| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wenin |
Posted - 22 Feb 2011 : 16:12:52
How does an orc kingdom like Many Arrows continue to exist? In my campaign, I'm setting up the return of the Orc/Ogre kingdom of Thar, and am perplexed by the thought of a lasting kingdom.
I would imagine that an orc kingdom must continually attack its neighbors, successfully. This is both in order to keep their population in check, and to supply the kingdom with needed resources. Now from what I understand, the kingdom of Many Arrows did not do this, and that instead trade was established with the orc kingdom.
The biggest issue I see is... how exactly would you feed a non-raiding, stationary orc kingdom? Especially when it exists within the typically desolate lands that orcs are pushed into.
Orcs (at least the typical orc) does not farm, nor do they raise livestock. They are hunters/gatherers, which do not support large populations, which is what seditary orc populations produce.
Could they really be seen as having slave farms?
Human serf like farmers?
Orogs are known for their metal working, so they do have the capability of producing goods, for the food.... but relying on another nation to feed an orc nation does not seem like a sustainable situation.
In my campaign I'm actually going to return the orcs back to their 2nd Edition Lawful Evil alignment status. At a Lawful alignment, they are more plyable, in my opinion. I'm doing this change through the actual campaign itself, and not just declaring it. I'm explaining it that there was an event 8000 years ago that resulted in Gruumsh loosing a piece of his divinity in a fight with Corellon. Since that event Gruumsh has not cared (even less than would be expected for an evil orc god =)) about his faithful orcs... allowing them to run amok.
The campaign then ties in the creation of the Many Arrows kingdom with a kingdom I'm creating in Thar, and then another GM in the group is going to run a campaign where the players are all orcs... and go down towards the Border Kingdoms and creates an Orc kingdom down there as well. My thought is that you can't have a lasting kingdom when you're chaotic in nature.
Though there are the drow... =)
So your thoughts?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 04:38:05
Mostly unbroken = BROKEN
Its really VERY obvious from that alone that it wasn't a perfect father-to-son line of succession. Since Orcs will rut with just about anyone, THE Obould could have had dozens of bastards (do Orcs even marry?) In fact, an Orc tribe would probably be rife with relationships that we - in this day and age - would term 'incestuous' (up until this last century, marrying your first cousin was not only common, but expected amongst the upper classes).
In other words, just about everyone in Oboulds own 'home tribe' would have been related to him in one way or another, regardless. There is also some descrepencies between the number of Oboulds between the original and current ones, between RAS's novels and the canon (4e) sourcebooks, which makes the entire issue 'fuzzier' (and easier for us to reinterpret as we see fit).
I would much prefer a history with a 'mixed bag' of Oboulds - some mentally weak the shamans dominated, and others strong, and independent, who kept the shamans in-check. The stupid ones would likely believe the shamans, and the smart ones would just allow the story of 'Obould Returned' to continue, for their own benefit. I don't see how it really contradicts anything - it shoe-horns nicely.
Also, note that Gruumsh went from the 'savage conqueror' to the more careful long-range planner right around the time we also became aware he is also Talos. I think we can use that - wasn't their some theories about Garagos being part Talos, and part someone else (I forget who)?
Wouldn't it be a kick in the head if Gruumsh lost a battle with another primal 'wargod' a long, long time ago, who then stole/absorbed a good chunk of Gruumsh's power - the piece that became Talos? That means at the tail-end of 3e, Gruumsh reabsorbed that severed aspect, which in-turn changed his way of thinking over time (which is why Obould's long-range plans became acceptable to a god that would have hated them a mere decade or two earlier). It could be that Gruumsh was not able to fully reabsorb that aspect - which was independent (and sentient) for so long, until the great cosmic shake-up when Mystra fell (which makes sense when you consider all the other deific changes happening everywhere, including to the Orcish pantheon).
EDIT: Eureka! I have a better theory... let me sleep on it... I need to ponder more on the apparent alignment changes as well. I just need someone (Krash? Gray?) to remind about the details concerning the Garagos theory. I think what this may be is a simple case of redundant (thanks to the Orcgate wars) Gruumsh aspects on a single world (and since one was going by another name, it took awhile to sort itself out). |
| BEAST |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 19:11:01
Bah! All of that requires us to creatively reinterpret "mostly unbroken" as well as "dynastic line", and that hurts a Morndinsamman's head. If new leaders are being scouted and appointed and then given fake IDs as belonging to the Tribe of Many-Arrows, then the line really has been broken, and then glued back together with impersonators. And if leaders are being killed off and replaced by newcomers from outside the family, then there's hardly a dynastic line anymore, at all, but rather a crooked squiggly mark, spliced together with a bunch of dots and dashes.
What happened to Krash's Razor, cited above in this scroll?
Certainly I would agree that the shamans undermined the Obouldan peace accords. But what little we've been told as of yet about the century span indicates that the Obouldan peace ultimately prevailed through ~1472 DR, rather than the shamanistic conquer-now fundamentalism. So the shamans may have tried, repeatedly, but they kept getting swatted back down.
That is, until something major happened between 1472 and 1479 DR, removing Obould "VI"/XVI from power and pitting Many-Arrows against the North, once again.
Methinks the shamans were the guilty parties behind border skirmishes, and this ongoing orcan violence is probably what gave rise to the Casin Cu Calas would-be "goodly" vigilantes. If the CCC assassinated an orc in one/some of the early orcan intermarriages ballyhooed by Obould "VI"/XVI, then the resulting widespread orcan outrage may have been enough to turn the Many-Arrows orcs against the peace, and toward the shamans' old ways. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 16:30:12
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Also, a dynasty doesn't necessarily entail father-to-son heirs--so long as it's in the family, which to an Orc might be more like "in the tribe."
If it's in the family, as you say, then that's still a family succession. That's all I was saying.[/quote]Well, male heredity is always a tricky thing. An orc could *claim* descent from a powerful king who it is known/suspected bedded his mother, and who's to dispute his claim? I think power in an orc society is more about who's got the might to make the right. Actual lineage comes secondary to that point.
I interpret the text in the FRCG to say that Obould's "tribe" has held power (with a few exceptions) all this time, with the crown going to the chosen heir of each given generation. The current king may or may not have any of Obould's blood in him.
Cheers |
| BEAST |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 09:01:20
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
All Krash (and I) is suggesting is that there is some room for conflict, which I think there definitely is. We know very little about the 1410 - 1472 era, and I would imagine there were some struggles between Obould's less potent heirs and the shamans.
I agree with this. As I've mentioned before, I think that it was a shaman-instigated upstart that dubbed himself "Obould II" who fought Drizzt in the Third Orc War of 1408 DR. But the fundamentalist approach was a losing one.
The Urlgen/Obould II who maintained the Treaty with the rest of the Silver Marches is the one who won out.
Now, if they were one in the same, and the shamans backed him at first because he was a conquer-now fundamentalist, then whither their support when he became a conquer-later reformist? If they continued to back him at that point, then those shamans would've converted to conquer-later reformed religion, as well. Thus, it would still be the way of Obould that was winning out in the end, rather than the conniving shamans.
quote:
Also, a dynasty doesn't necessarily entail father-to-son heirs--so long as it's in the family, which to an Orc might be more like "in the tribe."
If it's in the family, as you say, then that's still a family succession. That's all I was saying. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 08:42:02
All Krash (and I) is suggesting is that there is some room for conflict, which I think there definitely is. We know very little about the 1410 - 1472 era, and I would imagine there were some struggles between Obould's less potent heirs and the shamans.
Also, a dynasty doesn't necessarily entail father-to-son heirs--so long as it's in the family, which to an Orc might be more like "in the tribe."
Cheers |
| BEAST |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 07:51:28
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The only thing I don't like about it is that I'm not sure how Gruumsh would react to it. Obould was hinted-at being Gruumsh's chosen (which could have been just more theocratic hype).
When Obould received his upgrades in The Lone Drow, it was clearly packaged by the shamans as a Gruumsh-blessing. In The Orc King, it clearly says that Obould was blessed by Gruumsh, and infused with the strength of a chosen being. And then the FRCG informs us that Obould became Gruumsh's exarch.
It was not just theocratic hype.
quote:
On the other hand, if Gruumsh did approve of Obould (Chosen or not), and the Shamans continued to move forward with his 'dream', then there is no reason why Gruumsh should act.
It all depends on how you spin it. In fact, if the Shamans begin to disagree or do anything else to derail Obould's vision, then it could be possible that Obould really would reincarnate into one of his descendents (which would take the shamans by surprise, after lying all those years, and also "put the fear of god into them").
The shamans are described as embracing Obould in The Lone Drow precisely because they believed he was a traditionalist, fundamentalist, conquer-now orc. They secured his blessing from Gruumsh on those lines.
Obould began to change his plans over time, though, envisioning a stable kingdom alongside those others in the North, and so the shamans began to get cranky. They backed a fundamentalist warlord, Grguch.
But Obould whacked Grguch, and all his little shaman instigators, and went on to sign the Treaty of Garumn's Gorge with King Bruenor.
And Obould retained his blessings from Gruumsh.
And he went on to become Gruumsh's exarch, after death.
Later, ~1472 DR, we're told that Obould "VI"/XVI? presides over a kingdom that is still stable and united with the goodly kingdoms of the North. But the shamans are once again stirring up trouble.
There just does not appear to be any room for shaman-orchestrated reincarnations in there, anywhere. The Oboulds stood opposed to the shamans for most of the century span, keeping them in line--not the other way around. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 07:23:23
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
How about the concept that Obould is 'born again' ala the Dalai Lama after the death of the preceding Obould. It is not a family succession and the fact that a previous Obould has sons means nothing in that they have no right of inheritance.
It's an interesting thought.
But RAS said in Gauntlgrym that Obould "II"/XVII? was Obould's son, Urlgen. It was a family succession.
And the FRCG said that Obould XVII continues a mostly unbroken dynastic line that began when Obould unified the tribes in "The Hunter's Blades Trilogy". Dynastic lines are family lines, right?
quote:
I see the pervasive and hidden hand of the shamans here in that they operate as the power behind the throne for generations, undermining any incumbent Obould who goes against their aims and interests.
Methinks you grossly over-estimate the influence of the shamans amongst the orc tribes of the North. Races of Faerūn said that mountain orc leaders are full of themselves, presuming that Gruumsh is on their side just based on the fact that they are in leadership positions, and therefore don't really feel the need for the constant support of shamans.
Obould "I"/XI? cynically used the support of shamans for his political purposes, but he hardly submitted to their will.
When Obould embraced the conquer-now strategy, he was tight with the shamans (The Lone Drow).
But when he took on the more nuanced approach of seeming-peace, his shaman consort began to argue with him, and he wanted to throttle her. Drow interlopers attempted to drive a wedge between the orc king and his chief shaman on this very issue (The Two Swords).
Obould's reaction was to surround himself with an inner circle of like-minded shamans, to keep up appearance, but to tolerate no dissent (The Orc King).
quote:
Oboulds who get too smart or strong for their boots are removed.
I think you've got that totally backwards. In The Orc King, shams shamans that got too big for their boots, as well as the orc-ogre warlord that they backed, got removed. Obould saw sure to that.
And in The Orc King Prelude, we're told that the shamans had never stopped being a thorn in the Oboulds' sides, but Obould still reigned supreme. The shamans pushed a more hardliner, conquer-now approach, while the Oboulds pushed an policy of apparent peace and appeasement. (My guess is that it was the shaman community that lay behind most of the civil wars within Many-Arrows {FRCG}.) But it was the Obouldan policy that had won out, at least through ~1472 DR (TOK, Pre.).
However, it would appear that this was beginning to change during the reign of Obould "VI"/XVI?, for the shamans were once again spreading their vile gospel, and some unidentified orcs had recently closed the borders of Many-Arrows to trade, while Drizzt remains ignorant as to whether or not Obould actually was the responsible party behind that decision (TOK, Pre.).
What's more, by 1479 DR, Obould XVII is said to lead a Kingdom of Many-Arrows that stands as an enemy, and even bitter enemy, of the League of Luruar (FRCG).
So perhaps the fundamentalist shamans have only finally, belatedly begun to get their way?
But I don't see your view being supported during the majority of the century span, though. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 04:17:18
Krash, I want to send you an email one day soon with some relevant ideas. I'm not sure I have your email address... Mine is erikscottdebie at yahoo dot com
Email me?
Cheers |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 00:59:16
I don't think Salvatore states in any of his novels that there is a father/son transition of Oboulds. He just notes that there have been multiple Oboulds through the centuries.
I'm also not suggesting that all Oboulds have been docile, oblivious tuskers. I'm sure many of the "appointed Oboulds" (if you go with my take on them) have realised what the shamans are up to and tried to defeat/curtail their hidden hand. Similarly, as the shaman ranks have changed over time, personalities and infighting within that grouping may have altered their power base at times also. The Obould that graces the first Many Arrows trilogy appears to be one of those Oboulds that twigged that the shamans were pulling his strings. That is at it should be. Problem is, taking out the entire shaman caste would be a very difficult thing for any orc leader to do - especially one who effectively cedes a detente situation with the hated dwarves.
And lastly, it's is clear that from original realmslore (FR1 or FR5, I can't recall exactly which), the very first Obould was indeed one of those big, dumb warrior tuskers. Don't judge them all by the one who fought Drizzt to a standstill.
-- George Krashos
|
| Icelander |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 20:35:19
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Well said, Krash. I like the "Obould as a title" concept, and investing it with some dubious religious significance makes it particularly compelling to me. Maybe "Urlgen" is a title for "He who WILL BE Obould," kind of like "prince" (Urlgen) as opposed to "king" (Obould).
Under this system, the Oboulds may or may not be related to one another.
Cheers
While I agree that Krash proposes a plausible and interesting scenario, you'd have to throw out canon to make it fit. The Oboulds seen in R.A. Salvatore's novels are canonically descended from the first and they are not controlled by or even always supported by the shamans. In fact, the shamans are the greatest threat to the stability of Many Arrows. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 20:29:29
Wouldn't this mean that it is highly possible - through the normal machinations of divine ascendance - that this concept would indeed create an Obould Exarch (demi-power)? In a fantasy setting, belief translates into reality. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 17:39:15
Well said, Krash. I like the "Obould as a title" concept, and investing it with some dubious religious significance makes it particularly compelling to me. Maybe "Urlgen" is a title for "He who WILL BE Obould," kind of like "prince" (Urlgen) as opposed to "king" (Obould).
Under this system, the Oboulds may or may not be related to one another.
Cheers |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 05:34:59
Agreed, mundane or symbolic methods of rebirth seem to be more likely explanations, especially when dealing with races like orcs who are not renowned for their prowess at magic.
But faith and magic do manifest in the Realms in very unambiguous ways, they're literally woven in the setting. Obould (like many others) could be tempted by the very real and not-unattainable promise of immortality, or his symbolic/spiritual fervour could evolve a living essence of its own.
I do agree in Krasho's Razor, though ... avoid adding fantastic complexities when simpler explanations can suffice. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 05:03:11
Agreed.
What George is saying is that it would be more like a RW version of a religious belief, not an actual, in-game real reincarnation. It would be purely political (with a lot of of religious propaganda poured on top).
The only thing I don't like about it is that I'm not sure how Gruumsh would react to it. Obould was hinted-at being Gruumsh's chosen (which could have been just more theocratic hype). On the other hand, if Gruumsh did approve of Obould (Chosen or not), and the Shamans continued to move forward with his 'dream', then there is no reason why Gruumsh should act.
It all depends on how you spin it. In fact, if the Shamans begin to disagree or do anything else to derail Obould's vision, then it could be possible that Obould really would reincarnate into one of his descendents (which would take the shamans by surprise, after lying all those years, and also "put the fear of god into them").
Obould the Exarch, vengeful fist of Gruumsh... I like the sound of that.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 04:51:22
I think Krash's idea has much merit. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 03:08:37
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Such a reincarnation/rebirth concept usually reeks of interfering deities, dark pacts to cheat death, possession of magics or powers which defy the natural order, or (my favourite) the inescapable mark of a deterministic family curse or prophecy.
Ahh, but Ayrik my Obould suggestion has nothing to do with any of those things. The temptation in a fantasy world is to have everything happen with some major "fantastical attachment" - like an interfering deity or a dark pact et. al.
How about a group of manipulative shamans who have come across a very simple arrangement that works, aided in the main by a religiously naive and dependant orcish population? Orcs who play the "Emperor has no clothes" part usually have a zero success and survival rate, so who is to challenge them when they do some religious mumbo-jumbo, tap young Brog on the forehead and proclaim to all that he has inherited the spirit of Obould and is now Obould Who is Gruumsh? No-one. And their cycle of control continues.
-- George Krashos
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 02:34:14
Such a reincarnation/rebirth concept usually reeks of interfering deities, dark pacts to cheat death, possession of magics or powers which defy the natural order, or (my favourite) the inescapable mark of a deterministic family curse or prophecy.
I don't especially see Obould as being important enough for such stuff, outside of the possibility that his only real purpose is to simply maintain Many Arrows and keep the torch burning, serving as a link on a chain which ends in an Obould of true significance. His kingdom is just too tenuous and volatile (and improbable) to merit real greatness, it seems a thinly disguised experiment which might be abandoned (or have to be destroyed) at any time. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 02 Apr 2012 : 01:06:33
How about the concept that Obould is 'born again' ala the Dalai Lama after the death of the preceding Obould. It is not a family succession and the fact that a previous Obould has sons means nothing in that they have no right of inheritance. I see the pervasive and hidden hand of the shamans here in that they operate as the power behind the throne for generations, undermining any incumbent Obould who goes against their aims and interests. The death of an incumbent Obould allows them to hand-pick a new Obould - usually a big, strong, hopefully not overly bright orcling who they can control and influence as they protect him during his early years on the throne and then guide during his ruling years. Oboulds who get too smart or strong for their boots are removed. As the incumbent Obould is regarded as a reincarnation of the first Obould, they are all ... Obould.
-- George Krashos
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 16:06:57
Many Arrows places much less emphasis on slavery and raiding (war), although they strive to build trade relations and even emulate the civilized practices of weaker races with their farming and industry. Feeding the population is probably an endless series of stop-gap compromises, but somehow the Oboulds manage to always succeed in staving off mass starvation. I've always rejected the notion of pastoral orcs, though it's not completely impossible and their territorially competitive instincts could serve them well in such a paradigm. To my mind, Many Arrows is basically something like a tyrannical feudal system which draws from the darkest, most brutal, and ugliest methods humans demonstrate in maintaining government. The Obould dynasty is probably a lot more ruthless and treacherous than the world euphemistically believes. |
| DestroyYouAlot |
Posted - 29 Mar 2012 : 15:38:40
Lotta round and round in this thread. A couple things:
Ironic that 3e decided to cast orcs as suddenly CE (as opposed to LE)... and then metaplotted a stable kingdom for them. Somebody got their wires crossed.
Ignoring the alignment screwup and treating them as LE, there's one clear answer for "how does an orc kingdom feed itself": Slavery, raiding and trade. These strategies are pretty well established in FR supplements and fiction, they'd just be on a larger scale. Keep in mind that raiding =/= war, and real-world nations theoretically "at peace" with each other would frequently raid across borders. Especially in the terrain and climate of the North (and orc physiology), ranching/herding would probably get preference over farming. And in a frontier region (especially a "Savage Frontier", haha), morals are going to be loose and pragmatic - plenty of human (if not demihuman) settlements would trade with orcs, if only out of relief that they weren't there to just take what they wanted.
Also, the comparison to real-world Vikings and Thor upthread is kinda amusing - considering that Gruumsh, with his spear and one eye, is pretty much written up as Odin with tusks. ;) |
| BEAST |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 18:01:16
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Wow! He's not only a salad, Obould is George Foreman! He's named all of his sons Urlgen! 
So, my real name is Steven, and my little brother's name is Craig. We both work together. One of the office ladies left a note for the "Craig brothers" the other day.
"Craig" is not our last name. We are not the Craig brothers.
So I went up to her the next day and said, "Hi, I don't think we've met yet; my name's Steven Craig, and this is my brother, Craig Craig--we're the Craig brothers!"  |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 15:47:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Or, y'know, Urlgen/Obould II could just be any of a number of sons borne to Obould by any of his multiple wives. As you do.
Cheers
Wow! He's not only a salad, Obould is George Foreman! He's named all of his sons Urlgen!
Hey, when you like a name . . .
That's Obould, grilled to perfection.
Cheers |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 05:39:29
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Or, y'know, Urlgen/Obould II could just be any of a number of sons borne to Obould by any of his multiple wives. As you do.
Cheers
Wow! He's not only a salad, Obould is George Foreman! He's named all of his sons Urlgen! |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 04:23:27
Here are some thoughts about Obould II being THE Urlgen or just AN Urlgen:
It's feasible that Urlgen could be resurrected with the express purpose of using him against Obould. If the shamans raised him (either through their own power or through an alliance with darker powers interested in the region), they could pretty much literally hold his life over his head. As for him coming back, it might be taken as a sign from Gruumsh to give Urlgen another chance to prove himself.
Or, y'know, Urlgen/Obould II could just be any of a number of sons borne to Obould by any of his multiple wives. As you do.
Cheers |
| BEAST |
Posted - 28 Mar 2012 : 01:53:25
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I realize the above "canon" is offered only on a suggestive basis, with the intent of providing a plausible starting point. The one detail which I find questionable is Obould carefully observing that his actions are seen as devout in accordance with the omens of his shamans; this seems somewhat less than likely, given the constant invisible turmoil seeting within orc populations about how Many Arrows has turned away from the glory of Gruumsh.
I think that Obould started out by taking great pains to appease his shamans that his intentions and actions were properly pious and obedient towards the will of Gruumsh.
But over time, he became more politically adept and conniving, and found ways to only give the appearance of appeasing those shamans. He has to rationalize some of his decisions to his shamans, gradually getting them to embrace his plans as fitting and proper. There are also moments in "The Hunter's Blades Trilogy" were he silently ridicules the shamans' antics, but cynically remains resolved to use them to his benefit, anyway.
And in The Orc King, we're shown that those shamans are just as adept at scheming and appeasing as he.
quote:
This also assumes none of the shamans speaks against Obould or his policies; Orc shamans strike me as cunning enough to make alliances with powerful chieftains, yet also wise and ambitious enough to make sure their own power is not diluted by a chieftain who grows too strong and popular. They understand well that the way to wield power in this macho society is to support promising candidates who stand somewhere in the middle of the leadership hierarchy, then enjoying their support after assisting them in removing the old leaders from the top.
That's exactly what the shamans tried to do in The Orc King: they conspired against Obould by seeking out and propping up the orc-ogre Chieftain Grguch as a rival.
And although that particular would-be coup failed, we're still told in the Prelude to TOK that various hardliner shamans continued to question the lifestyle that Obould brought to the orcs of Many-Arrows right on through ~1472 DR.
They were probably a major contributor to the periodic civil wars within the Kingdom during the 1400s.
quote:
Also a question: why hasn't (indeed, why doesn't) some local badass powerful dragon or lich overthrow an Obould and subjugate Many Arrows for his own evil purposes? Examples already exist of orc tribes being dominated by a dragon, or orc hoards being gathered by a lich, orcs are the traditional first choice to use as evil shock troops.
Perhaps some have tried, only to be repelled by the goodly-seeming Oboulds and their Silver Marches allies.
Also consider that an Obould-led Kingdom is not exactly your typical easily-manipulated orc tribe. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 22:57:52
I'm sure there are precedents in our own real world human history where Kings or Emperors miscounted some Roman numerals appended to their names and titles. Higher numbers always enhance the sense of legitimate authenticity.
If entire nations full of illiterate humans could be fooled (or at least rendered complacent) this way, then fooling a bunch of orcs must be child's play. Orcs are noted for having short (and often truncated) lifespans, shorter attention spans, and (reluctantly) obeying when bullied by those who are stronger. If you've already got an advantage over orcs in terms of strength then outsmarting or distracting them isn't hard at all.
I realize the above "canon" is offered only on a suggestive basis, with the intent of providing a plausible starting point. The one detail which I find questionable is Obould carefully observing that his actions are seen as devout in accordance with the omens of his shamans; this seems somewhat less than likely, given the constant invisible turmoil seeting within orc populations about how Many Arrows has turned away from the glory of Gruumsh. This also assumes none of the shamans speaks against Obould or his policies; Orc shamans strike me as cunning enough to make alliances with powerful chieftains, yet also wise and ambitious enough to make sure their own power is not diluted by a chieftain who grows too strong and popular. They understand well that the way to wield power in this macho society is to support promising candidates who stand somewhere in the middle of the leadership hierarchy, then enjoying their support after assisting them in removing the old leaders from the top.
Also a question: why hasn't (indeed, why doesn't) some local badass powerful dragon or lich overthrow an Obould and subjugate Many Arrows for his own evil purposes? Examples already exist of orc tribes being dominated by a dragon, or orc hoards being gathered by a lich, orcs are the traditional first choice to use as evil shock troops. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 22:56:22
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Aye, Icelander.
But while Obould XI/"I" and his shamans may have consciously remembered that, that doesn't mean that they always maintained strict distinctions when dealing with the common orc troops.
And casual use of the lingo (i.e., "bending the truth"?) might eventually lead to equating Obould XI with Obould I.
As an average orc, who's gonna correct the technicality?
Average orcs may not speak the name 'Gruumsh' at all, because that would be a terrible blasphemy. Using that name is reserved for shamans and ordinary orcs use one of the many titles or pseudonyms for Gruumsh, like He-Who-Watches.
I do agree, however, that the vast majority of common orcs call their ruler 'Obould', with no number at all, and that it has become a title as well as a name. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 22:38:21
Aye, Icelander.
But while Obould XI/"I" and his shamans may have consciously remembered that, that doesn't mean that they always maintained strict distinctions when dealing with the common orc troops.
And casual use of the lingo (i.e., "bending the truth"?) might eventually lead to equating Obould XI with Obould I.
As an average orc, who's gonna correct the technicality? |
| Icelander |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 21:08:14
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I don't see why that wouldn't work. The shamans of Obould (3E, "The Hunter's Blades Trilogy") repeatedly said that "Obould is Gruumsh; Gruumsh is Obould!" So clearly his propagandists weren't above warping literal truth for dramatic effect. If Obould XI could be Gruumsh, then certainly he could also be lowly Obould I!
The shamans did call their ruler: "Obould-Who-Is-Gruumsh", which appeared to be some form of title or appelation, very similar to the way Ancient Egyptian and Mesapotamian regnant* names would incorporate deific names.
I did not get the feeling that this implied that a statement that directly identified Obould as equal with He-Who-Watches would not have been heretical. Saying 'Gruumsh is Obould' would, the way I interpreted the shamans in the book, have been the foulest blashphemy. And although I realie that this is open to dispute, so would saying 'Obould is Gruumsh'.
While uttered as part of a title, as Obould-Who-Is-Gruumsh, it does not necessarily refer to anything other than Obould having part of Gruumsh's divine essence in him. It is no more blasphemous than using the name Jesus for a Catholic or Hamilcar for a Phoenican.
A direct statement, not poetic, figurative or part of a formal title, to the nature that Obould truly was the deity in the flesh and that there was no deity beyond that, would be the kind of thing that religious wars have started over in the past.
I always saw the shaman's use of 'Obould-Who-Is-Gruumsh' as indicating that the orcs believed that Obould partook of the One-Eyed God's divine mantle by the favour of the deity, but not that Obould himself was wholly divine or that Gruumsh did not exist outside Obould.
*And others. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 27 Mar 2012 : 20:56:37
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Imagine going into an eatery in the Realms and ordering Obould salad...
You've got the green skin for the lettuce, the red irises for the tomatoes, the jaundiced yellowish sclera for the dressing, and the crunch of bones for the croutons... |
|
|
