| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Vaughn Javreau |
Posted - 08 Jul 2021 : 19:39:11
Today, I'll be pointing my curiosities to the economic conditions of the various nations(?)/city states of the Realms. I've often wondered how the industrial/commercial implications of a world could differ based on the general availability of magic. I've heard of teleportation playing a role in pseudo-freight transportation between Baldurs Gate and Neverwinter (don't quote me on that one). Has anyone come across any resources/interesting takes on the Economies of the Realms? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Feb 2022 : 04:52:47
I don't see where the issue is, so I don't know how to explain it any further. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 19 Feb 2022 : 15:08:20
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Because the sub-factions are not separate. Being dependent and overlapping, they need interactions with the super-entity and each other that separate entities don't have.
I don't see how that's an issue. You act like both are one in areas of common interest, and treat them as separate for areas where interests are different.
It's like a married couple. They pay taxes together, live together, pool their resources... But they earn money as separate individuals, and each has their own interests.
I don't see how this makes any sense.
So here's Thay with internal Militarist and Researcher factions. If Thay as a whole weakens, both weaken in absolute terms (possibly disproportionately). If Thay gets richer, both get richer (most likely disproportionately).
If one faction is weakened, this creates space for another to grow and gain the upper hand, or even third major faction to pop in, but also Thay as a whole weakens somewhat. If both were near-destroyed, Thay as a whole would weaken a lot.
How "sort of separate, but share expenses" approach would help to handle this? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Feb 2022 : 05:31:14
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Why would you need special rules for sub-factions? Just treat the sub-faction like a separate, allied faction with mostly similar goals.
Because the sub-factions are not separate. Being dependent and overlapping, they need interactions with the super-entity and each other that separate entities don't have.
I don't see how that's an issue. You act like both are one in areas of common interest, and treat them as separate for areas where interests are different.
It's like a married couple. They pay taxes together, live together, pool their resources... But they earn money as separate individuals, and each has their own interests. Jack and Diane are a single faction (the Little Ditty faction, perhaps), but Jack is a subfaction of that larger faction and so is Diane. Sure, they may not be working against each other, but there are going to be times that Jack is pursuing his own interests that Diane is not a part of, and vice versa. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 15 Feb 2022 : 05:18:44
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Why would you need special rules for sub-factions? Just treat the sub-faction like a separate, allied faction with mostly similar goals.
Because the sub-factions are not separate. Being dependent and overlapping, they need interactions with the super-entity and each other that separate entities don't have. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Feb 2022 : 18:48:29
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Unfortunately, there are no mechanical models known to me that handle (active) sub-factions within an (active) group at all, never mind well. Not in Birthright. Not even in Kevin Crawford's games (SWN & WWN, Godbound, Red Tide - they all have some sort of polity/faction mechanics).
Why would you need special rules for sub-factions? Just treat the sub-faction like a separate, allied faction with mostly similar goals. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 14 Feb 2022 : 17:51:27
quote:
Originally posted by Cards77
Orcs would be like the ISIS Caliphate of modern times.
You mean, increasingly obvious pawns of their supposed arch-enemy? (and what would this be - Evermeet? Elven Imperial Navy?)
That... could be fun.
quote:
Mostly warring against outsiders and each other, but at times attempting to claim their lost dream and empire for orcs
Good point: internal politics are always an important part of "the Great Game".
Some internal struggles are inevitable for any faction that isn't in coma and not at war (shooting or otherwise), and often even then.
Unfortunately, there are no mechanical models known to me that handle (active) sub-factions within an (active) group at all, never mind well. Not in Birthright. Not even in Kevin Crawford's games (SWN & WWN, Godbound, Red Tide - they all have some sort of polity/faction mechanics).
The closest to counting the existence of sub-factions are:
1. Parties in Galactic Civilizations and faction/agenda/mandate system in Stellaris. Those are not entities: they don't have states beyond "exists/absent" and enact no interactive strategy, only packaged switchable sets of optimization criteria (mostly just bonuses here, maluses there, and probabilities of some events changed; indirect in the case of Stellaris). So, no emergent rent-seeking food fights of ICBM lobby vs bomber lobby railgun lobby vs rocket lobby alliances within your military-industrial complex, etc.
2. NPC retainers and vassals in Crusader Kings. They have variable states, but as the infamous Roger a Muirebe bug demonstrates, their activity is picked randomly (and perhaps sometimes filtered) rather than follows any strategy.
quote:
However, down the years they have tried in their own way to be organized like the "other races".
That's a separate, large and lively can of worms. Even without the inevitable Jesting at that which none will name aloud part.
In Realmslore this happens.
Dambrath imported the Lolthite theocracy/matriarchy structure almost as is, but replaced oligarchical confederacy of hereditary monarchies structure with straightforward hereditary monarchy. And somewhat adapted to their very different conditions.
Unfortunately, mechanics for this facet of the world would be even harder to implement.
(edit: for clarity) |
| Cards77 |
Posted - 05 Feb 2022 : 16:32:28
Orcs would be like the ISIS Caliphate of modern times. Mostly warring against outsiders and each other, but at times attempting to claim their lost dream and empire for orcs, able to deal with other powers as a peer on an economic and military level playing field.
Are they successful? largely no due to tribal issues and intertribal fighting. However, down the years they have tried in their own way to be organized like the "other races". |
| thenightgaunt |
Posted - 27 Nov 2021 : 04:11:07
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
To THAT point that SaMoCon just brought up... it's interesting to come up with these types of discussions about "how does a place like Goldenfields work", because they can sometimes lead to unexpected ideas. For instance, one idea I came up with was that the sewers might use a lock/gate system to periodically open a path to a portal that would drain the sewers of waterdeep to an underground "treatment plant"/"storage area for fertilizer" beneath goldenfields (or, a rotating destination to numerous such storage areas as I think on it more). This opens up ideas for adventures though whenever magic fails and something happens to that portal. This portal is also a weakness for the city, and those who want to cause the city harm might intentionally take it out. This creates a unique story idea for adventurers that I can honestly say that none of my players would ever expect me to come up with... and at the same time it makes a lot more sense than the classic "some powerful mage setup a dungeon in his residence, and now that he's dead you want to raid it"
Oooooh, that's a nasty idea. I'd be less worried about the city and more worried about things washing into Goldenfields from the Waterdavian sewers. But I wouldn't put it underground. I'd have the portal on a wheeled platform so it could be moved around. You move it to drain to a large flat area of earth where the...solids can dry out and maybe a cleric who's been rather lax of late could walk through (in high boots) casting purify spells to eliminate diseases. Once "dryish" the material could be moved to fields in wheelbarrows. Then while that one is drying, wheel the portal to the next large, flat area.
Preferably this would be outside the walls of goldenfields with the portal guarded while outside the walls.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm just saying in a fantasy setting, "do this sneaky special ops thing against a neighbor, for king and country" isn't going to compare favorably to "find this lost tomb that holds more gold and magic than you can stuff in a portable hole."
Obviously, both missions will appeal to some, but some settings/systems support and encourage certain adventure-types over the others.
You could do your Mr. Johnson stuff in the Realms, but it'd be guild versus guild or merchant versus merchant -- and it wouldn't be the same as having Hans Brackhaus asking you to break into an offline datastore in Spinrad Global's HQ. Some adventures just work better in particular settings.
(I am now amusing myself, though, with the idea of a bunch of street samurai going on an epic quest to reclaim T'ai Shan Mountain from Lung!)
Oh I would adore an adventure like this. But how much of your assessment is an assumption based on product produced and not on current demand? I'm not saying you're wrong. But, most adventures are written by people trying to make something big and grand because they think that sells. But maybe that sells because those are the adventures that get published. D&D adventure writing is a rather odd market when you really think about it.
So as a hypothetical thought experiment here, yeah undermountain is great but there's a LOT more to Waterdeep then that. But as far as adventures go, there's a lot more published undermountain content then regular city adventure content. So from that, one might assume that all people want is undermountain and not regular adventures in the city.
But there's now a LOT of love for the 5e Waterdeep adventure "Waterdeep: Dragon Heist" and that's all city adventures. So if I had that assumption about no one wanting city adventures, now there's evidence that I was wrong. |
| Cards77 |
Posted - 20 Nov 2021 : 02:30:19
Orc lives matter!
Seriously though, it seemed pretty natural progression of the setting (and economically realistic) for orcs to have their own kingdom, and begin legit trade with the other races/kingdoms.
How many orc generations passed before one smart one realized that cycling through a horde and then collapsing back into the stone age was not bringing glory to Gruumsh?
I'm frankly surprised that Ed didn't have that baked in already.
After all Gruumsh WAS LAWFUL EVIL in previous editions!
Rule of the strong over the weak, that definitely points to a LE empire.
In the beginning all the gods met and drew lots for the parts of the world in which their representative races would dwell. The human gods drew the lot that allowed humans to dwell where they pleased, in any environment. The elven gods drew the green forests, the dwarven deities drew the high mountains, the gnomish gods the rocky, sunlit hills, and the halfling gods picked the lot that gave them the fields and meadows. Then the assembled gods turned to the orcish gods and laughed loud and long. "All the lots are taken!" they said tauntingly. "Where will your people dwell, One-Eye? There is no place left!"
There was silence upon the world then, as Gruumsh One-Eye lifted his great iron spear and stretched it over the world. The shaft blotted the sun over a great part of the lands as he spoke: "No! You Lie! You have rigged the drawing of the lots, hoping to cheat me and my followers. But One-Eye never sleeps. One-Eye sees all. There is a place for orcs to dwell…here!," he bellowed, and his spear pierced the mountains, opening a mighty rift and chasms. "And here!," and the spearhead split the hills and made them shake and covered them in dust. "And here!," and the black spear gouged the meadows and made them bare.
"There!" roared He-Who-Watches triumphantly, and his voice carried to the ends of the world. "There is where the orcs shall dwell! There they will survive, and multiply, and grow stronger, and a day will come when they cover the world, and they will slay all of your collective peoples! Orcs shall inherit the world you sought to cheat me of!"
That definitely sounds like a great Orc empire is the dream.
It's also hugely consequential to the economics of all the kingdoms in the western Realms.
Akin to recently the impact of China allowing it's citizens to own gold and silver.
Massive changes, but also the stability to the economy that maybe just maybe there won't be an orc horde this generation to wipe everything off the map yet again.
|
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 05 Sep 2021 : 12:44:42
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Warcraft orcs were as easily corrupted as humans and other races...
I was going to respond to this, but this is entirely the wrong place for this. "Economic Models of the Realms?" It's time to start another scroll. |
| Kelcimer |
Posted - 05 Sep 2021 : 09:07:01
Hello SaMoCon!
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
Then forget the western orcs and look at the orcs of eastern Faerun. You have Thesk: "Sembia provided funds to hire mercenaries, and Zhentil Keep contributed 1000 Orcs... The Orcs decided to settle in the country, becoming 'civilized,' and the people of Thesk grew to accept them." Thay: "Orcs and half-orcs were well-tolerated within the badlands, as they were commonly found as enforcers and soldiers within Thayan legions." Ostraland: "... the region was populated by tribes of orcs in the mountains as well as humans and dwarves in the town of Palischuk, plus a growing population of half-orcs emerging from the confluence of these groups." And particularly the Gray Orcs around the Moonsea and Hordeland regions. All of these are minority populations with no real political representation in governance of the encompassing civilization or nation. The orc surface kingdoms (Illusk, Vastar, Uruth Ukrypt) of the past have all been destroyed by outside forces, often in waves of attacks from multiple sources (elves, dragons, dwarves, humans, goblinoids, other savage humanoids, etc...).
That's interesting.
Hello deserk!
quote:
Originally posted by deserk Also it seems like, at least in terms of the way orcs have been depicted in the North and Western Heartlands, they always have almost beast-like genocidal bent to destroy and kill everyone and everything that isn't an orc. I would think it more interesting instead if they behaved like RW barbarian tribes of the past. They plunder and sack settlements for practical reasons like sustenance and prestige, but they certainly wouldn't mind negotiating with human and other realms to avoid bloodshed. And also it would be interesting if those times where an orc horde manages to subdue or conquer a great city like Sundabar for example, that instead of killing and enslaving literally everyone, and burning and razing the city to the ground, and essentially depriving it of everything of value, they would instead sometimes install themselves as the new rulers of the city. And then gradually you could have them starting to adopt and mix with the customs and faiths of the local populace just like the many barbarian tribes that invaded the Roman Empire, Persia or China, etc. And then you could have you would have an interesting political situation with discontent and resentment from the previous ruling class of humans that now have to suffer humiliation at being under "yoke of orcish barbarians", as well as from the orcish traditionalists that don't want to be corrupted by the treacherous ways of civilization.
I agree.
Hello sleyvas!
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas Honestly, if anything I'd think people would be more wondering why there aren't hobgoblin kingdoms/territories. Hobgoblins are what orcs were supposed to be in earlier editions... they're organized, understand command structures, understand battle tactics, etc... If I'm surprised by any group not having a land of their own, its the hobgoblins.
Hobgoblins have it hard for several reasons:
• It is not readily apparent what makes them really very different from a bunch of other more iconic humanoids.
• Orcs do a better job of embodying the chaos that exists beyond the walls of civilization, or at least beyond the walls of "your"civilization.
• Consequently, when a DM says "orc" every player at the table knows what they are talking about.
• Hobgoblin also has trouble in it's very root of its name. Its root name is goblin. It is not a think unto itself, but a subset or some sort of goblin. I know what a goblin is. What is a hob? In Avatar: The Last Air bender they have all kinds of crosses between different animals such as a Turtleduck. Because I know what is a turtle and what is a duck, I understand what they are when they are crossed. But I do not know what a hob is, so how am I to know what it is when a hob is crossed with a goblin? This is not intuitive.
• Another possible problem with the name is that it is three syllables instead of the one, but if we had a common understanding of what a hob is then I don't think it would matter.
quote:
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hobgoblin
What's the difference between a goblin and a hobgoblin?
While a goblin is often portrayed in folklore as a grotesque, evil, and malicious creature, a hobgoblin tends to traffic more in mischief than malice. (The character Puck in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream might be regarded as a hobgoblin.) First appearing in English in the early 16th century, hobgoblin combined hob, a word meaning "sprite" or "elf" that derived from Hobbe, a nickname for Robert, with goblin a word ultimately from the Greek word kobalos, meaning "rogue." American writer Ralph Waldo Emerson famously applied the word's extended sense in his essay Self-Reliance: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Oh. The historical hobgoblin is more of a elfrogue or spirterogue. Huh. Neither fits the DnD hobgoblin.
And kobalos...seems to be a contender as the inspiration for kobald.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas if you were going to "shoehorn" in a hobgoblin kingdom in the realms, where would you do it? I'm thinking the mountains near Impiltur, up in Vaasa, and in the icy areas north of Narfell (some of which have been hinted as having hobgoblin tribes, like in the chronicles of Nindawen novels, but not necessarily in sourcebooks). I also wouldn't be surprised to find them in the hordelands.
I'm going to have to think on that one.
|
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 05 Sep 2021 : 01:13:57
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
When I wrote it, I was thinking both actually. I do recall SOMETHING in the past years out of wizard's maybe also complaining on their treatment of orcs. I don't recall what/why now though. It seems odd to me that this particular group of humanoids is suddenly getting the interest, but then it probably is because of warcraft.
Oh, that. I recommend you to read this. It'll explain that topic better than I could:
https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/1/13/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-i-a-species-built-for-racial-terror
https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/6/30/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-ii-theyre-not-human
https://www.publicmedievalist.com/race-fantasy-genre/ |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 05 Sep 2021 : 01:02:45
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
Warcraft orcs are nearly twice as massive and twice as strong as humans in that setting's original lore before they were nerfed for the WoW MMORPG. Even in the modern WoW lore orcs were genocidal, cruel, easily corrupted, and readily enslaved.
Warcraft orcs were as easily corrupted as humans and other races that came into contact with the fel magic (that in the pre-WoW lore was highly addictive and can change you into crazed power-hungry being). Even humans (such as Medivh) were corrupted and easily enslaved by demons once they used fel magic.
As for the genocidal part, yeah, they were. But that was not a trait unique to them. I mean, I should point to the concentration camps instituted by the humans of the Alliance of Lordaeron, and they weren't corrupted by fel magic when they made such thing! And I like that humans can be corruptible as well, not the super paragons of good traditional fantasy paints them to be.
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
D&D orcs are not those orcs. To make D&D orcs more like Warcraft orcs you will need to change their gods, their culture, and their history of interactions with all the other races, which is a lot in the FR.
I haven't seen that particular problem in my games, actually. Most of the orcs just left behind the "Gruumshism" and embraced new faiths and life philosophies, and since peoples aren't black and white, the other nations of my Realms gave them the benefit of the doubt (and since I play in the current year Realms, that change had a logical time to become normalized in my Realms). There are still some Gruumsh-worshipers out there, and these are the traditional D&D orcs, that even my Warcraft-ish orcs dislike. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 04 Sep 2021 : 23:15:43
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Just curious... what's with all the orc love lately?
You mean in general? Or just in this topic? Personally, I'm just sick tired of the Tolkienist stereotype of "evil, dumb orcs", so I prefer my orcs more capable and not always evil. I tend to portray them as the Warcraft orcs in my games.
I'd like to see a hobgoblin kingdom, as well. Actually, anything that is different from the now tired cliché Tolkien-stereotypes is something I'd welcome gladly.
When I wrote it, I was thinking both actually. I do recall SOMETHING in the past years out of wizard's maybe also complaining on their treatment of orcs. I don't recall what/why now though. It seems odd to me that this particular group of humanoids is suddenly getting the interest, but then it probably is because of warcraft. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 04 Sep 2021 : 22:30:40
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
Warcraft orcs are nearly twice as massive and twice as strong as humans in that setting's original lore before they were nerfed for the WoW MMORPG.
Original Warcraft (the RTS of the mid-90s) puts them at an average 6 1/2 ft in height, definitely not twice the mass.
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
Even in the modern WoW lore orcs were genocidal, cruel, easily corrupted, and readily enslaved.
Um....no? Thrull pretty much took care of that, or more like his father did when he and his clan refused the blood of Mannoroth. See the Wiki ok Warcraft Orcs:
"Rampant demonic corruption caused the orcs to be filled with bloodlust and turned their normally brown skin into shades of green, culminating with Kil'jaeden's servant Gul'dan convincing the orc chieftains to drink the blood of the demon Mannoroth and thereby enslaving them to the Burning Legion's will. The few orcs who escaped the corruption became known as mag'har ("uncorrupted")."
Initially they were not bloodthirsty monsters, simply a Shamanistic clan-based society of hunter and gatherers.
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
D&D orcs are not those orcs. To make D&D orcs more like Warcraft orcs you will need to change their gods, their culture, and their history of interactions with all the other races, which is a lot in the FR. You are better off just creating your own setting than using the FR for that ideal or, more fitting, just using the D20 Warcraft RPG setting to fulfill your expectations.
Eh, maybe not all orcs are so boringly cliché as to be portrayed as murderous psychopaths blindly following Gruumsh's lead? Even Obould, who was thought to be the epitome of Orc-"ness" and blessed by Gruumsh himself founded a remarkable kingdom for his people and sought treaties of peace for a more sustainable future for generations to come. |
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 04 Sep 2021 : 21:44:16
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
I'm just sick tired of the Tolkienist stereotype of "evil, dumb orcs", so I prefer my orcs more capable and not always evil. I tend to portray them as the Warcraft orcs in my games.
Warcraft orcs are nearly twice as massive and twice as strong as humans in that setting's original lore before they were nerfed for the WoW MMORPG. Even in the modern WoW lore orcs were genocidal, cruel, easily corrupted, and readily enslaved. D&D orcs are not those orcs. To make D&D orcs more like Warcraft orcs you will need to change their gods, their culture, and their history of interactions with all the other races, which is a lot in the FR. You are better off just creating your own setting than using the FR for that ideal or, more fitting, just using the D20 Warcraft RPG setting to fulfill your expectations.
Edited to correct a statement I had made in error as pointed out to me by Diffan. |
| deserk |
Posted - 04 Sep 2021 : 21:28:48
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Personally, I'm just sick tired of the Tolkienist stereotype of "evil, dumb orcs", so I prefer my orcs more capable and not always evil. I tend to portray them as the Warcraft orcs in my games.
I agree and would also like to see the orcs expanded beyond just being mindless brutes. I don't necessarily mind their war-like ways, but they shouldn't always be depicted as being purely evil. It's just that their general warrior lifestyle and culture often puts them at odds with other races.
And also when compared with Tolkien's orcs, at least Tolkien's orcs were industrious and carved many mighty and formidable kingdoms, even if their craftsmanship was poor and crude (but they make up for it by being able to mass produce arms and armour). In FR there are barely any orc or goblin realms save for Many-Arrow's.
Also it seems like, at least in terms of the way orcs have been depicted in the North and Western Heartlands, they always have almost beast-like genocidal bent to destroy and kill everyone and everything that isn't an orc. I would think it more interesting instead if they behaved like RW barbarian tribes of the past. They plunder and sack settlements for practical reasons like sustenance and prestige, but they certainly wouldn't mind negotiating with human and other realms to avoid bloodshed. And also it would be interesting if those times where an orc horde manages to subdue or conquer a great city like Sundabar for example, that instead of killing and enslaving literally everyone, and burning and razing the city to the ground, and essentially depriving it of everything of value, they would instead sometimes install themselves as the new rulers of the city. And then gradually you could have them starting to adopt and mix with the customs and faiths of the local populace just like the many barbarian tribes that invaded the Roman Empire, Persia or China, etc. And then you could have you would have an interesting political situation with discontent and resentment from the previous ruling class of humans that now have to suffer humiliation at being under "yoke of orcish barbarians", as well as from the orcish traditionalists that don't want to be corrupted by the treacherous ways of civilization.
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Just curious in that respect..... if you were going to "shoehorn" in a hobgoblin kingdom in the realms, where would you do it?
I think that the Hordelands would be ok. It will be not disruptive to the other civilizations of Faerun as putting it in the map.
I think that would be a good spot as well. Though it seems that centaurs and gnolls are one of the most prominent non-human races in that region as well.
The Shaar could also be a good spot for hobgoblin horselords, since there are so few orcs in the Shining South (save for the Shining Lands area). Maybe zebra-riding ones (unless mistaken I think some Shaaryan tribes rode zebras) to help give it a unique fantastical flair. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 04 Sep 2021 : 20:23:42
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Just curious... what's with all the orc love lately?
You mean in general? Or just in this topic? Personally, I'm just sick tired of the Tolkienist stereotype of "evil, dumb orcs", so I prefer my orcs more capable and not always evil. I tend to portray them as the Warcraft orcs in my games.
I'd like to see a hobgoblin kingdom, as well. Actually, anything that is different from the now tired cliché Tolkien-stereotypes is something I'd welcome gladly.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Just curious in that respect..... if you were going to "shoehorn" in a hobgoblin kingdom in the realms, where would you do it?
I think that the Hordelands would be ok. It will be not disruptive to the other civilizations of Faerun as putting it in the map.
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 04 Sep 2021 : 19:01:51
Just curious... what's with all the orc love lately? Honestly, if anything I'd think people would be more wondering why there aren't hobgoblin kingdoms/territories. Hobgoblins are what orcs were supposed to be in earlier editions... they're organized, understand command structures, understand battle tactics, etc... If I'm surprised by any group not having a land of their own, its the hobgoblins.
Just curious in that respect..... if you were going to "shoehorn" in a hobgoblin kingdom in the realms, where would you do it? I'm thinking the mountains near Impiltur, up in Vaasa, and in the icy areas north of Narfell (some of which have been hinted as having hobgoblin tribes, like in the chronicles of Nindawen novels, but not necessarily in sourcebooks). I also wouldn't be surprised to find them in the hordelands. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 04 Sep 2021 : 17:39:06
"All of these are minority populations with no real political representation in governance of the encompassing civilization or nation."
This, IMHO, makes them losers. They either go as an invisible minority or have unsuccessful kingdoms to be toppled by the standard Tolkien-races and be relegated to the fringes of the world. |
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 04 Sep 2021 : 13:12:51
Then forget the western orcs and look at the orcs of eastern Faerun. You have Thesk: "Sembia provided funds to hire mercenaries, and Zhentil Keep contributed 1000 Orcs... The Orcs decided to settle in the country, becoming 'civilized,' and the people of Thesk grew to accept them." Thay: "Orcs and half-orcs were well-tolerated within the badlands, as they were commonly found as enforcers and soldiers within Thayan legions." Ostraland: "... the region was populated by tribes of orcs in the mountains as well as humans and dwarves in the town of Palischuk, plus a growing population of half-orcs emerging from the confluence of these groups." And particularly the Gray Orcs around the Moonsea and Hordeland regions. All of these are minority populations with no real political representation in governance of the encompassing civilization or nation. The orc surface kingdoms (Illusk, Vastar, Uruth Ukrypt) of the past have all been destroyed by outside forces, often in waves of attacks from multiple sources (elves, dragons, dwarves, humans, goblinoids, other savage humanoids, etc...).
But if you are really looking for an interesting take on orcs then I refer you to John Wick's "Orkworld; however, this material has no connection to the FR. |
| Kelcimer |
Posted - 04 Sep 2021 : 06:10:40
No. I thought that having the orcs forget everything about splitting skulls was lazy. Because instead of doing something interesting, the devs immediately turned those orcs into victims.
Orcs being chill, grow crops, and splitting the skulls of only those who mess with them? That's interesting.
Orcs being chill, grow crops, and immediately becoming enslaved because they forgot how to split skulls? Super lame and super lazy. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Sep 2021 : 05:57:02
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
I forget which sourcebook this was in, but there was an area of orcs that had gotten into farming and forgot everything about splitting skulls. I thought that was lazy on the designers part.
You thought it was lazy design to take a small group of a particular race in an entirely different direction than their established norm?  |
| Kelcimer |
Posted - 04 Sep 2021 : 04:59:48
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon And I really want to know why you assume that orc hordes in FR's history are losers.
Because the territory they hold today is limited to mountains and otherwise inhospitable land. If they were successful in toppling empires, okay. Then there should be some decent orc homelands. But there is not. In the sourcebooks, they are confined to the fringes.
quote:
[i]I haven't seen any examples in the lore of orc tribes out in the open like those of dwarves, elves, humans, & halflings with the only reason I can surmise being that an exposed tribe is identified as a threat for immediate destruction by other sophont civilizations or regional apex predators.
I forget which sourcebook this was in, but there was an area of orcs that had gotten into farming and forgot everything about splitting skulls. I thought that was lazy on the designers part.
|
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 04 Sep 2021 : 01:47:12
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
Looking at the history of human migration around the globe, there is always people moving out to find more space. That is what gets orcs next to other folks and the start of low level conflict. Horde's are another thing. One man's horde is another man's army...
While there are parallels to be drawn with the RW, the FR, like most fantasy worlds, do not have humans as the apex predator. Likewise, orcs are not apex predators. This not only limits expansion of territories for all humanoid races but can be assumed to cause losses of population in proportions equal to the dangers & activity of the apex predators in their regions.
And I really want to know why you assume that orc hordes in FR's history are losers. Hordes, by their nature, must keep winning to continue because they have no unifying identity that will keep them together during grim times - this has always been the key difference between rabbles and armies. A solid defeat will cause dissension as individuals will wonder why it is they follow what is a stranger from one tribe/settlement/identity group, leading groups to split off causing a death spiral of reduced capabilities, greater demands on the remaining warriors, plummeting morale, and additional groups breaking off. So the FR hordes have nothing but success until they hit that breaking point.
IIRC, only the ancient elf nations and maybe the archmages of Netheril have ever succeeded at wiping out a horde, with every other time the horde broken up into individual bands that either hauled their spoils back home or attempted to set themselves up as regional raiders. That would be thousands to tens of thousands of surviving warriors in the area whom are no longer unified. While a victorious opponent may have to lick its wounds and consolidate its control of the battlefield before mopping up operations, these independent bands will be following their own agendas whether that be overrunning under-defended targets of opportunity, fleeing for their lives, returning to earlier conquests, or triumphantly marching back home at the head of a loot train.
But the similarity between the RW and FR orc hordes abruptly ends at the notion that the raiders can occupy the land they raid. Any offspring the raiders sire upon the conquered are not orcs and will never be accepted by other orcs as equals nor will such spawn find acceptance among a conquered people. Real progeny are necessary for orcs to continue as a race, a culture, and an identity which requires more than just the warriors to come out of their lairs. The heart of the tribe (women, children, crafters, cultivators, and laborers) need to come out of their protected spaces to settle these lands that were so easily overrun by the horde - the death of these people is the death of the tribe. I haven't seen any examples in the lore of orc tribes out in the open like those of dwarves, elves, humans, & halflings with the only reason I can surmise being that an exposed tribe is identified as a threat for immediate destruction by other sophont civilizations or regional apex predators. Orc raiders have much to lose by remaining in foreign lands and, if successful/profitable, much to gain by returning home.
For the damage they inflict, hordes are very successful in damaging the productivity, stability, and general health of all the foreign civilizations they attack. This damage and inflicted loss of lives will cost those civilizations time and resources to rebuild if there is any remaining will to do so after the bloody campaign. That rehabilitation of their own territories prevents those foreign civilizations from using those resources to foray into orc territories which keeps their tribes safe. The warriors who come back are strong & capable veterans while the weak & inept either died or were left behind, ensuring that the tribes will be stronger. |
| Kelcimer |
Posted - 03 Sep 2021 : 08:42:54
Hello TBeholder!
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder Orcs boil out from their territories because they can't stay. Due to overpopulation and overhunting, in search of more food etc.
How do you even define "win" condition for this? To get some food, survive, return home with loot? I'm sure some of them do, every time. What of it?
Looking at the history of human migration around the globe, there is always people moving out to find more space. That is what gets orcs next to other folks and the start of low level conflict. Horde's are another thing. One man's horde is another man's army. That requires leadership and the basics of a command structure. Not the kind of command structure that would really threaten, say, a Roman legion, but enough. It also requires commonality of purpose. It takes hundreds of years for an area of a bunch of fighting tribes to get to the point where they are able to identify under a common (enough) banner. Once that identity is hammered into place it is really hard to undo.
I suppose one of my assumptions is that orcs are not as dumb a sack of rocks. They somehow have enough intelligence to perpetuate their species. Which means they have figured out how to raise children to adulthood in a resource scarce environment. So they are not going to simply slaughter all the cattle. They'll eat their fill, but they will take a lot home. If they go home. If they have just conquered much more bountiful land, then why would they go home? For instance, the Moonsea cities were periodically wiped out and then a little while later humans would reclaim their cities. It's like, orcs are supposed to be so dumb they can't figure out that staying near the coast where it is warmer is better living. Really? How about they keep the conquered cities. They might not be able to maintain the walls as well as humans, they might not be able to fish as well as humans, they might not be as good running coastal vessels to other coastal orc tribes as humans, they might not be able to command slaves as well as humans, but to be completely unable?
With the distance of "that's hundreds of years ago" it's a more fuzzy picture that can be hung as background. But for current continuity in my game? Nah. If orcs conquer a city in my game then they will keep the city and enslave the inhabitants. Orcs might not be able to farm well, for instance, but they can find have orcs crack whips over their human slaves to do it.
quote:
Then said charismatic (and strong) leader gets killed in battle or otherwise dies, and it's back to square #1.
In history, there are always leaders. Not every leader is a great leader, but they don't have to be. Going forty to a hundred years without a decent leader? Yeah, I can accept that. But 300 years? Nah. And after each leader who innovates and creates new methods of organizing and such, those innovations aren't just thrown away. Societies build over time. I should think that it would make for a better game for this to be true for orc societies as well. It would be more like 2 steps forward 1 step back. Repeat that often enough and a society gets somewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It could also be that if an orc horde came through, killing everyone and leveling everything, then you don't have much left for a setting. Wanna play an elf? Too bad, orcs killed them all. Oh, you wanna be a halfling? Sorry, the last halfling in the setting was barbecued at an orc birthday party last week.
I find it interesting that you assume the orcs would simultaneously be intelligent and competent enough to be able to kill EVERYBODY, but not intelligent and competent enough to not do so.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm just saying in a fantasy setting, "do this sneaky special ops thing against a neighbor, for king and country" isn't going to compare favorably to "find this lost tomb that holds more gold and magic than you can stuff in a portable hole."
I could hardly disagree more. Look, the real reward for the adventure is not the big bag of loot you get at the end. The real reward is all the cool and interesting stuff that happens along the way. It is about voluntarily confronting chaos and seeing if you can come out victorious. That could be finding a lost tomb guarded by some ancient evil that has a big bag of loot. But that could also be any number of other things. And victory could be and mean many different things as well.
An example may be in order here:
One of my scenarios was "A kingdom could be founded around Yartar and extend up the Dessarin River Valley. Add some time and Yartar becomes more secure and more populous. Then we could get into a Upper Egypt/Lower Egypt situation."
So what could I do with this over the course of a campaign?
Looking at the map, I think I'd want to start the game in Red Larch or Triboar and have the players based out of there to begin with. The reason is they are still small fish and i want a pond that they can become big in. They may move to Waterdeep eventually. I dunno. I am also a big fan of not having any one adventure go on for more than five sessions. I think 3-4 is ideal. In this adventure I might send them to the Krypt Garden Forest, in another adventure I might send them through Yartar to Mirabar, then in another adventure they go to Waterdeep, then another adventure to Yartar. Along the way I am developing NPCs and fleshing out in the players minds the different places. I establish the differences between the places. Yartar at this point is already most of the river systems above it and is harassed by the barbarians from Griffon's Nest. The players are forming opinions and their own goals. I incorporate those opinions and goals into the next adventure. And the opinions and goals at the end of the next adventure into the next. And so on. Not every adventure will involve Yartar. But each time I bring Yartar around the stakes will escalate a little bit. The depth of grudges between the players and NPCs of Yartar might deepen a little bit. There will be adventures where agents of Yartar (a rival adventuring party?) are behind shenanigans in Triboar, Red Larch, and Waterdeep. As I return again to those plot threads and themes, things will continue and escalation may occur. At some point Yartar stops sending so much material down river. Maybe in one adventure Triboar is brought into Yartar. And it doesn't have to be a military thing. Maybe the city is overrun by undead and Yartar is close enough to send immediate aid. The players are on task to dispatch the source of the undead. When the dust settles Yartar's forces hold Triboar and they aren't letting go. And they are doing a competent job of dealing with threats from the Krypt Garden Forest. The people of Triboar might be won over. Suddenly Yartar have a clear march to Red Larch. They aren't acting on it. But what happens down the line? can Waterdeep afford for Yartar to rise in power? Will the campaign get to open warfare between Waterdeep and Yartar? I dunno. It could. And over that time the players will have adventured over a wide geographic area so when they look at a map of the conflict, they aren't just looking at a random map. It will be a map they have been all over of.
In my own game I had 68 sessions spread out over the course of the 3 separate campaigns preceding what is referred to as the Orc War Adventure. One of my long time players asked me "How long were you planning for that?" He was surprised to learn that I hadn't been planning for it at all. I just kept returning to different plot threads and themes and don't really think more than one adventure ahead. I find that is the best way for the game to develop organically. I just got to a point where I considered the players I had, the kind of adventure I wanted to run (an inter-player conflict driven one), and what lingering plot threads and themes I had and it popped into place.
Players can do a sneaky special ops thing against that lich that messed over Triboar. They could also do a sneaky special ops thing against a lot of folks. And it can also build over time. And it isn't solved by killing one big bad guy. Along the way there would be a lot of decisions for the players to make and the most important decisions they make are where they decide not to act. I'd say that the role player to roll player ratio of the game could be about 60/40, maybe 70/30 at times.
Now you could have a twenty session or so campaign built around building to war between Yartar and Waterdeep and have every session be built around the conflict with all kinds of secret ops and it being very plot focused on that. That's fine. I had a friend of mine DM me in a game where that was what was happening. It worked fine. With regards to role player/ roll player ratio, I'd say his game was about 35/65. My character died two sessions before the end of the campaign and I missed out on those last two sessions, but I had a great time in the scenario. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Sep 2021 : 19:01:04
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I also don't see much potential use for PCs in such a war. Sure, they can be special forces types, but running ops against a neighboring country, in a fantasy setting, is not going to be as interesting as going off and doing their own thing and slaying monsters and all that.
Skipping "find the quest-giver" stage is that bad? 
Also, "here's your mission, now find a way" is pretty common in RPG without legacy of 10x10' room with chest and orc. And even in OSR (Red Tide)
Whether the title of your boss is "Duke", "Major" or "Mr.Johnson" is not an essential difference in itself.
I'm just saying in a fantasy setting, "do this sneaky special ops thing against a neighbor, for king and country" isn't going to compare favorably to "find this lost tomb that holds more gold and magic than you can stuff in a portable hole."
Obviously, both missions will appeal to some, but some settings/systems support and encourage certain adventure-types over the others.
You could do your Mr. Johnson stuff in the Realms, but it'd be guild versus guild or merchant versus merchant -- and it wouldn't be the same as having Hans Brackhaus asking you to break into an offline datastore in Spinrad Global's HQ. Some adventures just work better in particular settings.
(I am now amusing myself, though, with the idea of a bunch of street samurai going on an epic quest to reclaim T'ai Shan Mountain from Lung!) |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 02 Sep 2021 : 17:51:28
quote:
Originally posted by Kelcimer
Basically, I didn't understand why orc hordes always lost and were pushed back. The orcs need to win sometime.)
Orcs boil out from their territories because they can't stay. Due to overpopulation and overhunting, in search of more food etc.
How do you even define "win" condition for this?
To get some food, survive, return home with loot? I'm sure some of them do, every time. What of it?
quote:
� The Sword Mountains are full of Orc tribes that have been feuding with one another for the past 300 years, should a charismatic leader unite the tribes (which really should have happened once in the past 300 years), then they could actually set to conquering land to their north and northeast.
Kind of. Sometimes. Hence those broken countries.
Then said charismatic (and strong) leader gets killed in battle or otherwise dies, and it's back to square #1.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It could also be that if an orc horde came through, killing everyone and leveling everything, then you don't have much left for a setting. Wanna play an elf? Too bad, orcs killed them all. Oh, you wanna be a halfling? Sorry, the last halfling in the setting was barbecued at an orc birthday party last week.
Take a look at Midnight some time. The high concept is "not-Sauron won". And yes, orcs everywhere. They are cool sort of orcs, however. 
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I also don't see much potential use for PCs in such a war. Sure, they can be special forces types, but running ops against a neighboring country, in a fantasy setting, is not going to be as interesting as going off and doing their own thing and slaying monsters and all that.
Skipping "find the quest-giver" stage is that bad?
Also, "here's your mission, now find a way" is pretty common in RPG without legacy of 10x10' room with chest and orc. And even in OSR (Red Tide)
Whether the title of your boss is "Duke", "Major" or "Mr.Johnson" is not an essential difference in itself. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 01 Sep 2021 : 14:35:16
To THAT point that SaMoCon just brought up... it's interesting to come up with these types of discussions about "how does a place like Goldenfields work", because they can sometimes lead to unexpected ideas. For instance, one idea I came up with was that the sewers might use a lock/gate system to periodically open a path to a portal that would drain the sewers of waterdeep to an underground "treatment plant"/"storage area for fertilizer" beneath goldenfields (or, a rotating destination to numerous such storage areas as I think on it more). This opens up ideas for adventures though whenever magic fails and something happens to that portal. This portal is also a weakness for the city, and those who want to cause the city harm might intentionally take it out. This creates a unique story idea for adventurers that I can honestly say that none of my players would ever expect me to come up with... and at the same time it makes a lot more sense than the classic "some powerful mage setup a dungeon in his residence, and now that he's dead you want to raid it" |
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 01 Sep 2021 : 13:18:02
quote:
The fact we do know how portals work, how they are made and cost could fit into an economic model, food enough for Waterdeep (for free) that is not explained how it works can not be fit into that model. The Dales could be fed for free with a similar temple and there is no reason that smaller Goldenfields could be in other places though out the Realms.
The economics of portals is a debated subject in these forums. Case in point, the scroll about portal economics from just last year. But I'll leave the arguments of that there because we are talking about the Goldenfields here. There is a model of profit in place for the farmers of Goldenfields. I've provided the link to the wiki prior, I suggest reading the entire entry to understand just how different that place is. What do the farmers get? What does the church get? What does Waterdeep get? Just like in the RW, not all gains are in money or goods, the value of which is modeled with the social science art of economics.
As for expanding the systems of magic for mass coverage to solve problems within the scope of the spells & powers, I suggest you start writing a campaign pitch for WotC - "The Future is Now: Forgotten Realms 2101 DR." It is a brave new world of high fantasy with magitech implemented in all facets of life... All joking aside, why are people allowed to die or remain dead from unnatural causes when there is magic that will reverse these situations? Why is hunger ever an issue in this same scenario? If casters can make lands bountiful with just a waving of hands, why isn't the world a verdant gaia landscape? Why not a, or multiple, utopia(s) with cross-checked thought scanning to ensure the loyalty and well-being of the citizens complete with mood enhancing/passion suppressing enchantments? There is nothing in the D&D system that would prevent a guaranteed long life free from want for all.
What is allowed by the D&D system sounds like a nice place to live, but it is not what was described in the opening sentence of the introduction to the Forgotten Realms. In the lore of the FR, magic use has many unintended maladies that have left a foul impression with many populations, some of whom have gone so far as to renounce civilization in order to distance themselves from magical disasters. D&D magic is more stable than the public utilities in a rich community; however, FR magic from the lore is less so with truly unexpected to completely inexplicable effects. Your statement of "given A why not then B" is supported by the D&D system; however, it is not supported by the FR setting. The arbitrary rules busted the arbitrary limits of the setting. As such, D&D was not really a good fit for the FR - a position I have taken so often that it should be in my signature line. |
|
|
