in reality through the grace and working of God) can survive and even triumph over evils as dark as, well, mutant demon overlords from the space of another dimension who control all the robots on our planet. Similarly, we are inspired by Frodo and the rest of the heroes in LotR. I think it would be quite possible to combine the two. The only trick is to work on making the player sympathize with the hero, lest he say, "Yeah, I see the message, but the hero is so not really experiencing the real struggles I am." And then, that's something writers of books have to work at as well. Heck, it's something some preachers should work on, given that the Bible has psalms about how gorram angry we are at our enemies and the preachers tend to think we should only look at the parts about loving our enemies. They mean well because that end part is the ultimate goal, but they can get a little disconnected from the ground level, which on the other hand their holy guide book isn't in the least.