| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Nov 2011 : 23:59:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
It's got me thinking, though. One can see a few cross-overs between the Warcraft conception of orcs and the 4e FR one, but I think there are a great many differences, which such a novel would show. It'd have the chance to answer all these questions that we're debating, and really get into the orc psyche. It'd be fascinating.
Cheers
It would be fascinating, yes. The most important events of Many Arrows' history ought to have happened during this first century of its life.
In the present day, it will have weathered the storms implied by its founding and whatever problems bedevil it now are probably purely incidental to anything King Obould did. His political importance to the day-to-day life there is equivalent to that of Napoleon Bonaparte to modern French politics. He's a great story and maybe even a role model to someone, but he's ancient history. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
 |
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2011 : 00:04:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I think a useful analogy here is drow society. They are chaotic evil--far more destructive and violent even than orcs. How do *drow* function as a society? Through restrained and appropriately channeled violence--a social order that encourages betrayal and destruction, in the proper ways.
I see no reason the orcs couldn't have these same restrictions (albeit somewhat more lax) imposed upon them, and function just as well (if not with the same level of taste/style).
Cheers
I wholeheartedly agree that an orcish society could function in some manner.
On the other hand, orcs have a few biological problems to contend with that don't really bother drow. That is to say, they breed like, well, orcs.
Good aligned people have previously in the history of the North led genocidal campaigns against orcs, not because they hate them, but because if their population is not held in check, they will overwhelm the humans. If 90+% of the orcs are not wiped out every generation (which it was when they would swarm in their hordes whenever the food ran out), they will quickly outnumber the carrying capacity of all the North, let alone their own small part of it.
I wonder if you've read 'The Mote in God's Eye'? If you haven't, I won't say another word, because, spoilers. Otherwise, there is a very useful analogy to be found there. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 24 Nov 2011 00:05:19 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2011 : 00:43:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
(Also, where does it say Many Arrows has not attacked its neighbors?
You'll like this. I went to my study and claimed an ancient tome. I had to blow the dust of the cover before I read it, so old and so unused was it. This tome was 'The Orc King' and in it, it states that the Kingdom of Many Arrows has actually warred against its neighbours since the Treaty of Garumm's Gorge. Once. Obould's successor, Obould II, in the Year of the Solitary Cloister, 1408 DR. Since then, 71 years where the Obould dynasty has endured constant threats of being assassinated or deposed by orcs who see them as traitors to orcish nature. And the orcs have not attacked their neighbours; though their neighbours seem pretty eager to hunt and kill orcs for fun. A telling example of the lily-white nature of Many Arrows orcs is that the most recent atrocity that a dyed-in-the-wool orc hater can mention is Shallows, set more than a century in the past. And Drizzt seems to think rather strongly that since then, the orcs have behaved as model citizens of the world.
The Orc King pretty clearly has Obould and every successor since Obould II as Good aligned. It also has a fairly direct Captain Ersatz for the KKK in the form of the CCC, which moves the racism allegory past heavy-handed and into anvilicious.
We don't need to be told that it's a bad thing to be racist against people who as a race have been paragons of purity and righteousness for the last 100 years. The interesting part about Salvatore's use of prejudice against the drow as a dramatic vehicle is that it was not undeserved and that in a fantasy world, it may be perfectly sensible to judge people based on their race. Which then makes it more moving when individuals step outside of their culture and when others are able to accept them.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
(The book actually states that the kingdom can explode into war at any moment, and has done so several times. I would speculate that they did indeed take advantage of the Spellplague chaos to expand in the Wailing Years, but since then they haven't mounted a full scale invasion of the surrounding lands as, like I said earlier, that would no doubt unite the surrounding human kingdoms to "put down that orc horde we knew was coming for years" and be to the ultimate downfall of the kingdom.)
The wars it has engaged in have apparently all been wars where one or the other Obould the paladin king suppresses religious sentiments from old-school orcish shamans who would rather that he serve the cause of Gruumsh.
According to the The Orc King, the shamans that worship Gruumsh are enemies of Obould. I can see no sensible way to reconcile The Orc King with the fact the FRCG lists Obould as an exarch of Gruumsh-as-Talos, Chaotic Evil in alignment. One or the other is wrong. It probably does the least damage to assume that Obould is actually an independent minor God and not evil at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
(*Note: It's not entirely clear to me that we canonically have seventeen generations of orcs. Just because we have an Obould XVII doesn't mean each has been the son of the previous king (it does say "mostly unbroken dynasty" in the FRCG). There could easily be some brothers, uncles, cousins, or whatever in there. But it is clear that the orc lifespan is shorter than the humans, so we do have a more rapidly turning over society than a human kingdom in the same situation.
Agreed. I would say that either there have been many brothers who inherited or that the FRCG is simply wrong and that the X is out of place. The Orc King has Obould VI as king more or less a hundred years after Shallows, which I think means 1470 or so, so having Obould VII now would be about right. Eight generations would fit typical orcs and it seems right that Obould would have reigned for a while.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
(Or maybe the unfathomable really has occurred, and the orcs really have evolved beyond their brutish, violent origins. Humans did it--why not orcs?
It's a question of sociological realism. Even if orcs are biologically no more warlike than humans, no human society has managed to go from a state of constant warfare to a state of respecting international treaties of non-aggression so thoroughly that 71 years pass without them making war on their neighbours. We're being asked to believe that hunter-gatherers of an extreme culture, more warlike than any in human history, jumped right to modern-era Iceland or Sweden (pretty much the only nations who have been peaceful this long). It took us a thousand years to go from Vikings, where 3-5% of males died of warfare. Orcs lost 90% of them every 10-20 years, in addition to the ones killed in internecine violence.
They were almost two orders of magnitude worse and they managed to fix all that in about an order of magnitude shorter time.
Fantasy settings shouldn't have to mean that real problems are handwaved away. It is, after all, the conflict that drives a story.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
(And why can't BOTH be true? I see this as the fundamental conflict in the Kingdom of Many Arrows--the struggle between a violent nature and heritage and striving for peace and civilization. I think a fascinating novel could be written or a game run on just this topic. Maybe Obould really is trying to evolve the orcs, but just telling Gruumsh that he's crafting a weapon. Ultimately, it will come to war between Obould and Gruumsh himself.
To be perfectly honest, this is precisely what I thought when I read The Orc King. This is what I wanted to see. And I wanted Obould to succeed.
Then I read the last chapter. Sorry, the potential dramatic conclusion to the story (which I expected a new novel to deal with), the one that fits the setting and logically derives from what happened, will not be happening. Instead, we've got the most anvilicious and ham-handed message imaginable. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2011 : 20:36:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
Yes and then they stopped supporting the Realms and published a setting with the same name but few other similarities. In that setting, the Kingdom of Many Arrows is apparently more peaceful than most human kingdoms. This is, however, not stated in the FRCS or the Silver Marches. In those sources, it is entirely the decision of the GM how Obould will handle his conquests so far.
Actually, as I said, there was no Kingdom of Many-Arrows in either the FRCS or SM--peaceful or otherwise. Those books only covered Obould's history up through the Dark-Arrows Keep.
Towards the end of "The Hunter's Blades Trilogy", Obould declared that his Kingdom of Dark Arrows was then in existence, though even his dark elven allies were incredulous at such a unilateral declaration. He had conquered lands in a series of battles, but as of then, he had no infrastructure to rule it.
He ordered that fortifications continue to be built, and presumably began to establish that infrastructure at the end of The Two Swords and in "Comrades at Odds".
It wasn't until The Orc King, after Obould stopped an attack against the rest of Silver Marches and entered into a treaty, that the Kingdom of Many-Arrows was first mentioned and recognized.
This book was part of the "Transitions" mini-series, marking a move from 3E to 4E in the RAS stories. It was the first work to cite the kingdom, and it was wholly founded in unity and peace amongst the Marches.
quote:
When you slaughter your enemies and take their lands for their own and then get the survivors to agree not to try to take them back if you promise not to try to take more land, you've won a war of conquest.
The Kingdom of Many-Arrows was not founded in that manner. The alleged Kingdom of Dark Arrows was.
Many-Arrows was founded on the notion of not taking any more lands. Obould notably did not go on to attack Silverymoon or Citadel Felbarr, as he had pondered in "THBT", but rather, agreed upon mutual trade and defense with them.
quote:
Obould made massive territorial gains and by being intelligent enough to engage in realpolitik, he managed to keep those gains for long enough to be able to forge his orcs into something more than a horde. If he can create a kingdom with a strong economy, he'll be able to field a real army, one capable of fighting an extended war.
Obould saw that orcs in the North had been locked into a vicious cycle of defeat. Their traditional means of warfare made them unable to win any lasting victories. Obould had the wisdom, strength and willpower to change this. Now, the GM can use him as an antagonist, ally or a mystery with unclear goals, but the fact remains, his actions make orcs stronger. Gruumsh appears to recognise this
It prevented the orcish forces from going 'a bridge too far'. Taking land from your enemies and then failing to hold it as you are driven screaming into your mountain hovels might be stereotypically orcish in the North, but it is not a winning strategy.
A commander who manages to make every single potential foe unite against him at the same time has failed in his strategy. Fighting a war is about more than just swinging swords around. Obould managed to conquer and to rule the lands he conquered. That makes him more successful than any orcish warlord in the North for a very long time. Gruumsh rewards strength and success.
The problem with all of this is that you have to depend on an evolution in Gruumsh's mindset--one that has only appeared in 4E, which you apparently despise--in order to rationalize the notion that Gruumsh approves of Obould's changed strategy. But this change in Gruumsh is just as much of a departure from that which came before as anything else which as been offered up as a fault of 4E.
Previously, Gruumsh urged his orcs into unceasing, brutal war, without regards for strategic retreats or detentes. Suicidal fighting was praised and lauded. Concerns over wise use of resources and conservation of forces was frowned upon as namby-pamby weakness.
Even in FRCG (4E), Gruumsh is said to favor raiding, killing, and conquest.
But in The Orc King, Obould blocked Grguch from further raiding, killing, and conquest. And the subsequent signing of a treaty with Mithral Hall and the rest of the Silver Marches was not raiding, killing, and conquering.
Obould's actions just don't seem in line with older views of Gruumsh, or 4E's view. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2011 : 20:45:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
The problem with all of this is that you have to depend on an evolution in Gruumsh's mindset--one that has only appeared in 4E, which you apparently despise--in order to rationalize the notion that Gruumsh approves of Obould's changed strategy. But this change in Gruumsh is just as much of a departure from that which came before as anything else which as been offered up as a fault of 4E.
Previously, Gruumsh urged his orcs into unceasing, brutal war, without regards for strategic retreats or detentes. Suicidal fighting was praised and lauded. Concerns over wise use of resources and conservation of forces was frowned upon as namby-pamby weakness.
Even in FRCG (4E), Gruumsh is said to favor raiding, killing, and conquest.
But in The Orc King, Obould blocked Grguch from further raiding, killing, and conquest. And the subsequent signing of a treaty with Mithral Hall and the rest of the Silver Marches was not raiding, killing, and conquering.
Obould's actions just don't seem in line with older views of Gruumsh, or 4E's view.
Obould's actions are not compatible with the 4e Gruumsh-as-Talos, but note that the original Gruumsh was a LE god of, among other things, conquest and territory. Taking and holding lands for the glory of orcs and Gruumsh was very much in line with his dogma.
I agree that Obould, in the Transitions books, went a lot further than Gruumsh had ever been established as allowing and, indeed, in Transitions, Obould becomes the enemy of Gruumsh-worshippers among the orcs.
Basically, R.A. Saltatore's books have a totally different Obould than the 4e one. And the 4e FRCG has a totally different Gruumsh than the one in either Salvatore's books or the previous Realmslore. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 24 Nov 2011 20:46:32 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 25 Nov 2011 : 17:31:36
|
I think we're reading a whole lot into the motivations and mindset of Obould the Exarch in the FRCG, based on extremely scant information. All we really know is that he is an exarch of Gruumsh set with the portfolio of "warriors," that he's evil (right? not chaotic evil? I could be wrong), and that he was the Obould who established Many-Arrows. As I suggested earlier, he could very well be in contention with Gruumsh/Talos (neither of whom, IMO, were ever Chaotic Idiots) over Many Arrows and the "new path" for orcs, a conflict that has been brewing for a hundred years.
Just because Obould is technically Gruumsh's servant doesn't mean he always does what Gruumsh says or that their interests align. Loviatar, for instance, was Bane's servant, but that didn't make her Bane's BDSM buddy/slave (ahem!). I see Obould as having climbed to power on his own merits, and inspired enough reverence that he ascended to godhood after the events of The Orc King.
Icelander, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the function and nature of Exarchs, as you keep stating that Obould I would no longer be involved in Many Arrows. Exarchs are demigods, making them both immortal and very powerful, and it's completely reasonable Obould I could be directly or indirectly involved in his kingdom. True to his "warriors" portfolio, he has guided the kingdom to thrive on battle the way it has, with the class system I suggested before (hinted at by the FRCG). There just isn't enough information in the FRCG (our only 100% reliable source on this subject) to make a full judgment.
I'm also going to suggest that we not read too much into the way RAS portrays orcs and their conflict with the CCC (which I also consider an unfortunate name). His books aren't supposed to be canonical treatises on the Realms, but rather narrative fiction, seen through the eyes of the perspective character (Drizzt), and thus not trustworthy in the same way as, say, the FRCG is. I really do think that a sourcebook, backdrop article, or orc-perspective novel would be the only way we'd resolve some of these issues.
As earlier stated, I'm not a big fan of real-world comparisons, but Many-Arrows strikes me as having a somewhat similar situation to North Korea. It's isolated, at least potentially extremely dangerous, and constantly watched for signs of aggression by its neighbors. It hasn't waged war on other nations all that often (I can only think of the once), and it's mostly been concerned with internal business for a long, long time. Obviously, the parallel isn't perfect by any stretch, but can you see where I'm going with it?
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 25 Nov 2011 : 20:19:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I think we're reading a whole lot into the motivations and mindset of Obould the Exarch in the FRCG, based on extremely scant information. All we really know is that he is an exarch of Gruumsh set with the portfolio of "warriors," that he's evil (right? not chaotic evil? I could be wrong),
Unfortunately, he's listed as Chaotic Evil, which does not fit with any of his fictional portrayals. It is, however, the same Alignment he was given in the 3e FRCS, where many scribes also disagreed.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
and that he was the Obould who established Many-Arrows. As I suggested earlier, he could very well be in contention with Gruumsh/Talos (neither of whom, IMO, were ever Chaotic Idiots) over Many Arrows and the "new path" for orcs, a conflict that has been brewing for a hundred years.
Gruumsh was never Chaotic anything. He was listed as CE in the 3e, but his description was not of a chaotic god. Talos, however, has been the definition of Chaotic Stupid in all previou versions. He is destructive to the point of self-destructiveness, but because it is his portfolio, he appears to retain and even increase his power by allowing his followers to throw away their lives in foolish and chaotic fashion.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Just because Obould is technically Gruumsh's servant doesn't mean he always does what Gruumsh says or that their interests align. Loviatar, for instance, was Bane's servant, but that didn't make her Bane's BDSM buddy/slave (ahem!). I see Obould as having climbed to power on his own merits, and inspired enough reverence that he ascended to godhood after the events of The Orc King.
That would be my prefered explanation, but unfortunately, it is directly contradicted by the text in the FRCG.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Icelander, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the function and nature of Exarchs, as you keep stating that Obould I would no longer be involved in Many Arrows. Exarchs are demigods, making them both immortal and very powerful, and it's completely reasonable Obould I could be directly or indirectly involved in his kingdom. True to his "warriors" portfolio, he has guided the kingdom to thrive on battle the way it has, with the class system I suggested before (hinted at by the FRCG). There just isn't enough information in the FRCG (our only 100% reliable source on this subject) to make a full judgment.
Obould is in Nishrek, where he serves as a general for Gruumsh-as-Talos. He is not an independent god and he is not involved in Many Arrows. That's the canon, but I'm arguing that the new canon does not fit the old canon and that there is no way to reconcile the two except by saying that one is wrong.
I am aware that by WotC fiat, newly published lore is always 'right'. I do contend, however, that mistakes happen and that the latest information is not always the best. There is a way to tell good stories with Obould and the Kingdom of Many Arrows. If we accept what the FRCG tells us, however, we throw out most of the prior sources of lore as inconsistent with it and are left with a new race of orcs, not all that related to the old, a new god called Gruumsh, explictly different from the old, and an exarch named Obould, not similar to the other character named Obould.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I'm also going to suggest that we not read too much into the way RAS portrays orcs and their conflict with the CCC (which I also consider an unfortunate name). His books aren't supposed to be canonical treatises on the Realms, but rather narrative fiction, seen through the eyes of the perspective character (Drizzt), and thus not trustworthy in the same way as, say, the FRCG is. I really do think that a sourcebook, backdrop article, or orc-perspective novel would be the only way we'd resolve some of these issues.
Novels are canon; they have always been stated to be so by WotC. Yes, it is true that the canon from the novels contradict the canon from the FRCG. This is unprofessional and unacceptable. In such a situation, a GM will be forced to analyse the available data and reach a conclusion based on the weight of evidence, not simply on the latest published data. That is the rational way to determine what is and is not true.
The FRCG cannot be true at the same time as RAS's novels. Neither the FRCG nor RAS's novels are all that plausible at the same time as older lore about orcs.
In my opinion, when a new publication does not merely add to the lore available, but actually invalidates old lore, that is a failure on the part of the author and editor.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
As earlier stated, I'm not a big fan of real-world comparisons, but Many-Arrows strikes me as having a somewhat similar situation to North Korea. It's isolated, at least potentially extremely dangerous, and constantly watched for signs of aggression by its neighbors. It hasn't waged war on other nations all that often (I can only think of the once), and it's mostly been concerned with internal business for a long, long time. Obviously, the parallel isn't perfect by any stretch, but can you see where I'm going with it?
Sure, and going by just the FRCG, that might be the truth. My point is that a lot more information has been published about the Kingdom of Many Arrows and in it, this cannot be true. Many Arrows under the first Obould was an active ally of the dwarves of Mithril Hall (against demons, Spellplague stuf, etc.) and did vibrant trade with all of its neighbours.
I can understand that as an author in the 4e Realms, you are contractually obliged to regard the latest published lore as holy writ and throw out any older lore that doesn't fit with it. But that doesn't remove the contradiction. That just means that you've chosen to disregard all the prior canon. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 25 Nov 2011 : 23:03:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
I can understand that as an author in the 4e Realms, you are contractually obliged to regard the latest published lore as holy writ and throw out any older lore that doesn't fit with it. But that doesn't remove the contradiction. That just means that you've chosen to disregard all the prior canon.
No, it really doesn't, Icelander. I'm making an effort to find ways to bring them together, not merely stating that they are contradictory just because they might seem to be, under your particular interpretation. You're the one throwing out lore/canon here, not me.
(I'm also under no such obligation, except when I'm actively writing a Realms novel. In that case, it would be unprofessional of me to throw out any lore, past or present. I make every effort not to do so, as I think my record attests. Also, whenever I post here, it is as a fellow reader, gamer, and fan, not in any official capacity. I am not now, nor have I ever been an employee of TSR or Wizards of the Coast. I am not empowered to nor am I interested in speaking for the company or the design team.)
A note on the subject of alignment, 4e hosed up the alignment system, so I don't think we can go by what gods were in 3e and before vs. what they are now.
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
Gruumsh was never Chaotic anything. He was listed as CE in the 3e, but his description was not of a chaotic god.
What description are we referring to here?
quote:
Talos, however, has been the definition of Chaotic Stupid in all previou versions. He is destructive to the point of self-destructiveness, but because it is his portfolio, he appears to retain and even increase his power by allowing his followers to throw away their lives in foolish and chaotic fashion.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Just because Obould is technically Gruumsh's servant doesn't mean he always does what Gruumsh says or that their interests align. Loviatar, for instance, was Bane's servant, but that didn't make her Bane's BDSM buddy/slave (ahem!). I see Obould as having climbed to power on his own merits, and inspired enough reverence that he ascended to godhood after the events of The Orc King.
That would be my prefered explanation, but unfortunately, it is directly contradicted by the text in the FRCG.quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Icelander, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the function and nature of Exarchs, as you keep stating that Obould I would no longer be involved in Many Arrows. Exarchs are demigods, making them both immortal and very powerful, and it's completely reasonable Obould I could be directly or indirectly involved in his kingdom. True to his "warriors" portfolio, he has guided the kingdom to thrive on battle the way it has, with the class system I suggested before (hinted at by the FRCG). There just isn't enough information in the FRCG (our only 100% reliable source on this subject) to make a full judgment.
Obould is in Nishrek, where he serves as a general for Gruumsh-as-Talos. He is not an independent god and he is not involved in Many Arrows. That's the canon, but I'm arguing that the new canon does not fit the old canon and that there is no way to reconcile the two except by saying that one is wrong.
What passages are you referring to? Maybe if you'd cite your sources, we could have a better discussion about this.
My reading of the FRCG is that Obould (about whom there is SCANT information) is a servant of Gruumsh and is a general of Nishrek. It does not say he is too busy there to be involved in Many Arrows (indeed, the writeup of the kingdom is very explicit that Obould helped found it and shepherd it through its first years, which we know from other sources). I see nothing contradicting the concept that he has been involved in it from the beginning, and certainly nothing stating that his church has not been a significant element in its governance.
quote:
I am aware that by WotC fiat, newly published lore is always 'right'. I do contend, however, that mistakes happen and that the latest information is not always the best. There is a way to tell good stories with Obould and the Kingdom of Many Arrows. If we accept what the FRCG tells us, however, we throw out most of the prior sources of lore as inconsistent with it and are left with a new race of orcs, not all that related to the old, a new god called Gruumsh, explictly different from the old, and an exarch named Obould, not similar to the other character named Obould.
I just don't agree. The FRCG tells us SO LITTLE about Gruumsh and Obould, and I see nothing about how Gruumsh is portrayed in 4e FR that flatly contradicts Gruumsh from earlier editions. Sure, the alignment is a little wonky (as stated earlier).
You are exaggerating the differences like crazy and seeing major shifts where they aren't. Sure, the orcs have evolved some, yes, and Many Arrows is a special case, but I think it's a little out there to say what we have now is "not at all related" to what we had then.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I'm also going to suggest that we not read too much into the way RAS portrays orcs and their conflict with the CCC (which I also consider an unfortunate name). His books aren't supposed to be canonical treatises on the Realms, but rather narrative fiction, seen through the eyes of the perspective character (Drizzt), and thus not trustworthy in the same way as, say, the FRCG is. I really do think that a sourcebook, backdrop article, or orc-perspective novel would be the only way we'd resolve some of these issues.
Novels are canon; they have always been stated to be so by WotC. Yes, it is true that the canon from the novels contradict the canon from the FRCG. This is unprofessional and unacceptable. In such a situation, a GM will be forced to analyse the available data and reach a conclusion based on the weight of evidence, not simply on the latest published data. That is the rational way to determine what is and is not true.
You're missing my distinction between *facts* and *subjective opinion/portrayal*. In Bob's novel, we see the orcs through Drizzt's eyes, and get a few facts about the Kingdom of Many Arrows, but I don't see any hard and fast contradictions with the FRCG. And even if there were, not everything that is said in a novel did indeed happen. Characters can be mistaken, or misinformed, or ignorant/bigoted in their opinions. Just because the CCC guys say orcs are horrible and need to be killed doesn't make it true, for instance.
quote:
The FRCG cannot be true at the same time as RAS's novels. Neither the FRCG nor RAS's novels are all that plausible at the same time as older lore about orcs.
Sure they can. It just needs to be clear that the FRCG and other sourcebooks about the Realms are encyclopedias, whereas novels are nonfiction biographies and recounting of historical events. It's hard for me to understand the mindset that believes everything a character says in a novel is the absolute, unvarnished truth. (See above.)
quote:
In my opinion, when a new publication does not merely add to the lore available, but actually invalidates old lore, that is a failure on the part of the author and editor.
I agree with you, but I think this is far less prevalent than you think, and I for one like finding creative explanations to reconcile seeming contradictions in the lore. We don't seem to share that predilection, though.
quote:
Sure, and going by just the FRCG, that might be the truth. My point is that a lot more information has been published about the Kingdom of Many Arrows and in it, this cannot be true. Many Arrows under the first Obould was an active ally of the dwarves of Mithril Hall (against demons, Spellplague stuf, etc.) and did vibrant trade with all of its neighbours.
OK, sure. So why couldn't it have done that at one time, but then it got sealed off due to internal conflict and difficulty keeping its subjects in line? Why couldn't Obould I have declared his borders sealed to both immigrants and emigrants, then enforced his edict with steel? That seems totally reasonable to me.
To sum up, you keep saying that things are contradictory, but I've yet to see a coherent description of these alleged contradictions. You offer your opinion that building a kingdom and keeping the orcs from raiding is out of character for a Chaotic Evil ruler (I have in several cases given reasons for him to do so), but that does not amount to an argument for contradiction. Can you point me to those things that flatly contradict each other, with citations?
I'm not here arguing that these things don't exist, mind--I'm just saying that until we talk about them directly, this discussion loses a lot of its luster.
If on the other hand you'd rather keep asserting that there's no way to reconcile the editions, without giving me citations that persuade you to think about canon the way you do, then I guess we're at an impasse.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 25 Nov 2011 23:09:48 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2011 : 02:23:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
No, it really doesn't, Icelander. I'm making an effort to find ways to bring them together, not merely stating that they are contradictory just because they might seem to be, under your particular interpretation. You're the one throwing out lore/canon here, not me.
Gruumsh in Legend and Lore and Monster Mythologies, not to mention orcs in every canon source until the 3e FRCS are warlike, territorial and Lawful Evil. In 3e, they are deliberately changed to Chaotic Evil, but Gruumsh is still listed with the same portfolios as his prior incarnation and no mention is made of the previous lore about him being invalidated.
In 4e, he is listed as Chaotic Evil as in the previous edition, but now he is stated to be the same god as Talos. The alignment of 3e and 4e cannot be true at the same time as the alignments of the prior editions. Also, He-Who-Watches and Gruumsh-as-Talos have different dogmas and are clearly not the same god. One is about territory and the other is about savagery. They are no more compatible as aspects of the same god than Tempus and Tyr are the same god, for all that both are warlike.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
A note on the subject of alignment, 4e hosed up the alignment system, so I don't think we can go by what gods were in 3e and before vs. what they are now.
Chaotic Evil exists in both versions and is described as pretty much the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
What description are we referring to here?
See, for example, Monster Mythologies.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
What passages are you referring to? Maybe if you'd cite your sources, we could have a better discussion about this.
In Gauntlgrym, Obould is stated as having been a loyal ally of Mithril Hall until his death of old age. No mention is made in either The Orc King or Gauntlgrym of Obould having physically walked around in the Kingdom of Many Arrows after his death. I know that novel characters can only report on what they know, but that at least makes it canon that as far as Drizzt (a well-informed rangers who has patrolled the Silver Marches and the Kingdom of Many Arrows for the past one hundred years) knows, Obould stopped participating in events in the North when he died.
Also, as far as Drizzt (again, someone who could be expected to know, given that he was there and helped the heirs of Obould in their civil wars) knows, the shamans of Many Arrows form the major opposition to the rule of the Oboulds.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
My reading of the FRCG is that Obould (about whom there is SCANT information) is a servant of Gruumsh and is a general of Nishrek. It does not say he is too busy there to be involved in Many Arrows (indeed, the writeup of the kingdom is very explicit that Obould helped found it and shepherd it through its first years, which we know from other sources). I see nothing contradicting the concept that he has been involved in it from the beginning, and certainly nothing stating that his church has not been a significant element in its governance.
If Obould was involved, which I agree that he might have been for all we know, it will have to have been secret enough so that someone who spent the past one hundred years fighting and patrolling on the behalf of his heirs would not know about it. That would mean behind the scenes influence, not manifesting to smite upstarts.
The primary difficulty I see with his church being involved in governing Many Arrows is how would ultra-Good Drizzt continue to regard Obould's heirs as worthy of him killing anyone who tries to depose them if they followed a Chaotic Evil exarch? We have information in the Kingdom of Many Arrows given by a professional observer who has spent the last century making periodic visists there and being deeply involved in its internal politics. We're stuck with that view being, at the very least, supported by the evidence of Drizzt's eyes or ruling that Drizzt has gone utterly insane and that Hralien, the elf he discusses Many Arrows with in The Orc King, shares his insanity.
I find the latter case implausible and, frankly, find it more plausible to assume that Drizzt actually knows what he is talking about. And in that case, the Obould dynasty has probably ranged from Lawful Evil with strongly Neutral tendencies through Lawful Neutral to Lawful Good. And that the mortal Obould and his heirs would reject the divine Obould as an enemy of their realm. Or perhaps more plausibly, that the divine Obould ought not be Chaotic Evil, but an Unaligned patron of orcs who desire change from the age old cycle of defeat.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I just don't agree. The FRCG tells us SO LITTLE about Gruumsh and Obould, and I see nothing about how Gruumsh is portrayed in 4e FR that flatly contradicts Gruumsh from earlier editions. Sure, the alignment is a little wonky (as stated earlier).
God of Savagery instead of the God of Territory. Previously, holding conquered territories was a goal of Gruumsh. Gruumsh-as-Talos favours raiding and savage destruction. It's the difference between the viewpoint of a 'barbarian' conqueror like Ghenghis Khan and the viewpoint of 'barbarians' warlords like Brennus, who conquered Rome and then walked back home to his mountains loaded down with gold.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
You are exaggerating the differences like crazy and seeing major shifts where they aren't. Sure, the orcs have evolved some, yes, and Many Arrows is a special case, but I think it's a little out there to say what we have now is "not at all related" to what we had then.
Related in the same way as the orcs of Warhammer or Tolkien are related, but not meaningfully the same. In any event, it would be impossible to give a valid answer true for both at once, because they are different takes on the 'orc' concept.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
You're missing my distinction between *facts* and *subjective opinion/portrayal*. In Bob's novel, we see the orcs through Drizzt's eyes, and get a few facts about the Kingdom of Many Arrows, but I don't see any hard and fast contradictions with the FRCG. And even if there were, not everything that is said in a novel did indeed happen. Characters can be mistaken, or misinformed, or ignorant/bigoted in their opinions. Just because the CCC guys say orcs are horrible and need to be killed doesn't make it true, for instance.
Characters may be and often are mistaken, but asking us to believe that Drizzt had spent the past century fighting for the Kingdom of Many Arrows while at the same time being completely deceived about its nature is a bit strong.
The borders of Many Arrows are not sealed a century after Shallows, because King Obould VI is busily overseeing a ceremonial interracial marriage in the Moonwood at that time, as part of his neverending quest for racial equality. Indeed, unless the omniscient narrator directly lies to the reader, orcish relations with their neighbours are exceptionally good, but the way that people are willing to extend greater tolerance to them than other races wounds the proud orc king. When someone can afford to be offended when people make a point to be tolerant, rather than simply overlooking his race in the first place, racial relations would seem to be advanced to a point where people can afford to worry about 'First World Problems'.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Sure they can. It just needs to be clear that the FRCG and other sourcebooks about the Realms are encyclopedias, whereas novels are nonfiction biographies and recounting of historical events. It's hard for me to understand the mindset that believes everything a character says in a novel is the absolute, unvarnished truth. (See above.)
Not 'everything a character says'. On the other hand, I do find it a very implausible and lazy explanation to state that a character was actually wrong about a whole range of historical events where he was present and where there was little room for doubt. For example, witnessing multiple generations of sealed borders and believing that one were actually seeing thriving trade is not something that even the least observant people are likely to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I agree with you, but I think this is far less prevalent than you think, and I for one like finding creative explanations to reconcile seeming contradictions in the lore. We don't seem to share that predilection, though.
On the contrary. Mistakes will always happen and I used to enjoy trying to reconcile those in previous canon. On the other hand, there comes a time when the inconsistencies are so many that it becomes far easier to simply create a new setting from scratch, or, alternatively, to simply prune away the offending information until you have something left that is not internally inconsistent.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
OK, sure. So why couldn't it have done that at one time, but then it got sealed off due to internal conflict and difficulty keeping its subjects in line? Why couldn't Obould I have declared his borders sealed to both immigrants and emigrants, then enforced his edict with steel? That seems totally reasonable to me.
Because then Drizzt, Hralien, King Obould VI, Taska Toill and the omniscient narrator of The Orc King are all either wrong or lying to the reader. All speak about trade and/or relation with the neighbours and they do so in the 4e timeframe.
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
To sum up, you keep saying that things are contradictory, but I've yet to see a coherent description of these alleged contradictions. You offer your opinion that building a kingdom and keeping the orcs from raiding is out of character for a Chaotic Evil ruler (I have in several cases given reasons for him to do so), but that does not amount to an argument for contradiction. Can you point me to those things that flatly contradict each other, with citations?
I'm not here arguing that these things don't exist, mind--I'm just saying that until we talk about them directly, this discussion loses a lot of its luster.
If on the other hand you'd rather keep asserting that there's no way to reconcile the editions, without giving me citations that persuade you to think about canon the way you do, then I guess we're at an impasse.
Cheers
Just read the prologue of The Orc King and try to reconcile it with a Chaotic Evil Obould, a Kingdom of Many Arrows with sealed borders and, for that matter, an Obould XVII less than seven years after an Obould VI while the Kingdom of Many Arrows is stated as having been peaceful for all of those seven years and more. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 26 Nov 2011 02:26:26 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2011 : 03:19:23
|
| Insofar as Obould XVII's age ... we know that orcs have shorter lifespans, and it seems reasonable to assume their physical growth and maturity is much more rapid than in humans. Young Obould is young indeed, but perhaps not so different from a teenaged or adolescent human. Of course one does not rule a kingdom, even an orc kingdom, through strength of arm ... in terms of mental and emotional development young Obould would still be a child, likely less innocent but also less curious and less mentally agile than a human child of same age. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2011 : 04:13:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Insofar as Obould XVII's age ... we know that orcs have shorter lifespans, and it seems reasonable to assume their physical growth and maturity is much more rapid than in humans. Young Obould is young indeed, but perhaps not so different from a teenaged or adolescent human. Of course one does not rule a kingdom, even an orc kingdom, through strength of arm ... in terms of mental and emotional development young Obould would still be a child, likely less innocent but also less curious and less mentally agile than a human child of same age.
My point was that the king before him seems to have been King Obould VI, or at least he was king at some point around 1470s DR. Either eleven kings died in a few years of peace (this is after the civil wars) or the FRCG is wrong about the number of the ruling king. It makes sense to assume that the X in his number is simply a misprint and that he is actually King Obould VII. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2011 : 04:20:48
|
Or Obould might have sired many offspring. The resulting bloodbath, intrigue, assassination, and political maneuverings - orc style - might have eliminated all other claimants to the throne, the orc-child Obould XVII might simply be the only survivor. (A situation which is just begging to install the classic evil vizier as regent.)
Or it might be simpler still. Perhaps orcs just can't count very well. XVII is much more impressive sounding than II or VII, it's got "X" in it, that's always cool and manly. Before you entirely dismiss this half-joking possibility, remember that our own history has had a fair number of royals and nobles who pretentiously adopted unverifiably large Roman numerals after their names to encourage a sense of importance, legitimacy, and stability across generations. This was an especially effective tactic when the teeming masses were largely ignorant and illiterate and uninformed. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 26 Nov 2011 04:25:11 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2011 : 04:49:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Or Obould might have sired many offspring. The resulting bloodbath, intrigue, assassination, and political maneuverings - orc style - might have eliminated all other claimants to the throne, the orc-child Obould XVII might simply be the only survivor. (A situation which is just begging to install the classic evil vizier as regent.)
Obould XVII is not a child. He appears to be a full-grown king. Which is fine, because he might have been a prince while Obould VI ruled.
What is not fine is that the Kingdom of Many Arrows was at peace, internal and external, during the time of Obould VI's rule. The changeover from Obould the VI and Obould XVII happened without any civil strife, according to the FRCG (peace from 1460 DR) and The Orc King (King Obould VI rules a hundred years after Shallows, meaning 1470+ DR).
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Or it might be simpler still. Perhaps orcs just can't count very well. XVII is much more impressive sounding than II or VII, it's got "X" in it, that's always cool and manly. Before you entirely dismiss this half-joking possibility, remember that our own history has had a fair number of royals and nobles who pretentiously adopted unverifiably large Roman numerals after their names to encourage a sense of importance, legitimacy, and stability across generations. This was an especially effective tactic when the teeming masses were largely ignorant and illiterate and uninformed.
That explains it, yes. It also makes Obould XVII sound like a bad joke. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2011 : 05:26:13
|
Icelander, I agree that there is indeed a line at which you reach where reconciling seeming inconsistencies loses its luster. I think in this particular case, my line is a little farther than yours. We can agree to disagree on the believability of the kingdom--all of which is beside the point of the OP, which is asking "how can it exist?" not "how can't it exist?"
For the record, I don't think the Orc King prologue is wrong (nor do I think it's written in omniscient narrator), nor do I think any of the characters presented there are lying to us; they're presenting the information as they know and perceive it. I do think the kingdom of Many Arrows has had a great deal of warfare in its past (this is confirmed in the FRCG and not denied in The Orc King--all the novel seems to say is that they were staunch allies of the dwarves at one time and have done trade with their neighbors, and it implies that the nation is much more peaceful than a kingdom of orcs *should be* (in the king's opinion). All of which goes to further the cool contradiction at the heart of Many Arrows society: being expansionist or being successful, both of which have a heavy cost to the orcs in either blood or spirit.
(A couple specific notes: I do think the number thing is weird--that's probably a mistake on someone's part, or there's a pretty remarkable story for that. And as for the alignment question, what I was saying was that Lawful Evil does not exist in 4e, and alignment serves a different, lesser purpose in D&D now.)
I think I've answered the original post and offered many, many explanations for how the orc kingdom could exist and thrive. Until we get more information, DMs will just have to fill in the many blanks on their own, but what else is D&D but making stuff up? 
And on that note, I'll bow out of this discussion. Thanks guys!
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2011 : 13:31:09
|
As a fan of many of the Warcraft™ novels and of the character Thrull, I have no problems invisioning a Kingdom like Many Arrows being prosperous. Warcraft orcs are just as ruthless, savage, destructive, and violent as the orcs of Faerûn, yet they've been able to co-exist in a certain style with humans and other civilizations since the 1st game. I understand that the circumstances aren't the same and that the orcs of both worlds have come from different experiences, yet both races of Orc have close likeness (some where in the 90%, IMO) which makes the comparisons closely related.
|
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2011 : 13:52:03
|
| Orcs are orcs, be they from D&D, WoW, Tolkien, or Warhammer. Semi-nomadic, rapacious, warlike, destructive, even evil. They enjoy the most bestial capacities of men, exemplify it into inhumanly monstrous proportion. It is this notion about orcs which makes me apprehensive about accepting their ability to become an enlightened civilized race. Nonetheless, Realms canon asserts that some orcs are indeed attempting to assert themselves, with some success, in a peaceful (or at least less overtly violent) manner ... it remains to be seen how long and how well this can be sustained. To me it seems like an explosively unstable situation constantly averting detonation, it's only a matter of time (borrowed time) before some external force or internal trigger or unavoidable catalyst causes the expected and inevitable to occur. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 26 Nov 2011 13:54:54 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2011 : 16:53:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Orcs are orcs, be they from D&D, WoW, Tolkien, or Warhammer. Semi-nomadic, rapacious, warlike, destructive, even evil. They enjoy the most bestial capacities of men, exemplify it into inhumanly monstrous proportion. It is this notion about orcs which makes me apprehensive about accepting their ability to become an enlightened civilized race. Nonetheless, Realms canon asserts that some orcs are indeed attempting to assert themselves, with some success, in a peaceful (or at least less overtly violent) manner ... it remains to be seen how long and how well this can be sustained. To me it seems like an explosively unstable situation constantly averting detonation, it's only a matter of time (borrowed time) before some external force or internal trigger or unavoidable catalyst causes the expected and inevitable to occur.
Agreed, yet they've found that they have the capacity to be more than thuggish-brutes bent on destruction and war. Orcs, as you say, exemplify the "most bestial capacities of men" yet there is a hope that they can be better than that. That their existance isn't in just thriving off of the death and conquest of others. Yes, this has been the precident in Orc lore (fantasy-genre) and espically the case on Faerûn but we've also seen them create established cities as well as having rich histories.
I don't think it's a far stretch to think that they can eek out an existance that thrives (or at least, hasn't self-destructed) for about a century when compared to countries of other humanoids that have gone for a thousand years or more. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 27 Nov 2011 : 01:13:45
|
| If by "humanoids" you're basically referring to species which are typically found in the monster books, usually with a violently evil bent and somewhat below average mental capacity, then I don't know of any other nations they've formed in the Realms. There are often historical references to ogres and goblins having formed tenuous alliances and kingdoms, yet they most often seem to either form into a massive horde (which eventually dissipates or is genocidally exterminated) or they service some other (evil) agency of far greater power and intellect. To what examples do you refer, Diffan? |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 27 Nov 2011 : 02:30:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
If by "humanoids" you're basically referring to species which are typically found in the monster books, usually with a violently evil bent and somewhat below average mental capacity, then I don't know of any other nations they've formed in the Realms. There are often historical references to ogres and goblins having formed tenuous alliances and kingdoms, yet they most often seem to either form into a massive horde (which eventually dissipates or is genocidally exterminated) or they service some other (evil) agency of far greater power and intellect. To what examples do you refer, Diffan?
Orcish kingdom of Vastar, the ogre kingdom of Thar, the goblin kingdom beyond the Stonelands, etc. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 27 Nov 2011 : 14:18:22
|
The word 'monster' is interesting, is it not? In the RW we call serial killers & pedophiles by that title... yet there are no known cases of such amongst Orcs.
Orcs kill because they have to, like animals; humans kill for pleasure. I believe in the modern RW, the situation in The North would be called 'apartheid' - kinda distasteful when viewed that way, eh?
Better yet, humans in the north are like European settlers in the Americas - I suppose its okay to take all the good land for yourself and push the 'ignorant savages' back into undesirables areas?
And I'm sure at least one person will have issue with this post, but if he reads it correctly he will realize I am on his side. 
An intelligent (self-aware/speaking) race needs to be educated, not eliminated in a genocidal fashion because their 'customs' annoy you. There is a scene in one of the Elminster novels wherein someone (I forget who) is trying to trick El into killing by showing him a baby-eating Orc, and he knows that Orcs do not (normally) behave in that fashion. Basically, he was being shown an image as people see them, not as they are, and that was written by Ed Greenwood.
Does that mean I'd want to live next door to one? Hell no! My liberalism only goes so far. 
But I wouldn't go out of my way to kill them, either. The Netherese did that, and thats why The North was one of the very few regions on Toril that Orcs COULDN'T live in peace with humans (and others) until Obould and Many Arrows. The animosity was part of their cultural heritage at that point.
And you don't think the Elves of old treated primitive humans in a similar fashion? Read Cormyr: A Novel (or study Elven history). Humans were just like Orcs, once. I can undertsnad the 'kill on sight' philosophy with aberrations, like beholders, Illithid, and Abolths, but do we hate Orcs so much because it is looking into a 'dark mirror'? |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 28 Nov 2011 18:23:17 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36781 Posts |
Posted - 27 Nov 2011 : 15:05:41
|
I disagree that orcs only kill because they have to. We have plenty of cases in Realmslore where orcs have gone out of their way to kill someone who was minding their own business, simply because those people were there. Orc culture and an orc's natural inclination to violence are why orcs kill themselves and others. It's not a perception issue, it's observed and verifiable behavior.
And we know orcs have a natural tendency for violence because half-orcs, even when raised among humans, still have to deal with it. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 27 Nov 2011 : 15:08:51
|
I have no illusions about what monster means. Orcs are sadistic, cruel, domineering, they understand that the strong prey upon the weak, that they can take anything they want through force. This is not to say they are incapable of reason and emotion, just that (in their classic state) they derive pleasure from being able to bully weaklings and are unconcerned with consequences others may suffer in their stead. Indeed, they may torment others knowing full well how much suffering they inflict, for no real reason other than to inflict the suffering itself - this alone is evil and monstrous by any definition.
Conversely, some might observe a sort of sense of personal (or tribal) honour, finding truly feeble and defenseless competitors unsporting and unsatisfying, they might seek to challenge themselves with worthy opponents. Even so, they are used to a routine level of violence and hardship which civilized humans cannot readily understand. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 27 Nov 2011 : 17:21:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The word 'monster' is interesting, is it not? In the RW we call serial killers & pedophiles by that title... yet there are no known cases of such amongst Orcs.
Orcs rape and kill as a matter of course. Ted Bundy or Albert Fish among orcs would either be fairly regular chieftains if they were strong enough or they would be shamans of Yurtrus or Shargaas if not.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Orcs kill because they have to, like animals; humans kill for pleasure.
A few deranged humans kill for pleasure, but the vast majority of humans find it difficult, almost impossible to kill at all. Research shows that the average human soldier does not aim at his opponents and is most likely incapable of killing. 2% of human males* are able to kill as a matter of course and of those, half or more never consider using violence as a means of conflict resolution except in self-defence or during a legally-sanctioned war they regard as their patriotic duty.
The data on orcs makes it appear that the average orc is similar to sociopathic humans. The typical orc is the eqivalent of a violent human gangster.
*Data on females is not available, due to the research being carried out among US servicemen in line MOS-es.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I believe in the modern RW, the situation in The North would be called 'apartheid' - kinda distasteful when viewed that way, eh?
It depends, as I noted earlier, on what canon you go by. In The Orc King, mixed marriages are increasingly common and both the elven and orcish leaders actively encourage such marriages. That is not apartheit, that is post-Civil Rights.
The century time-jump skipped over all the real conflict. Orcs now are equals of the other races there, probably so PCs could play Warcraft orcs without dealing with racism except from a few CCC bad guys with "I'm ignorant" painted on their forehead.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Better yet, humans in the north are like European settlers in the Americas - I suppose its okay to take all the good land for yourself and push the 'ignorant savages' back into undesirables areas?
All species everywhere will seek to maximise their own chances at survival, even at the cost of the survival of other species. This is nature.
There's only so much carrying capacity in the North. Either the humans have it and are able to feed their children or the orcs will. If the humans shared with an equal number of orcs, what will they do when the next generation arrives? The humans will have grown slightly in number, the orcs will have grown exponentially. The sharing will have to be adjusted in the favour of the orcs or most of them will die. Now the humans have a choice between giving up some land and have many of their number going hungry or not giving up anything and presumably kicking off a war where they are in a much worse position than before they chose to share.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
An intelligent (self-aware/speaking) race needs to be educated, not eliminated in a genocidal fashion because their 'customs' annoy you.
Benevolent and condescending attempts to 'reform' the cultures of others have usually failed hilariously. And it's not just the 'customs' that make orcs natural enemies of humans. They are two species competing for the same ecological niche. And orcs breed prodigiously while humans do not.
If humans simply let things take their natural course, they would soon enough join the Neanderthals in extinction, with just a touch of their DNA remaining in the orcish race that now dominated.
Given that humans are fond of living, most rational rulers would rather accept genocidal measures than allowing their own race to perish.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But I wouldn't go out of my way to kill them, either. The Netherese did that, and thats why The North was one of the very few regions on Toril that Orcs COULDN'T live in peace with humans (and others) until Obould and Many Arrows. The animosity was part of their cultural heritage at that point.
Actually, not only the Netherese did that. Good-aligned mages like Tulrun of the Tent realised that since orcs bred so fast, they would exterminate the humans in the North quickly if their numbers were not ruthlessly kept in check.
Morality is a far more complex thing than D&D makes it out to be and FR history is written with more complexity than D&D alignment allows. A moral dilemma with two clear chices, the good and the evil, is about as dramatically interesting as vanilla ice cream. Real ethical dilemmas have no 'Good' answers.
Like the situation in the North. Genocide of orcs or extermination of humans. And, mind you, it isn't because the orcs are so evil that these are the only two practical choices. No, it's because they breed so fast that peaceful coexistence would still wipe out the humans, once the orcs had grown so many that everyone living in the North would be subject to famine.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And you don't think the Elves of old treated primitive humans in a similar fashion? Read Cormyr: A Novel (or study Elven history). Humans were just like Orcs, once. I can undertsnad the 'kill on sight' philosophy with aberrations, like beholders, Illithid, and Abolths, but do we hate Orcs so much because it is looking into a 'dark mirror'?
That's an interesting point, but it loses much of its impact if we decide to (contrary to prior lore) treat orcs as just like humans. Orcs emobody, for cultural and biological reasons, all that is worst about humans. Their baseline of savage and violent behaviour matches the extreme found among humans.
This doesn't mean that all orcs are bad, however. And it is there that the dramatic impact lies. Most people today regard it as a no-brainer that it's bad to judge people based on negative stereotypes. The primary reason we realise this, in a racial context, is that the negative stereotypes are wrong and judging based on them is therefore not a winning strategy.
Negative stereotypes about orcs are almost always right. Is it still wrong to judge people based on the colour of their skin if it is reliable in most cases?
Orcs who want to escape the pattern of their society are truly exceptional. Humans, elves and other civilised races who accept them and help them are also truly exceptional. That's the moral a story about orcs wanting civilisation ought to push. Not a ham-handed moral about anyone who dares to hate orcs just because their way of life is based on murder and rape is just as bad as the KKK. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 27 Nov 2011 17:45:53 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2011 : 00:25:14
|
quote:
Wooly Rupert
And we know orcs have a natural tendency for violence because half-orcs, even when raised among humans, still have to deal with it.
Although I agree in principle with your assessment of orcs, Wooly Blueman, I think this might be a point of controversy. There isn't enough data (enough examples) of half-orcs, or orcs, raised in nonviolent societies to confirm whether this is indeed a natural proclivity for brutality encoded within orc biology ... or if it's simply an easy/expected pattern most adopt when raised in a society which treats them with open hostility. Compare with tieflings, who are also judged evil (perhaps not unfairly, since they are partly descended from fiends), and who are thus almost certainly treated in a prejudiced manner; many become outcasts and loners, their antisocial and callous temperaments might not always result simply from the evil taint of fiendish blood. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2011 : 18:48:44
|
On Half-Orcs: Like Spock from ST:tOS - he has to apply far more rigid control over his emotions then most other Vulcans, because his 'human half' would easily allow them to get out of control.
And although I would agree with you in-general, Wooly, my point was that Orcs kill because they have to because humans do the same to them, on-sight. Thousands of years off slaughter (by the millions!) at human (and Elvish/Dwarvish) hands has given them the cultural stigma of "kill or be killed". They DO enjoy killing, but it is because they got to 'them' first. An Orc that thinks this way - "lets all get along" - is soon a very dead Orc. Being an Orc is like being a Drow - you can't just walk into a tavern and order a Mead; trouble follows you whether you want it or not. No matter how well behaved he/she tries to be, someone - probably several someones - are going to take a swing.
Its okay for early Americans to dump tea into harbors and take pot-shots at their government-appointed 'police', but it is not okay for Orcs to behave in a similar fashion? Mel Gibson's character in The Patriot was the hero, and yet was known for his ferocity and brutality, especially when he literally butchered the French and Indians. In the same movie, we see the civilized English locking everyone in a church and burning it down. The Romans were known for cutting off the hands of their fallen enemies, so they could continue to control them without fear of reprisal. History is rife with such examples - how is this any different then how Orcs behave?
If Orcs attack a small village and brutally murder everyone in it, then they are sending a message to rest of humanity to 'stay the hell away' form THEIR lands. That is all it is - why can't people see that Orcs respond in kind, always?
And AFAIK, Orcs do not sacrifice 'their own' to their gods - I think even an Orc would be pretty shocked by Meso-American history. Killing your enemies is one thing (and everyone is an enemy, to an Orcs way of thinking), but sacrificing thousands... hundreds of thousands... of your own people? Thats just insanity.
And I am glad someone brought-up Neanderthals - to me, Orcs are just like Neanderthals, and humans are the Cromagnon. They have to fight, or be replaced; what choice do they have?
BTW, I am just playing Devil's Advocate here - I want people to realize D&D 'monsters' are not just canon-fodder to be shoved at your players: DMs must realize they are part of thinking societies, who do not mindlessly wait in a dungeon to die when the first PC comes along. And what human adventurers call a dungeon, they call home. How'd you like it if someone kicked open your door and said "Hey! Look at all this cool stuff we can just take!" You'd turn into an Orc pretty darn quick to, to protect your family and property. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 28 Nov 2011 18:49:50 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36781 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2011 : 19:09:56
|
| I am going to disagree, once more. Again, we have seen plenty of cases in Realmslore where orcs launched unprovoked attacks, simply because they could. If someone goes out of their way to attack someone who has never bothered them in any way, who is not intruding on their territory, and who is otherwise not a threat to their existence, then that is not justifiable by any argument. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2011 : 21:37:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
[b]Its okay for early Americans to dump tea into harbors and take pot-shots at their government-appointed 'police', but it is not okay for Orcs to behave in a similar fashion? Mel Gibson's character in The Patriot was the hero, and yet was known for his ferocity and brutality, especially when he literally butchered the French and Indians. In the same movie, we see the civilized English locking everyone in a church and burning it down. The Romans were known for cutting off the hands of their fallen enemies, so they could continue to control them without fear of reprisal. History is rife with such examples - how is this any different then how Orcs behave?
Aside from your poorly chosen example of Roman history (one specific person doing something once does not equate to 'known for'), you seem to have fallen prey to the fallacy that actions as such are good are evil. That is not true. Killing a man is an action, but depending on circumstances it can be good or evil. It is evil to kill a man for fun, it is good to kill a man to protect the innocent.
Both humans and orcs kill during warfare. This is undisputed. On the other hand, human cultures founded on ethical values do not recognise war as an end in itself. You war for a purpose, in order to defend against aggression or to end a certain evil.
Orcs differ fundamentally in that their culture, for whatever reason, exalts raiding and savagery as ends in themselves. Have their been human cultures that were guilty of the same thing? Yes, to a degree. But none of them have ever attained the heights of savagery that orcish culture appears to have.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And AFAIK, Orcs do not sacrifice 'their own' to their gods - I think even an Orc would be pretty shocked by Meso-American history. Killing your enemies is one thing (and everyone is an enemy, to an Orcs way of thinking), but sacrificing thousands... hundreds of thousands... of your own people? Thats just insanity.
Apart from the fact that Meso-Americans sacrificed battle captives more often than their own, orcs also sacrifice other orcs to Yurtrus, for example.
Also, they kill weak infants, children and adolescents and claim that they do so in the name of Gruumsh.
You do, nevertheless, have a point in that individual humans and even human cultures have the capacity to be depraved and ferocious with even more imagination and fervour than orcs. That's certainly true.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And I am glad someone brought-up Neanderthals - to me, Orcs are just like Neanderthals, and humans are the Cromagnon. They have to fight, or be replaced; what choice do they have?
The analogy breaks down when you consider that the orcs are the ones who breed faster. Humans are the species threathened with extinction, not orcs. From an evolutionary standpoint, orcs outcompete humans easily, unless the humans use their superior organisation and intelligence to wipe out orcs or at least keep their population ruthlessly in check.
Your broader point, however, that the clash between human and orc is fundamentally a biologically-driven content for ecological niche, is sound. It appears from the evidence that one species will eventually outcompete the other and drive it into extinction. As such, fighting back, even if it means exterminating the other species, is merely nature at work.
In my campaigns, characters that would unequivocally be called Good aligned by their fellow men nevertheless advocate a strategy of genocidal warfare against orcs. They might personally regret it, but in the long run, they perceive it as doing the least harm. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2011 : 21:39:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I am going to disagree, once more. Again, we have seen plenty of cases in Realmslore where orcs launched unprovoked attacks, simply because they could. If someone goes out of their way to attack someone who has never bothered them in any way, who is not intruding on their territory, and who is otherwise not a threat to their existence, then that is not justifiable by any argument.
I don't think anyone is justifying it as such. Markustay is simply saying 'humans have done it too'. Tu quoque fallacy.
There are evil humans and human cultures where the majority of members have been evil. That doesn't mean that orcs who do the same are not also evil.
And whereas a minority of humans act in this way, the vast majority of orcs do.
It's a matter of statistical likelyhood. While both orcs and humans might be brutal killers, it is far more likely to find such among orcs. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2011 : 23:53:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
Orcs differ fundamentally in that their culture, for whatever reason, exalts raiding and savagery as ends in themselves. Have their been human cultures that were guilty of the same thing? Yes, to a degree. But none of them have ever attained the heights of savagery that orcish culture appears to have.
The Tuigan.
Based, of course, on the Mongols and Huns.
The Tuigan were so fierce and brutal, cultures that were normally at-odds became allies to fight them (there were Orcs in Azoun's army... who were awarded medals afterward). Even the Red Wizardfs were forced to bargain with them, and the Witches of Rashemen (and their beserkers) were nearly powerless before them.
An entire HUMAN culture - formed-up into a horde - based upon the principle of 'might makes right', and of the opinion that if you are not as strong as them, you have no right to keep your stuff (which includes you wife, children, and life). The Tuigan exalted in battle, and killed anything that showed signs of weakness.
And yet, the Tuigan are still treated more humanely then Orcs, when encountering other cultures. Why should that be? Because they are not as ugly?
Once again, I am merely playing Devil's Advocate here. D&D Orcs are not Tolkien's Orcs, and some tend to forget that. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2011 : 00:09:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
Orcs differ fundamentally in that their culture, for whatever reason, exalts raiding and savagery as ends in themselves. Have their been human cultures that were guilty of the same thing? Yes, to a degree. But none of them have ever attained the heights of savagery that orcish culture appears to have.
The Tuigan.
Based, of course, on the Mongols and Huns.
The Tuigan were so fierce and brutal, cultures that were normally at-odds became allies to fight them (there were Orcs in Azoun's army... who were awarded medals afterward). Even the Red Wizardfs were forced to bargain with them, and the Witches of Rashemen (and their beserkers) were nearly powerless before them.
An entire HUMAN culture - formed-up into a horde - based upon the principle of 'might makes right', and of the opinion that if you are not as strong as them, you have no right to keep your stuff (which includes you wife, children, and life). The Tuigan exalted in battle, and killed anything that showed signs of weakness.
And yet, the Tuigan are still treated more humanely then Orcs, when encountering other cultures. Why should that be? Because they are not as ugly?
Once again, I am merely playing Devil's Advocate here. D&D Orcs are not Tolkien's Orcs, and some tend to forget that.
Both the Tuigan and the real world cultures that they are based on accepted ambassadors, kept truces, were prepared to make treaties for limited gains and respected the rights and customs of their conquered peoples.
Their method of warfare was ruthless, but ruthless victory does less total harm than years of inconclusive war.
I'm not saying that the Tuigan were 'good' in any sense of the word, but they were far more humane toward their enemies than orcs usually are. Indeed, Obould's ability to sign a treaty and keep it is regarded as a phenomenon, while it is commonplace among the Tuigan, as with other human cultures. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
How does an orc kingdom, like Many Arrows exist?
