| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 05:09:06
|
if a goblin is raised amongst goblins, than there isa 90% chance that goblin will be a black hearted, bottom feeding, scum sucking unredeamable, evilhearted Cruel; only good for exp goblin.
it is the same for hobgoblins, mindflayers, hillgiants.....
Orcs on the otherhand, while humanoid in appearance mind you, does not make them all good or evil. Most of them act on the tenants of Gruumsh and he says, go forth and conquer.
and they go out and enslave, rape, pillage, maim, kill, burn all kinds of bridges their black hearts out.
they will always have that in their blood, lets face it, olbould is like Drizzt, one of a kind. Don't Forget that even when he signed the treaty, Obould was still evil, but he was smart enough to know when to keep his word, and that allowed his kingdom to be born and exist.
Complaining against the pressumed destruction of ManyArrows is rather bad and let me tell you why. Orcs ahv the history of always taking out the leader if he thinks the current is weak, and they also tend to leave the fallen behind., they also tend to be warlike more so than any other humanoid species of medium or smaller size,
the Kingdom of ManyArrows will fall and fall it will but most likely to infighting......
that and in my opinion from reading one the recent drizzt books that had the current obould talking to some she orc about her soon to be marriage to a human, was not to good. He seemed like a warmonger.. likely so were his predecessors...... |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
 |
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 06:59:10
|
quote:
That whole "it's A-OK to kill orc babies" thing? I really hope we get to see the Companions of the Hall encounter an orc "nursery" of sorts with their infants in it. It's going to be interesting to see the heroes basically killing defenseless babies just because they're evil.
I haven't read the book so can't comment on it. But I want to say that the above scenario is unlikely to occur. Why? Because in a former novel Bruenor actually made toys and gave them to orc children (or goblins, or hobgoblins...I don't actually recall which). Point is, the Companions wont descend into that kind of behavior...unless RAS plans to take them in a radically different direction, which I seriously doubt.
Also, unless WotC changes this dynamic, Mielikki sees things through the lens of her portfolio (as recounted in some novels and discussed here at the 'Keep)...so it makes (some) sense that she would see things that way. She's largely seen as a ranger-type being, and rangers are often opposed to goblinkin. There's a certain logic to it all. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
Edited by - The Arcanamach on 24 Apr 2014 07:01:53 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 11:42:08
|
Re: "Dumbing Down the Realms"
When I first read this scroll title, I initially thought of the <Talking Heads song "Burning Down the House">.
Dumbing...down...THE REALMS! 
I still haven't read the book, either, so I'm withholding judgment until then. But this sounds like a case of Bob/WOTC giving a lot of us exactly what we wanted. Orcs are chaotic evil buzzards, with some exceptions, so in general, they should be fought with goodly characters' all.
The children were already shown to Regis not to be evil in The Pirate King, so I don't see him, at least, going after them.
But the grown-ups are an entirely different story. Their nature has been shown, as well. |
"'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"> |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 12:52:09
|
quote:
I still haven't read the book, either, so I'm withholding judgment until then. But this sounds like a case of Bob/WOTC giving a lot of us exactly what we wanted. Orcs are chaotic evil buzzards, with some exceptions, so in general, they should be fought with goodly characters' all.
If this is their stance with ''evil'' humanoids, then my interest in the 'new Realms' has just plummeted, for what little it matters.
quote:
The children were already shown to Regis not to be evil in The Pirate King, so I don't see him, at least, going after them.
But the grown-ups are an entirely different story. Their nature has been shown, as well.
But it doesn't make sense. If baby orcs are not physiologically 'evil', how can adult ones become so? Magic? Gods? Cheesy explanations are totally uninteresting IMO. Also, how can you tell if a baby humanoid is 'evil', it's not like (s)he can do much to show it...
quote:
Also, unless WotC changes this dynamic, Mielikki sees things through the lens of her portfolio (as recounted in some novels and discussed here at the 'Keep)...so it makes (some) sense that she would see things that way. She's largely seen as a ranger-type being, and rangers are often opposed to goblinkin. There's a certain logic to it all.
What about goblin rangers? Can't there be any? Also, being adverse to something doesn't mean being unable to understand its nature and having a wrong perception of it. Mielikki can be adverse to goblin because they destroy forests (she would be adverse to any large civilized settlement then), but it doesn't imply that she automatically thinks that they are evil and completely unable to choose otherwise. Now, as Delwa said, I don't have the exact quote, so this may very well not be the case, but if it is then I'm a lot disappointed.
quote:
It could be foreshadowing for something. Or it could just be another instance of the Realms powers being envisioned as the most annoying adolescent humans... egotistical, vindictive, whiny, self-centered, prone to generalization and selective truth, etc.
I thought that gods were going back to being gods, instead of beings with limited perception and understanding of how things works and that make the worst choices in the worst moments.
|
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Apr 2014 14:19:02 |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 14:48:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
But it doesn't make sense. If baby orcs are not physiologically 'evil', how can adult ones become so? Magic? Gods? Cheesy explanations are totally uninteresting IMO. Also, how can you tell if a baby humanoid is 'evil', it's not like (s)he can do much to show it...
It seems to me, then, from a business perspective, it best for WotC to leave the question technically unanswered. Novel characters like Drizzt may speculate, gods may give "answers," but leaving it out of canon and up to the DM/players to ultimately decide would be their best option.
quote:
I thought that gods were going back to being gods, instead of beings with limited perception and understanding of how things works and that make the worst choices in the worst moments.
I never pictured the gods of Toril to be omnicient any more than they are omnipresent. They are tremendously powerful, yes, but they can be lied to, used, tricked, and killed. This makes them less than omnipotent, though in comparisson to mortals they might as well be omnipotent.
I think we're mostly in agreement on Goblin Rangers. A ranger is effectively a woodsman. A good aligned ranger protects the woods he knows and loves. An evil ranger may just help loggers clear cut a forrest and move on. Both have the same skills, but their alignment determines how they use them. :) |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 15:08:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
It seems to me, then, from a business perspective, it best for WotC to leave the question technically unanswered. Novel characters like Drizzt may speculate, gods may give "answers," but leaving it out of canon and up to the DM/players to ultimately decide would be their best option.
It already is up to the DM/players, tho. What doesn't depend on me -as customer/reader- is what stories and lore I get from them can include or not. That's why it's important to me that ''evil'' races are not physiologically so, and why I welcome and enjoy individuals or groups/factions of such races that choose differently, or even try to change things among their 'people'. They would -obviously- still be a narrow minority, but would provide a lot of depth/character development to otherwise very flat/boring races.
quote:
I never pictured the gods of Toril to be omnicient any more than they are omnipresent. They are tremendously powerful, yes, but they can be lied to, used, tricked, and killed. This makes them less than omnipotent, though in comparisson to mortals they might as well be omnipotent.
I didn't mean all-powerful or all-knowing, but beings that don't behave in incredibly stupid ways, that are coherent and know and understand world in a way that mortals cannot (and that surely includes knowing the difference between goblins being innately evil, or by choice/induction). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Apr 2014 15:10:01 |
|
|
|
Renin
Learned Scribe
USA
290 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 15:16:23
|
While a baby tiger may seem cute and cuddly, you still should have the knowledge that it will grow up into an adult tiger that can rip you to shreds.
Orcs were designed as evil creatures. They follow an evil god, almost completely without any forethought or design to question that god, tenets, or their societies progress.
Do Orcs ever do what civilized people and cultures do? Express themselves and their place in the world through art; song, architecture, poetry? They do make some of those things, but only to glorify their hateful god and to gain power.
Orcs do not have the capacity for such things. That does not mean they are not able to handle conversations or reasoning in speech (such as when they capture your PCs), but it is only with the goal to fulfill their desires and wanton lusts for violence, treasure, etc.
I have no problem with this, and have never thought better of orcs anyways. This doesn't mean that they can't organize under an amazing leader of strength, prowess, or cunning. The fact that Many-Arrows kingdom lasted this long, or that all civilized nations around it said "sure, let them have that land" is astounding to me.
I'm certainly not saying that "Yup, kill an orc baby in it's bed/manger/pile of refuse." Either be ready to deal with that moral implication if you want in your campaign, or don't let it be something your PCs have to face.
A tiger's stripes don't wash away, is all I'm saying. |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 15:25:36
|
I prefer the orcs and goblinoids are irredemably evil. The reason for this is simple creationism. The goblinoids were created to be evil. One cannot assume that natural selection is the evolutionary mechanism in that case, in fact one cannot assume that evolution works AT ALL in Faerun (this is why I do not like that Golarion is in the Earth Universe, there is too much in the earth universe that would prevent Golarion from working the way it does or the Bestirary Monsters from existing.)
Occasionally one can find a specimen of these irredemably evil creatures that becomes an equivalent 'mother theresa'. In this I do not point to King Obould Many Arrows but instead General Vraak of the Zhentarim from the Horde series, and one of the Cyric books. First though let me address why King Obould is not a good or even neutral figure, like General Vraak. He realizes the best way for the orcs to gain a position of power is to sign a treaty. He sees that the raiding of the orcs is an endless cycle that leads to them becoming fragmented. Fragmented and powerless. Obould realizes if he could unite the orcs, they would indeed be as hard to defeat as the Elves or Dwarves. He is not trying to have an alliance for the sake of the realm, it is the sake of the Orcs to attain a greater power. He also knows that the orcs greatest strength is WAR not agriculture. He needs the civilized races to provide adequate agriculture.
Previously orcs just raided for agriculture. Now they can trade for it. When they are powerful enough because they are united, they can conquer and force their newly conquered citizens to provide the skills the orcs do not have. Agriculture and Engineering.
General Vraak is the mother theresa of Orcs. He has a genuine concern for the lives of others as demonstrated when Zhentil Keep was getting trashed. He could have let the refugees die, as most orcs would but he did not want too. He also saw, above and beyond what the Zhentarim saw why it was good to ally with Cormyr against Yamun Kahan. He saw them as an honest threat to the world.
Orcs have been created to be evil,and so they lack the free will to break it. Vraak is so special because he is the ONE that can break that creationist limitation and somehow may have found free will. THAT is what makes him special.
Generel Vraak is the closest thing the Orcs have to Drizzt Do'Urden, certainly not Obould Many Arrows.
The Drow and Duergar are a completely different case than the goblinoids. They were not created by an evil god to thwart the world. They were WARPED by gods or forces. The Drow were not created by Lloth, they were encouraged by her. The drow were created with all the other elves in their roots. Lloth twisted them, like Palpatine twisted Darth Vader. The Drow are evil because they have decided that is the best way to live. It is indeed in their nature but so is free will. It is incredibly difficult, but a dark elf with free will can escape its evil nature. The same is true for the Duergar. They are warped Dwarves, but originally they were created by Moradin all the same. Clan Duergar became the Duergar race after enslavement. They were not created by an evil god and denied free will.
With the exception of splat books for those that want to explore monstrous characters, goblinoids and orcs have never been playable races. This again is a function of free will. Free will grants the adventurers the motivation and drive to explore the world. Goblinoids are subject to their nature, and where they may like to take up the adventuring life style they cannot derive any benefit other than getting treasure or magic items. Adventurers that seek only those things rarely last. Half orcs make good adventurers because they have the free will of their non orc ancestry. They can function as well as any other race.
Goblinoids and orcs are created races. The Drow and Duergar are corrupted races. With Goblinoids Nature will always overcome nurture. Drow and Duergar the nurture enhances the Nature, but if brought to the proper place that nurture can overcome their nature
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
Edited by - Mournblade on 24 Apr 2014 15:28:19 |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 15:39:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renin
[br
I'm certainly not saying that "Yup, kill an orc baby in it's bed/manger/pile of refuse." Either be ready to deal with that moral implication if you want in your campaign, or don't let it be something your PCs have to face.
The only difference between an adult orc and a baby one is 7XP's. Orcs, goblins, etc. are evil. They were created to be the enemies of the good aligned PC's. They are the enemy of rangers (who are a good aligned class). If people want exceptions that is for their campaign (or novel), but the race as a whole is evil. |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 15:41:24
|
Now onto why the "noble orc" argument is such a pet peeve of mine.
I have been accused TWICE now over the years on the WOTC forums by pseudo intellectuals that I am a supporter of genocide because it is right and good for a LG paladin to kill orc children. Completely laughable, but the accusers are skewed on thier perspective.
Those that think orc slaughter are a slippery slope to racism present an argument with no more merit than Video games cause violence in children and Fantasy roleplaying games promotes devil worship. The mistake in their thinking is that the orc is somehow a proxy for those races that suffered under imperialism. This is in no way the case. The orcs are subhuman. (Another term that on the WOTC forums gets people in a tangle, as though calling orcs subhuman is somehow offensive because during a period of ignorance conquerors called their slaves subhuman.) Orcs are only a proxy for 'the evil' to be defeated in the story.
If all of the people that fear the slippery slope of racism due to orc slaughter had their way, goblinoids would become just another race suffering hardship. That is well and good. D&D however needs the niche of 'the evil' filled. There would need to be a species created that would fill that niche. Perhaps it would be fine to fill that niche with an organism that does not have any human characteristics, and maybe that would satisfy the critics. There could be no offense. Likely though it would be just another humanoid race, and the argument would start all over again, leaving another mythical construct to climb higher on the ladder to misunderstood humanoid, from evil creature.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
Edited by - Mournblade on 24 Apr 2014 15:42:18 |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 16:11:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renin
While a baby tiger may seem cute and cuddly, you still should have the knowledge that it will grow up into an adult tiger that can rip you to shreds.
Orcs were designed as evil creatures. They follow an evil god, almost completely without any forethought or design to question that god, tenets, or their societies progress.
Do Orcs ever do what civilized people and cultures do? Express themselves and their place in the world through art; song, architecture, poetry? They do make some of those things, but only to glorify their hateful god and to gain power.
Orcs do not have the capacity for such things. That does not mean they are not able to handle conversations or reasoning in speech (such as when they capture your PCs), but it is only with the goal to fulfill their desires and wanton lusts for violence, treasure, etc.
I have no problem with this, and have never thought better of orcs anyways. This doesn't mean that they can't organize under an amazing leader of strength, prowess, or cunning. The fact that Many-Arrows kingdom lasted this long, or that all civilized nations around it said "sure, let them have that land" is astounding to me.
I'm certainly not saying that "Yup, kill an orc baby in it's bed/manger/pile of refuse." Either be ready to deal with that moral implication if you want in your campaign, or don't let it be something your PCs have to face.
A tiger's stripes don't wash away, is all I'm saying.
In the real world here we still have the nature vs nurture argument. Tigers do not turn on those that have nurtured them unless they feel threatened or they are not fed correctly.
Goblins will turn on their nurturers because it causes pain. you are far more likely to have a tiger act amicably than a goblin.
As far as slaughtering orc babies, there is no more a moral implication in doing that, than there would be burning corpses so they could not become undead.
From a lens of natural selection slaughtering orc babies HAS a moral implication. Once it is realized the D&D world empirically does not rely on natural selection, the moral implication is nil.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 16:39:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I didn't mean all-powerful or all-knowing, but beings that don't behave in incredibly stupid ways, that are coherent and know and understand world in a way that mortals cannot (and that surely includes knowing the difference between goblins being innately evil, or by choice/induction).
Ah, my bad. [ :-) ]
But even then, Meilikki could be wrong simply because she's making a bad assumption. Only the goblins' creator knows the true secrets of their nature. Those secrets aren't necessarily common knowledge to all the pantheon.
To me, I stick with the unreliable narrator viewpoint for everything in novels and sourcebooks. Everything you read is true, from a certain point of view. But all beings are fallible, though some are fallible to a lesser extent than others.
Then there is no "do I include this?" question, only "how on its head do I want to turn it?" |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 16:45:27
|
Regardless of whether a species is intrinsically evil, the statement that they are intrinsically evil and lack free will is harsh and will be perceived as evil because it denies free will. A mortal of Faerun, or even a goddess, doesn't have the objective knowledge to say with authority that anyone lacks free will and is evil because they were created to be evil. He can say it, but it will sound like preaching for the destruction of ugly people.
If a DM decides, for his/her own campaigns, that all orcs are evil without exceptions, then it's so in that world. Making it so for all campaigns is no more tolerable than declaring that the TOT, return of Shade, and Spellplague happened in all campaigns. Leave choices to individual DMs.
Whether or not the gods have decided that these humanoids are evil is irrelevant once an individual decides that they are evil. PCs' outlook and decisions determine and influence their alignment.
It's good to allow everyone the opportunity to be good. Prepare for them to be evil. Be aware of the likelihood that they're evil. But don't assume it. Kill-on-sight orders are evil, even when issued against evil humanoids. |
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 24 Apr 2014 16:47:37 |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 16:49:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Regardless of whether a species is intrinsically evil, the statement that they are intrinsically evil and lack free will is harsh and will be perceived as evil because it denies free will. A mortal of Faerun, or even a goddess, doesn't have the objective knowledge to say with authority that anyone lacks free will and is evil because they were created to be evil. He can say it, but it will sound like preaching for the destruction of ugly people.
If a DM decides, for his/her own campaigns, that all orcs are evil without exceptions, then it's so in that world. Making it so for all campaigns is no more tolerable than declaring that the TOT, return of Shade, and Spellplague happened in all campaigns. Leave choices to individual DMs.
Whether or not the gods have decided that these humanoids are evil is irrelevant once an individual decides that they are evil. PCs' outlook and decisions determine and influence their alignment.
It's good to allow everyone the opportunity to be good. Prepare for them to be evil. Be aware of the likelihood that they're evil. But don't assume it. Kill-on-sight orders are evil, even when issued against evil humanoids.
Well stated. Thank you. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2382 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 18:07:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Generel Vraak is the closest thing the Orcs have to Drizzt Do'Urden, certainly not Obould Many Arrows.
Of course. Obould would be an equivalent of Drizzt Do'Urden only if instead of doing something to actually drag his people out of the bog he tried to avoid any association with them and looked up at elves.  |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 18:21:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
quote:
That whole "it's A-OK to kill orc babies" thing? I really hope we get to see the Companions of the Hall encounter an orc "nursery" of sorts with their infants in it. It's going to be interesting to see the heroes basically killing defenseless babies just because they're evil.
I haven't read the book so can't comment on it. But I want to say that the above scenario is unlikely to occur. Why? Because in a former novel Bruenor actually made toys and gave them to orc children (or goblins, or hobgoblins...I don't actually recall which). Point is, the Companions wont descend into that kind of behavior...unless RAS plans to take them in a radically different direction, which I seriously doubt.
Of course that scenario won't occur because Orcs are too close to humans for RAS to want to write it or for WotC to allow it.
But if you read the book, you'll see that Cattie-Brie and Bruenor were all for slaughtering all the Orcs in Many-Arrows, because Mielikki says they're evil (though Bruenor obviously only cared about Mielikki's judgement because he wanted more justification to wipe out Many-Arrows).
As for the direction that ths scroll is taking, I have read all the views about how this is ok because the Orcs were created evil, but to me, that's a non-explanation that just makes all goblinkin boring. Now you know that there's only one thing to expect from them. |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
|
|
|
Artemel
Learned Scribe
USA
110 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 18:28:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Renin
While a baby tiger may seem cute and cuddly, you still should have the knowledge that it will grow up into an adult tiger that can rip you to shreds.
Orcs were designed as evil creatures. They follow an evil god, almost completely without any forethought or design to question that god, tenets, or their societies progress.
Do Orcs ever do what civilized people and cultures do? Express themselves and their place in the world through art; song, architecture, poetry? They do make some of those things, but only to glorify their hateful god and to gain power.
Orcs do not have the capacity for such things. That does not mean they are not able to handle conversations or reasoning in speech (such as when they capture your PCs), but it is only with the goal to fulfill their desires and wanton lusts for violence, treasure, etc.
I have no problem with this, and have never thought better of orcs anyways. This doesn't mean that they can't organize under an amazing leader of strength, prowess, or cunning. The fact that Many-Arrows kingdom lasted this long, or that all civilized nations around it said "sure, let them have that land" is astounding to me.
I'm certainly not saying that "Yup, kill an orc baby in it's bed/manger/pile of refuse." Either be ready to deal with that moral implication if you want in your campaign, or don't let it be something your PCs have to face.
A tiger's stripes don't wash away, is all I'm saying.
In the real world here we still have the nature vs nurture argument. Tigers do not turn on those that have nurtured them unless they feel threatened or they are not fed correctly.
Goblins will turn on their nurturers because it causes pain. you are far more likely to have a tiger act amicably than a goblin.
As far as slaughtering orc babies, there is no more a moral implication in doing that, than there would be burning corpses so they could not become undead.
From a lens of natural selection slaughtering orc babies HAS a moral implication. Once it is realized the D&D world empirically does not rely on natural selection, the moral implication is nil.
On the nature versus nurture of a tiger, I must disagree. If I can find the link later, I will provide it, but I remember the story of a man (in Indonesia, I think) who raised a tiger cub. The fellow ran a hotel and the cub grew up. Everything was going well until the man accidentally startled the tiger one day going past it on a landing. Tiger tore half his face off.
The tiger was fed, cared for and loved. The tiger, in the end, was still a tiger. |
|
|
|
Zireael
Master of Realmslore
Poland
1190 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 18:59:33
|
Ech, I don't think there is a good solution to the dilemmas presented in the thread.
After all, if we label something as 'good' or 'evil', there is some morality involved. And where do the orc/goblin/drow/whatever babies fall? I agree that sentient races unlike outsiders have free will and might be of a different alignment than 99%. |
SiNafay Vrinn, the daughter of Lloth, from Ched Nasad!
http://zireael07.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 19:09:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Regardless of whether a species is intrinsically evil, the statement that they are intrinsically evil and lack free will is harsh and will be perceived as evil because it denies free will. A mortal of Faerun, or even a goddess, doesn't have the objective knowledge to say with authority that anyone lacks free will and is evil because they were created to be evil. He can say it, but it will sound like preaching for the destruction of ugly people.
If a DM decides, for his/her own campaigns, that all orcs are evil without exceptions, then it's so in that world. Making it so for all campaigns is no more tolerable than declaring that the TOT, return of Shade, and Spellplague happened in all campaigns. Leave choices to individual DMs.
Whether or not the gods have decided that these humanoids are evil is irrelevant once an individual decides that they are evil. PCs' outlook and decisions determine and influence their alignment.
It's good to allow everyone the opportunity to be good. Prepare for them to be evil. Be aware of the likelihood that they're evil. But don't assume it. Kill-on-sight orders are evil, even when issued against evil humanoids.
I completely disagree. My Monster Manual clearly states that Orcs are evil. If a DM decides, for his/her own campaigns, that all orcs have free choice without exceptions, then it's so in that world. You always have the coice as a DM to give Orcs (or even Demons and undead) free will, but don't force that modern "morality needs to exist in D&D" crap into my game.
Killing Orcs on sight is a cornerstone of the game's original intent. |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 19:17:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Artemel
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Renin
While a baby tiger may seem cute and cuddly, you still should have the knowledge that it will grow up into an adult tiger that can rip you to shreds.
Orcs were designed as evil creatures. They follow an evil god, almost completely without any forethought or design to question that god, tenets, or their societies progress.
Do Orcs ever do what civilized people and cultures do? Express themselves and their place in the world through art; song, architecture, poetry? They do make some of those things, but only to glorify their hateful god and to gain power.
Orcs do not have the capacity for such things. That does not mean they are not able to handle conversations or reasoning in speech (such as when they capture your PCs), but it is only with the goal to fulfill their desires and wanton lusts for violence, treasure, etc.
I have no problem with this, and have never thought better of orcs anyways. This doesn't mean that they can't organize under an amazing leader of strength, prowess, or cunning. The fact that Many-Arrows kingdom lasted this long, or that all civilized nations around it said "sure, let them have that land" is astounding to me.
I'm certainly not saying that "Yup, kill an orc baby in it's bed/manger/pile of refuse." Either be ready to deal with that moral implication if you want in your campaign, or don't let it be something your PCs have to face.
A tiger's stripes don't wash away, is all I'm saying.
In the real world here we still have the nature vs nurture argument. Tigers do not turn on those that have nurtured them unless they feel threatened or they are not fed correctly.
Goblins will turn on their nurturers because it causes pain. you are far more likely to have a tiger act amicably than a goblin.
As far as slaughtering orc babies, there is no more a moral implication in doing that, than there would be burning corpses so they could not become undead.
From a lens of natural selection slaughtering orc babies HAS a moral implication. Once it is realized the D&D world empirically does not rely on natural selection, the moral implication is nil.
On the nature versus nurture of a tiger, I must disagree. If I can find the link later, I will provide it, but I remember the story of a man (in Indonesia, I think) who raised a tiger cub. The fellow ran a hotel and the cub grew up. Everything was going well until the man accidentally startled the tiger one day going past it on a landing. Tiger tore half his face off.
The tiger was fed, cared for and loved. The tiger, in the end, was still a tiger.
I didn't say that though. I said they will attack if they feel threatened or are not fed correctly. Startling an animal is indeed threatening the animal in that moment. Everyone that works with animals will tell you, a startled animal is worse than a threatened animal because it leads to an action.
When I am walking through the woods after a bear is sighted, I make sure to have a stick to bash the ground and trees. I do not want to come up to that bear without her knowing I am there. I have been face to face with many bears, and a threatened bear can be 'defused'. A startled bear will attack.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 19:21:55
|
quote:
I completely disagree. My Monster Manual clearly states that Orcs are evil. If a DM decides, for his/her own campaigns, that all orcs have free choice without exceptions, then it's so in that world. You always have the coice as a DM to give Orcs (or even Demons and undead) free will, but don't force that modern "morality needs to exist in D&D" crap into my game.
Killing Orcs on sight is a cornerstone of the game's original intent.
Very well said. I am very much OK with orcs not having that much personality other than brutes. I don't need to craft character development around orcs. I have more sophisticated races for that.
an orc is worse than an animal because it wants to HARM with its actions and is smart. An animal wants to get energy in the most efficient way possible, and is only as smart as an animal.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 19:24:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
I completely disagree. My Monster Manual clearly states that Orcs are evil. If a DM decides, for his/her own campaigns, that all orcs have free choice without exceptions, then it's so in that world. You always have the coice as a DM to give Orcs (or even Demons and undead) free will, but don't force that modern "morality needs to exist in D&D" crap into my game.
Killing Orcs on sight is a cornerstone of the game's original intent.
Hm. My Monster Manual says orcs are "Often chaotic evil." This is clarified in the back: "The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40-50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common."
Even if it said they were always evil, there's still room for exceptions deliberately put into the rules.
We might play different editions, but that still comes down to DM choice.
You don't have to recognize "modern morality" but the rules do. Not that it's vital to stick to the rules, but you went there.  |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 20:06:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Regardless of whether a species is intrinsically evil, the statement that they are intrinsically evil and lack free will is harsh and will be perceived as evil because it denies free will. A mortal of Faerun, or even a goddess, doesn't have the objective knowledge to say with authority that anyone lacks free will and is evil because they were created to be evil. He can say it, but it will sound like preaching for the destruction of ugly people.
If a DM decides, for his/her own campaigns, that all orcs are evil without exceptions, then it's so in that world. Making it so for all campaigns is no more tolerable than declaring that the TOT, return of Shade, and Spellplague happened in all campaigns. Leave choices to individual DMs.
Whether or not the gods have decided that these humanoids are evil is irrelevant once an individual decides that they are evil. PCs' outlook and decisions determine and influence their alignment.
It's good to allow everyone the opportunity to be good. Prepare for them to be evil. Be aware of the likelihood that they're evil. But don't assume it. Kill-on-sight orders are evil, even when issued against evil humanoids.
This places to much modern thinking into the world. As far as the Forgotten Realms is concerned, if the goddess has that knowledge it holds true, for purposes of the default on how the world works.
In the case of the forgotten realms which does not utilize the scientific method, the lack of free will would not be preaching at all, it would be reality.
The option to play the morality game and make stories about the plight of orcs should be there for those that want it, but it should not be the default. A DM should be able to place misunderstood orcs in the forgotten realms if they want too. I do not want to see that be the default for novels or lore however. I would rather see it unaddressed.
I am hoping this was placed in Night of the Hunter to hearken back to the days of the evil orc. The exploration of "is it good and right to attack the orc because they are the 'other'" is tiresome in the context of these stories.
Eberron does a fine job of making the orcs just misunderstood. I find most players that want the modern conundrums go to Eberron over Forgotten Realms. Make it a distinction of the world. I find Eberron incredibly bland because it is just fantasy in a philosophically modern world. |
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
Edited by - Mournblade on 24 Apr 2014 20:10:30 |
|
|
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 20:41:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
I am hoping this was placed in Night of the Hunter to hearken back to the days of the evil orc.
If I had to make a bet, I'd say this was put in NotH so RAS could skip through the moral dilemma of having the goodly kingdoms wiping out a whole kingdom (or more likely, sending them back to the hills).
I clearly disagree with your view about how goblinkin should be treated by default. I'm not saying that all goblinkin should be good (far from it) but the possibility should be there otherwise they're, frankly, just boring and uninteresting. |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
Edited by - Tanthalas on 24 Apr 2014 20:42:55 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 20:42:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
This places to much modern thinking into the world. As far as the Forgotten Realms is concerned, if the goddess has that knowledge it holds true, for purposes of the default on how the world works.
So the goddess of "forests, forest creatures, rangers, dryads, autumn" should be regarded as an infallible authority regarding goblins?
I find no support for the idea that any power of the Faerunian pantheon is all-knowing, or always tells mortals the truth as the power believes it to be.
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
In the case of the forgotten realms which does not utilize the scientific method, the lack of free will would not be preaching at all, it would be reality.
What has you so convinced that the scientific method is irrelevant in the Realms? Nobody "digs deeper" or experiments or investigates? More relevant to the topic, all specimens of every known species in the world have the same values and goals? Are all beer steins identical too? How is that not boring?
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
A DM should be able to place misunderstood orcs in the forgotten realms if they want too. I do not want to see that be the default for novels or lore however. I would rather see it unaddressed.
We can almost agree here. I would prefer that the Realms be a world of infinite possibilities, and for that default to hold true except where otherwise specified.
When we're left to make assumptions, there are at least two possible roads.
1. We can assume that, in the absence of specific statements, things basically work the same way they do on Earth.
2. We can assume that, in the absence of specific statements, things work radically differently than they do on Earth.
In the first case, play can progress smoothly. In the second, we have no idea wtf to do. It's precisely the situations where things are different in D&D or the Realms than they are on Earth, that we need specific statements in the rules or Realmslore.
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
I find most players that want the modern conundrums go to Eberron over Forgotten Realms.
Is this based on the scientific method? I'm willing to conduct an investigation, but I'm very skeptical that my data will support your conclusion. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 20:52:00
|
Mayhaps it's just me, but I don't think a strong predilection for a particular alignment indicates a lack of free will.
I don't think the two are related, at all.
I do think, however, that some races naturally trend towards a particular alignment, and that their societies and leadership often reflect this alignment. Just because someone goes with the flow doesn't mean they lack free will. A failure to question something -- or choosing not to change -- does not indicate a lack of free will.
The way I see it, goblins (for example) are born with a strong predilection for evil behavior. They grow up surrounded by other goblins engaging in evil behavior. Their leaders direct them to do things that are evil, and their priests tell them that this is proper for goblins. So their nature is at least somewhat evil, and that evil gets nurtured.
Any goblin is free to choose another path, but most won't even think of it. Those that do may choose to stay their current course, or resign themselves to that fate.
Now, if you take a goblin baby and have him raised by paladins, he may overcome his nature and become good and noble. He may also get away from them as soon as he is able to and pursue a path of evil.
This is why I don't think it's dumbing anything down to say "goblins are evil." The majority of them are. They can choose something else, but most of them don't -- most of them don't even realize they have a choice. |
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! |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 21:06:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Mayhaps it's just me, but I don't think a strong predilection for a particular alignment indicates a lack of free will.
I don't think the two are related, at all.
I do think, however, that some races naturally trend towards a particular alignment, and that their societies and leadership often reflect this alignment. Just because someone goes with the flow doesn't mean they lack free will. A failure to question something -- or choosing not to change -- does not indicate a lack of free will.
The way I see it, goblins (for example) are born with a strong predilection for evil behavior. They grow up surrounded by other goblins engaging in evil behavior. Their leaders direct them to do things that are evil, and their priests tell them that this is proper for goblins. So their nature is at least somewhat evil, and that evil gets nurtured.
Any goblin is free to choose another path, but most won't even think of it. Those that do may choose to stay their current course, or resign themselves to that fate.
Now, if you take a goblin baby and have him raised by paladins, he may overcome his nature and become good and noble. He may also get away from them as soon as he is able to and pursue a path of evil.
This is why I don't think it's dumbing anything down to say "goblins are evil." The majority of them are. They can choose something else, but most of them don't -- most of them don't even realize they have a choice.
Good points. Out of curiosity, in a case where a goblin baby is raised by Paladins, what would push him to pursue evil? Would it be nature or nurture? Would mistreatment by less open minded folk, an inner seed of evil pushing him to return to his blood right, or something else drive him? I'm not exactly looking for a "right" answer, just curious. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 21:06:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
They can choose something else, but most of them don't -- most of them don't even realize they have a choice.
But that's the whole issue here, Mielikki says that they can't choose something else. That was the whole point of that conversation between the Companions. Cattie-Brie was trying to convince Drizzt to go along with the upcoming war by telling him that it was simply impossible for goblinkin to be anything but evil, as stipulated by his goddess.
She even explained away the non-total-evilness of half-orcs by saying that that was likely due to them having goodly race blood in them, and that even Nojheim, who according to Drizzt seemed 100% goblin, was probably only good because he certainly had a trace of goodly blood in him.
According to Mielikki, a goblinkin that isn't unredeemably evil does not exist. |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 21:13:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
This places to much modern thinking into the world. As far as the Forgotten Realms is concerned, if the goddess has that knowledge it holds true, for purposes of the default on how the world works.
So the goddess of "forests, forest creatures, rangers, dryads, autumn" should be regarded as an infallible authority regarding goblins?
I find no support for the idea that any power of the Faerunian pantheon is all-knowing, or always tells mortals the truth as the power believes it to be.
I find the phrase in the book to be acceptable information delivered to the reader to explain goblinkin. Yes I think she should be an infallible authority on goblins.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
In the case of the forgotten realms which does not utilize the scientific method, the lack of free will would not be preaching at all, it would be reality.
What has you so convinced that the scientific method is irrelevant in the Realms? Nobody "digs deeper" or experiments or investigates? More relevant to the topic, all specimens of every known species in the world have the same values and goals? Are all beer steins identical too? How is that not boring?
The fact that the scientific method is not a medieval invention. They experiment, but the role of that intellectual scientist like Haley, or Newton, Galilleo, and Einstein are taken by Vangherdahast, Elminster, Alustriel, and Khelben. A world that can be altered by magic to that degree could not give consistent results because any action a wizard takes would scew the results. Try doing a meteorological experiment while the Great Druid of the High Forest is summoning rain.
Within the context of the Forgotten Realms Alignment system which is cosmological and not philosophical, those creatures that are products of creationism would indeed behave according to those 9 categories and only deviate as far as those cosmological forces allowed.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
A DM should be able to place misunderstood orcs in the forgotten realms if they want too. I do not want to see that be the default for novels or lore however. I would rather see it unaddressed.
We can almost agree here. I would prefer that the Realms be a world of infinite possibilities, and for that default to hold true except where otherwise specified.
There is nothing about goblins not having free will that prevents infinite possibilities.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
When we're left to make assumptions, there are at least two possible roads.
1. We can assume that, in the absence of specific statements, things basically work the same way they do on Earth.
2. We can assume that, in the absence of specific statements, things work radically differently than they do on Earth.
In the first case, play can progress smoothly. In the second, we have no idea wtf to do. It's precisely the situations where things are different in D&D or the Realms than they are on Earth, that we need specific statements in the rules or Realmslore.
That is exactly why the phrase from Mielikki has so much weight. I can easily say that is how one of the forgotten realms writers is addressing a non scientific concept like a race that was created by a god. We have no experience with life through creationism on earth.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
I find most players that want the modern conundrums go to Eberron over Forgotten Realms.
Is this based on the scientific method? I'm willing to conduct an investigation, but I'm very skeptical that my data will support your conclusion.
Does it sound to you like I based it on the scientific method? Did I really need to state it was only an observation?
Feel free to conduct the investigation if you are curious. In cases like this I am OK relying on observation alone.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2014 : 21:21:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
There is nothing about goblins not having free will that prevents infinite possibilities.
Well, that's only because you can have infinite possibilities where goblins are evil.
Instead of infinite possibilities, probably a better argument would have been saying that I prefer a world where any sentient creature has the possibility of being of any alignment. |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Dumbing Down the Realms (Yeah spoilers)
