| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| jordanz |
Posted - 12 Aug 2010 : 03:11:55
I think he is now listed as chaotic evil, matching his Patron Grummish.
However, toward the later parts of his development Obould did not strike me as the least bit evil. Lawful sure but evil? Would non evil "chosen" create conflict with Grummish?
Also, now that Obould is an exarch, could you guys envision him attempting to ultimately overthrow Grummish? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ChieftainTwilight |
Posted - 11 Mar 2011 : 01:46:03
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Lawful? I don't know. Sure, he had a a thousand time more honor than a regular orc, but I'm not sure that makes him lawful. His rule is still triggered by the fact that he is the strongest, and he will stay the leader until he falls (no matter how or by whom). Seems chaotic to me.
... that is not the essence of Chaotic Alignment. trust me on that.
Lawful folks understand that yu can't d anything without enforcing it as well. Chaos represents an actual Freedom of Spirit, and the idea that one can do whatever he wants as long as he can get away with it.
now, Obould could still be Chaotic, yes. but also he could very easily be Lawful. he shows clear tendencies of both Alignments. I honestly think he's more of a Neutral Evil, but in a very lightly Evil kind of way. or, in contrast, I think he could be a Chaotic Neutral, with a strong bent towards True Neutral. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 22:58:39
In regards to Gruumsh making Obould an orc god. More than anything, Gruumsh wants the orcs to be strong. Does he want them to raid, conquer, and kill? Yes. But he wants them to be strong enough to do it. After a while he probably realized that orcs living in caves wasn't accomplishing that.
Beyond that; consider that Obould more or less has the same position in the orc panteon that Ilneval held in the past. Ilneval's one of the mia deities in 4e, and before that was said to be treacherous and plotting against Gruumsh. Gruumsh is a lot of things, but he isn't an idiot; putting in a loyal, capable replacement wouldn't be out of the question for him. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 06 Feb 2011 : 22:53:23
Watch me take a level in necromancer and raise this few month old thread that is relavent to my interests.
I think part of the problem is that we're overestimating just how stable Many-Arrows is. What little has been written about it mentions that it has undergone no less than two, possibly three civil wars, even going through a period of being completely divided into two nations. For a nation only 100 years old that's a lot of turmoil. Beyond that, Many-Arrows exists in a constant state of war with outside threats; the human barbarians to the south and east, the other monstrous races of the spine of the world to the north and west.
In regards to alignment; part of being chaotic is being unpredictable. In introducing drastic change to orcish society, even if that change was more orderly, Obould was making a chaotic move because it was one that not only did no one see coming, but that hugely upset the "natural order" of what people expected in their daily lives, which was orcs as maruading brutes. |
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 16 Sep 2010 : 06:16:45
Oh I wasn't trying to contest any point you or BEAST were trying to make. I juss wanted to share while in my campaigns there are orc tribes w/overpopulation problems, it doesn't stem from their 2-3 litter birthing habits, but rather from the same sources of overpopulation we see in our own world in countries less fortunate than 1st world countries.
The 2e Monstrous Manual entry on orc ecology says "They have a gestation period of 10 months and produce two to three offspring per birth. Infant mortality is high." So to me, what I quoted seems a little ambiguous w/respect to orc tribes growing into a horde, and this was probably done intentionally, in order for your homebrew Realms to dictate if orc overpopulation stems from 2-3 souls/birth or something else causing the problem.
I guess my main point was that orcs can be more 'human' than beast, despite their works, reputation, and demeanor that goes with them in canon. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 16 Sep 2010 : 00:22:00
The fact that orcs canonically reproduce so fast and are hardy enough for many of the young to survive to adulthood provides a very interesting roleplaying hook.
Orcs are predisposed towards violence and brutality, no question. To what extend it is their society and to what extent it is their innate nature (genetics, magic, divine influence or other) is an open question. The fact remains, though, that the typical orcish tribe lives a life that is remniscient of the most savage and murderous human cultural groupings.*
Due to their violent natures and their high birth rates, orcs constitute a grave threat to their neigbours. The historical record indicates that in areas where the two 'coexist', the humans either exist in a perpetual state of racial war with the orcs or they are wiped out. There is an eternal cycle of violence and there are no easy solutions to breaking it.
A coldly logical person could conclude that by killing only those orcish warriors that come into human lands, the humans are simply prolonging the war and allowing more of their own people to die, as well as ultimately racking up a larger number of slain orcs than they'd be forced to kill if they were to take the war into orcish territory.
In this, however, they are advocating an ethnic genocide, and, moreover, a genocide of a people that are not all 'evil'. Most of the orcs never made a moral choice to belong to the society they did. None of them had a choice about being born with a proclivity for violence. None of them have a choice about ecological conditions being such that they are forced to succumb to famine or leave their lands in search of food. We must even make room for the possibility that orcs exist that could live decent, honourable lives if they were simply allowed they wherewithal to do so. It is not even beyond the realm of possibility that some orcs who refuse to join their fellows in raiding for food are already living lives that are more virtous and worthwhile that those of many humans.
Even so, the logic that would advocate the destruction of orcs does not seem to be obviously wrong. The cycle of violence has no other practical solutions. There are no 'right' answers. Neither the setting nor the GM has a ready-made answer for the moral dilemma, with all others being automatically wrong.
Perfectly decent and kind-hearted folk could advocate genocide in full seriousness. The childishly simple alignment system of D&D cannot account for such a legitimate moral dilemma, of course, but I should hope that few adults believe that a complex system like morality breaks neatly down into nine categories.
This situation, where a conflict between humans and orcs exists for realistic reasons that cannot be solved in one adventure is a far more interesting and role-playing friendly than a vague idea that 'evil' races want to enslave and kill 'good' races, who are against it.
*That would be early hunter-gatherer societies. Murder and warfare appear to have accounted for from 33%-50% of deaths in those cases we can examine. No matter how depressed we may become over man's inhumanity to man in the modern age, we can still rest assured that we do about twenty times better than the idyllic noble savages of Rousseau's fantasy. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 23:21:45
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
Nonetheless, regardless of how much 'right' they have to their survival, their survival would mean the death of their neighbours. There are limited resources and orcs have been demonstrated to breed too fast for those resources.
And if the mountain caverns that orcs previously occupied can produce a horde in the hundreds of thousands, a kingdom that was accepted by its neighbours could produce millions upon millions. All fighting for the survival of themselves and their offspring. They'd scour the North, not out of 'evil', but out of biological imperative. It would be nobody's fault. Just evolution at work on a grand scale.
Orc = cockroach
The only good orc . . . is a dead orc.
Oh, wait, that's not how that's supposed to go . . . 
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
Thus in my homebrew, the orc tribes that have an overpopulation problem (w/respect to available resources, of course) have it due to the leader and populations reluctance to give thier society over to higher intelligence and wisdom. I find that there is significantly much more RP value in dealing w/orcs when you see them as demihuman (thus equal to all the other intelligent races, bipedal and otherwise) rather than beast. And that such distinction makes all
the difference in the world as to how humans/demihumans deal w/them: Killed outright as foul beasts w/resource draining birthing habits and don't even offer anything positive to the ecology and want to kill you for your land's resources, or a potentially intelligent bipedal race that has pockets of people that have the desire to be decent.
It seems as if RAS is focusing on this latter, RP-friendly kind of orcs, lately.
This dwarf-orc treaty seems as if it is meant to encourage the progress of those RP-friendly types from within the canon fodder masses.
Now, while it might be more ideal in a given campaign to just have those RP-friendly types, it's worth asking how many of the canonical orc population are that way? How long would it take to increase the proportions/ratios? And is worth indulging the whole lot of them for that long?
Yeah, I know that raptor just slaughtered your entire family, but just think: in a few million years, that raptor will evolve into a beautiful bird! You like birds, don't you?
Now, I don't think anyone's talking about millions of years here with the orcs, but I still think my analogy is basically a valid one. |
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 15 Sep 2010 : 06:56:32
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
(Snip)
The question is, however, whether this makes any difference to the human race. Orcs are a more prolific species that competes for the same resources. Even if they were not monstrous in nature, they would still be a threat to the very survival of all humans. Even if the orcs just want 'a place in the sun', which on its surface seems a reasonable request, orcs have been demonstrated to breed so fast that they would overcrowd any acricultural land in a few generations.
And lest we forget, over those few generations (which seem to be shorter than human generations), they'd have multiplied into a force which dwarves that of their neighbours. Now, the orcs would be faced with a choice of suffering a massive famine that reduced their numbers to a managable level, or doing what they have always done when population pressures became intolerable. Gather into a horde and raid their neighbours.
(Snip)
Good in-depth post Icelander. There is something within it that piqued my interest and felt like sharing.
In my Realms, orcs don't produce 2-3 offspring per birth - save in rare occasions, juss like humans - as I think this makes them more 'beast' than 'man,' despite the fact that like other demihuman races, they have the capacity to mate and breed w/humans, and think like civilized humans when given the opportunity, be it in both intellectual and spiritual persuits. I think making them have 2-3 offspring per birth makes them no better than pigs/boars that are capable of speaking human/demihuman languages and walking as bipedals do. And I think it was done by the early game makers simply for the gamers to have an evil race that is a constant big threat to fight against, in order to make thier PC's level-up and eventually test out thier 10d6 fireballs upon. This as opposed to the other demihuman races, which have plenty of RP value over wargaming and powergaming.
Thus in my homebrew, the orc tribes that have an overpopulation problem (w/respect to available resources, of course) have it due to the leader and populations reluctance to give thier society over to higher intelligence and wisdom. I find that there is significantly much more RP value in dealing w/orcs when you see them as demihuman (thus equal to all the other intelligent races, bipedal and otherwise) rather than beast. And that such distinction makes all
the difference in the world as to how humans/demihumans deal w/them: Killed outright as foul beasts w/resource draining birthing habits and don't even offer anything positive to the ecology and want to kill you for your land's resources, or a potentially intelligent bipedal race that has pockets of people that have the desire to be decent. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Sep 2010 : 05:18:00
No, I mean that taking land away from your neighbors, and then remaining right next door to them, is not the best way to start out.
And by isolated, I mean truly isolated -- as in, somewhere most likely beyond Faerūn where they'd have no neighbors at all. I think that several generations who didn't have anyone to fight would go far towards developing a peaceful race. No neighbors means you're not trying to steal from them.
Admittedly, it could also lead to serious internal strife... But if we have a leader and/or dynasty strong enough to prevent this, I think orcs could grow peaceful. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 14 Sep 2010 : 04:33:35
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't think that them conquering someone else's land is the best start for evolution into a peaceful race. I could see it happening if the kingdom was birthed in an isolated locale, though, without neighbors. No neighbors would dampen the orky urge to conquer them.
Meh, a lot of real world countries started by conquest. And look at us now. At least a quarter of the world's population has accepted that wars of conquest are generally a bad idea.
Turns out that the sins of ancestors don't actually have a bearing on who you are as a person or how your society will turn out.
As for the selection of a location for an orc kingdom, I'm afraid that you can hardly find any more isolated than the Savage North. Anywhere that can support acriculture is mostly already occupied by other races, leaving orcs with land that can't support their numbers.
No matter whether the orcs are 'good' or 'bad', that's not a recipie for lasting peace.
Now, the way I interpret orcs in my games, which I believe to be supported in previous lore, is that orcs are predisposed towards behaviour that humans consider 'evil'. Orcs are naturally violent, brutal, callous and greedy to a degree beyond even the human disposition toward those faults (which is considerable). And because they seem to be so predisposed, the society they create is of a nature that encourages these flaws to develop even further.
We don't know to what extend the orcish 'nature' is genetic and to what extent it is magical or divinely inspired. We do know, however, that it seems that the tendency towards savagery and violence is not solely cultural, in that half-orcs who are raised apart from orcish society are usually more violent than full-blooded humans.
Now, just because orcs are more likely to be violent thugs than anything else, it does not follow that all orcs are evil. They are not. Some, particularly those who have the good fortune to be raised in less cruel surroundings than the typical overcrowded cavern home, can develop a sense of honour and dignity.
The question is, however, whether this makes any difference to the human race. Orcs are a more prolific species that competes for the same resources. Even if they were not monstrous in nature, they would still be a threat to the very survival of all humans. Even if the orcs just want 'a place in the sun', which on its surface seems a reasonable request, orcs have been demonstrated to breed so fast that they would overcrowd any acricultural land in a few generations.
And lest we forget, over those few generations (which seem to be shorter than human generations), they'd have multiplied into a force which dwarves that of their neighbours. Now, the orcs would be faced with a choice of suffering a massive famine that reduced their numbers to a managable level, or doing what they have always done when population pressures became intolerable. Gather into a horde and raid their neighbours.
In this, the orcs would not be acting in an 'evil' manner. They'd be acting in a way that any lifeform can be expected to act. Self-preservation motivates them, just as it motivates other living beings.
Nonetheless, regardless of how much 'right' they have to their survival, their survival would mean the death of their neighbours. There are limited resources and orcs have been demonstrated to breed too fast for those resources.
And if the mountain caverns that orcs previously occupied can produce a horde in the hundreds of thousands, a kingdom that was accepted by its neighbours could produce millions upon millions. All fighting for the survival of themselves and their offspring. They'd scour the North, not out of 'evil', but out of biological imperative. It would be nobody's fault. Just evolution at work on a grand scale.
And sometimes, the logic of evolutionary biology means that for one species to survive, another must die. If humans are unwilling to accept that logic, well, the orcs seem willing enough.
I don't know if anyone here has read 'The Mote in God's Eye'. If someone has, he'll be familiar with the reasoning that sometimes something may be your enemy not because it is evil or even morally wrong, but simply because you have to make a choice between the survival of an alien species and the survival of your own. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Sep 2010 : 00:44:06
I don't think that them conquering someone else's land is the best start for evolution into a peaceful race. I could see it happening if the kingdom was birthed in an isolated locale, though, without neighbors. No neighbors would dampen the orky urge to conquer them. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 14 Sep 2010 : 00:22:29
MT's just playing devil's advocate, here. And I think he might've even had a case 20 years ago, before the orcs had a chance to be depicted in great detail as such baddies in canonical lorebooks and novels. Back then, there was sparse negative info on them, and it could be argued that it was merely propaganda and a case of misunderstanding.
But now, it seems pretty dang clear that orcs = bad, no matter how one tries to rationalize the situation.
Remember, human though he may be, Elminster himself has vouched for a lot of that lore. No one should be quick to dismiss it.
Anyhoo...
Though I still hate Obould with a passion (could you tell? ), I can concede that there is a very real question still lingering: Is giving the orcs a chance to evolve in the future, as the other "goodly" races have done, a nobler cause of action than justice/vengeance for what the orcs have done in the past? What do you consider the higher principle?
I don't know if this deserves to be put in a separate scroll, or if it's OK to continue it here. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Sep 2010 : 20:49:24
Dwarven propaganda, nothing more.
Who wrote those sources? humans?
Figures... 
  |
| HelldoG |
Posted - 12 Sep 2010 : 15:01:41
Yeah, I know that. I'm just curious from where did Markustay get his information, when BEAST clearly proved that it's not true. |
| Drizztsmanchild |
Posted - 12 Sep 2010 : 06:59:36
If I may interject here....there isn't any "pwnage" going on here. That's normally reserved for Xbox or Espn chatrooms etc....
This is simply a debate with two individuals with a great deal of knowledge about them who both believe their views on this subject to be without fault. And very likely will have the same views at the end of the debate. I for one am finding this intriguing. :-) |
| HelldoG |
Posted - 12 Sep 2010 : 05:35:42
Oho ho. Pwned, MT, pwned. I'm SO looking forward to what will you answer, Markus. :P |
| BEAST |
Posted - 12 Sep 2010 : 05:15:28
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Obould took an EMPTY dwarven hold that had been abandoned (by humans!)
What's your source?
- As it faltered, Citadel Felbarr dwarves turned it over to Silverymoon humans. Orcs immediately began attacking the fortress, and fifty years later, killed all of the human occupants in the Battle of Many-Arrows (The Savage Frontier, p29: "Citadel of Many-Arrows").
- The dwarves abandoned the fortress and gave their blessing to the humans to move in. The orcs attacked these troops from day one. Ditto on Battle of Many-Arrows (Volo's Guide to the North, p203: "The Citadel of Many-Arrows").
- The dwarves gave the citadel to humans when the dwarves retreated. Orcs conquered these weaker folk and took the fortress 300 years ago (FRCS 3E, p172: Important Sites: "Citadel Felbarr").
I'm not seeing any dwarf-emptied, human-abandoned hold, there.
quote:
did NOT attack any of his non-Orc neighbors
Source?
- Under the rule of King Obould, orcs constantly attacked travelers between Silverymoon and Sundabar (non-orcs, right?) (The Savage Frontier, p29 "Citadel of Many-Arrows").
- Obould fought his way to power at some time in the past.
(Then) currently (1360s DR?), he orders orc troops to wield black scimitars and attack Silverymoon-Sundabar caravans (Volo's Guide to the North, p203: "The Citadel of Many-Arrows").
Those humans, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes who survive these attacks are treated to fatal slave work in the largely obsolete mines, or assigned as personal pets. Elves are uniformly caged, tortured to reveal their magic repertoires, then killed (p204).
- In 1368 DR, Obould's orcs displaced fog, cloud, and hill giants in the Spine of the World mountains (Silver Marches, The Lay of the Land: p6).
Obould not only attacked non-orc neighbors--he attacked goodly and evil races, alike.
quote:
and even DEFENDED the North from an Orc Horde!!!
Source?
- In 1367 DR, the orc King Greneire's horde swarmed straight to the Citadel of Many-Arrows and attacked Obould. In fact, Obould's shamans told him that he was the target and would not survive. Obould had wanted to ally with Greneire against the North, but that was not to be. Thus, it would appear that King Obould merely defended himself--and not the North--from said orc horde. And since he was injured and disappeared from the wreckage, it would seem that he didn't even do a very good job, at that! There is no mention of any other motivation for Obould's participation in this war (The North: Guide to the Savage Frontier, The Wilderness: p10: "Recent History").
- This orc force attacked Obould's fortress, and in the process of defending himself, he lost control (FRCS 3E, p172: Important Sites: "Citadel Felbarr").
- Greneire attacked the fortress; Obould defended and fled (Silver Marches, The Lay of the Land: p6; Politics and Power: p98: "Recent History").
Fail, MT!
quote:
While his soldiers were outside the keep, the cowardly Dwarves -who had abandoned that keep MANY centuries past - snuck-in and took it back.
See above sources. The former dwarves of Citadel Felbarr gave the fortress to humans and then abandoned it.
In late 1367 DR, a force of Clan Warcrown dwarves attacked the fortress, previously sacked by King Greneire. Now, I don't know how many dwarf armies you've studied about, but "sneaking" is hardly the way I've ever heard them described. I am sure they were quite loud and obvious!
quote:
He was not the aggressor, he suffered an un-provoked sneak-attack by a pack of cowards.
Orcs were the aggressors against the Silverymoon allies of the original Citadel Felbarr dwarves, and King Obould was the recipient of the benefits of that aggression.
Since dwarves had previously given this fortress to their human allies--not orcs--and their gift had been stolen by orcs, it is arguable that the orc theft of said property provoked the dwarves.
If not that, then Obould's aforementioned and cited regular attacks on and enslavement of goodly peoples of the North could arguably be said to constitute provocation.
As to whether the Warcrown dwarves deserved the label "cowards", I will remind you that the orcs who stole the citadel in the first place waited until after the dwarves had moved out to swarm the fortress and steal it from the new human occupants. Thus, the orcs had been too fearful to take it directly from the original dwarf landlords. Contrast that with the Warcrown dwarves, who straight up and took the fortress back from the orcs of King Obould--rather than waiting for some easier-to-conquer race to assume control first and then attacking them. If the dwarves were cowards, the orcs had been so to an even greater extent, before.
What's more important is that King Obould launched a war of aggression in 1371 DR in "The Hunter's Blades Trilogy", regardless of the prior orc theft and dwarf retaliation of the citadel.
quote:
I suppose the U.S. shouldn't have retaliated for Pearl Harbor, either?
No one has said that. The US was right in retaliating against the Japanese for Pearl Harbor.
But it wouldn't have been right to have retaliated against, say, Egypt, because Egypt had nothing to do with it.
And yet, that's essentially what Obould did. He was mad at Warcrown dwarves for taking the fortress. So what did he do? He attacked the human towns of Clicking Heels and Shallows. What did those pathetic human towns have to do with the Warcrown dwarves' would-be transgressions?
Similarly, it would not have been right for the US to have retaliated against China for Pearl Harbor, just because "all Asians look alike".
But again, that's basically what Obould did. Instead of attacking the Warcrown dwarves of Citadel Felbarr, he eventually attacked the Battlehammer dwarves of Mithral Hall.
Thus, your references to the Warcrown dwarves having taken the citadel back from him don't really seem to have any bearing on any of this.
Obould just wanted to break something--and kill somebody. Anything and anybody would do. Justifications didn't matter. He just wanted to see blood run and smell cities burn.
quote:
I guess the next time I go to work, only to come home and find a bunch of Native Americans camped in my Living Room, I should just leave and get myself a new house? Ya know... because they used to own this land centuries ago.....
It is my understanding that Native Americans are now recognized citizens of the US, which means that they have agreed to abide by the laws of the US. Thus, no, you should not just give up your home to them, but rather, you should expect them to abide by the laws of the US.
But I do not recall the dwarves ever agreeing to abide by the laws of Many-Arrows orcs, or becoming citizens of said kingdom. Do you have a source?
And unlike the Native Americans, who used to own this land centuries ago, and also lost it centuries ago, but then subsequently made peace with the White Man; the dwarves never appeased the Many-Arrows orcs. Rather, they got continuously attacked and enslaved by those orcs whenever traveling between Silverymoon and Sundabar, under King Obould's rule. Therefore, the dwarves were perfectly free to retaliate against King Obould.
quote:
The dwarves had NO legitimate claim on that fortress - it was an act of thievery, plain and simple.
It could be argued that it was retaliation against the previous orcs' theft of the fortress from the Silverymoon humans.
It could also be argued that it was retaliation against Obould's orcs' violence, theft, and enslavement in more recent times.
But it was hardly simple thievery. The orcs' track record with regards to this specific fortress complicated matters immensely.
quote:
The Orcs are 'evil' because they claim the right to their 'fair share', and no-one wants to allow them to have it.
No, the orcs are evil because they attacked the fortress repeatedly, and then when the dwarves handed it over to weaker humans, the orcs then stole it.
The orcs are evil because, when they couldn't effectively manage the fortress themselves, they then resorted to attacking, robbing, and enslaving their neighbors to try to force them to do the work of making the citadel function.
And the orcs are evil because, when they got their feelings hurt about the loss of the Citadel of Many-Arrows, they then went on a war of aggression initially against the wrong race of people--humans--and then against the wrong clan of dwarves--Clan Battlehammer.
Oh, I forgot: the first group of dwarves that we read about King Obould's orcs attacking in The Thousand Orcs was actually a merchant party from Mirabar. Obould only attacked Clan Battlehammer after that.
He never did get around to attacking Citadel Felbarr's Clan Warcrown, though, did he?
Note that the orcs are not recorded as having tried to send diplomatic emissaries in peace to the dwarves until late in The Orc King.
Until then, they were too busy sending thousands of orcs to kill, rape, and pillage, instead.
quote:
If it were Elves, Halflings, or Gnomes in that citadel, would the Dwarves had been so quick to steal it back?
Most probably not, because if there were elves, halflings, or gnomes there, they would've probably acquired the property as friends, just as the Silverymoon humans had done.
quote:
I would have been happiest if that series ended with Bruenor's head on Obould's pike.
Because Bruenor is so fond of attacking orc fortresses, stealing their wealth, and enslaving their orcs to work in his mines, right?
Oh, no, that's right--because he defended the humans of the town of Shallows against Obould's misguided war of aggression, and got knocked into a coma in the process (The Thousand Orcs), and then defended Mithral Hall against the thousands of orcs and frost giants on his front porch (The Lone Drow and The Two Swords).
Yes, I see why Bruenor deserved to be put on a pike, now...
quote:
Or better yet, that king from that other dwarven citadel, from whence those sneaky cowards came.
Ironically enough, I could maybe have abided by that--if Obould had ever had the testicles to actually retaliate against King Emerus Warcrown.
However, he did not.
And so, we could never see said testicles on a pike.
We could've at least seen Obould's head on a pike, instead. That would've been a nice substitute.
quote:
For once, the Orcs are trying things the 'civilized way', by setting up their own kingdom, with laws and liaisons to other political groups, and no-one wants to give them half a chance.
This is not true. I have said before that I could perhaps see a peace treaty with some other orc.
But King Obould regularly attacked his neighbors throughout the 1360s, at least, and then launched a war of aggression against the wrong people in 1371 DR.
His turnaround in the eleventh hour is a case of too little, too late.
He should pay for what he did.
Credit some god for his divine change of character. Credit not Obould, himself.
He showed what he was made of, without divine assistance. He should have been shown the consequences, as well.
Besides that, though, remember that Alustriel and Drizzt were perfectly happy to give King Obould a chance, and Drizzt was actually the one who talked King Bruenor into the whole peace treaty thing. It's not true that no one is giving them a chance.
MT, the point of this thread was never really to bash Obould, nor to defend him. The original point was merely to discuss whether the guy experienced a change of character alignment. And whether we attack or defend the guy, I think it's pretty clear that Obould went through several alignment changes during the Salvatore novels.
quote:
Did the humans and elves not invade those same regions centuries past, and carve-out kingdoms of their own? The Orcs are not doing anything any other barbarian group has done in the past - all they want is their 'fair share'.
I'm not sure about the humans and elves.
What I am sure is that the orcs did these things within the last 300 years, and harassed their neighbors continuously since then, and that King Obould launched a war of aggression against the wrong people in 1371 DR.
His recent transgressions speak more loudly to me than vague past ones of other people.
Remember also that the dwarves peacefully handed the fortress over to the humans right before the orcs attacked it. Those orcs can hardly be said to have done nothing more than the goodly races, at that time, then.
And while the goodly races of the North were hunkering down and improving their lands by creating the Alliance of Silverymoon/Luruar/League of Silver Marches, King Obould's orcs were striking out far from home to attack other peoples and ruin their lands. That's hardly the same, either.
quote:
I'm not near my sources, but the last time I had this argument I came up with at least 20 other Orc groups (in canon!) that were living PEACABLY amongst other races, simply because they were ACCEPTED in those areas. Thus proving the lie that Orcs can not do so - they have done just that, on numerous occasions, and in certain areas are even considered 'heroes' by other races (the unapproachable east, for instance).
So, to use your example, does this mean that the US should've ignored Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, just because other Asian countries had been able to get along peacefully with the US? Did China's peace with the US at the time somehow nullify Japan's war?
That's what it sounds like you're saying, when you bring up other orc tribes, in a discussion of Obould.
quote:
It is Intolerance that makes an Orc behave badly - they are no better or worse then humans in this regard.
Intolerance drove Obould's orcs to avoid the dwarven fortress of Citadel Felbarr, but to attack the weak human towns of Clicking Heels and Shallows? That was intolerance?!
You're not making any sense, there, MT. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Sep 2010 : 00:29:57
So all those orc hordes have swept aside all in their path because they weren't accepted by people who had an issue with someone traveling hundreds of miles just to kill them? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 18:23:12
NOPE.
Obould took an EMPTY dwarven hold that had been abandoned (by humans!), did NOT attack any of his non-Orc neighbors, and even DEFENDED the North from an Orc Horde!!!
While his soldiers were outside the keep, the cowardly Dwarves -who had abandoned that keep MANY centuries past - snuck-in and took it back.
He was not the aggressor, he suffered an un-provoked sneak-attack by a pack of cowards.
I suppose the U.S. shouldn't have retaliated for Pearl Harbor, either?
I guess the next time I go to work, only to come home and find a bunch of Native Americans camped in my Living Room, I should just leave and get myself a new house? Ya know... because they used to own this land centuries ago..... Or maybe Sage and Brian James should just leave when some Aborigines sneak in their back door? Or maybe Greece should attack Turkey the next time its army is on a UN mission and take back Constantinople (Instanbul)?
The dwarves had NO legitimate claim on that fortress - it was an act of thievery, plain and simple. The Orcs are 'evil' because they claim the right to their 'fair share', and no-one wants to allow them to have it. If it were Elves, Halflings, or Gnomes in that citadel, would the Dwarves had been so quick to steal it back?
WHILE THE CURRENT OWNERS WERE DEFENDING THE NORTH FROM AN ORC HORDE!!!
I would have been happiest if that series ended with Bruenor's head on Obould's pike. Or better yet, that king from that other dwarven citadel, from whence those sneaky cowards came.
For once, the Orcs are trying things the 'civilized way', by setting up their own kingdom, with laws and liaisons to other political groups, and no-one wants to give them half a chance. Did the humans and elves not invade those same regions centuries past, and carve-out kingdoms of their own? The Orcs are not doing anything any other barbarian group has done in the past - all they want is their 'fair share'.
I'm not near my sources, but the last time I had this argument I came up with at least 20 other Orc groups (in canon!) that were living PEACABLY amongst other races, simply because they were ACCEPTED in those areas. Thus proving the lie that Orcs can not do so - they have done just that, on numerous occasions, and in certain areas are even considered 'heroes' by other races (the unapproachable east, for instance).
It is Intolerance that makes an Orc behave badly - they are no better or worse then humans in this regard.
"They treat us like monsters, then we BE monsters!"
--- General Vrakk, Prince of Lies |
| EltonJ |
Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 03:16:44
In my realms, Obould is still a mortal orc. I didn't follow Drizzt's adventures beyond The Halfling's Gem. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 01:15:19
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
First, what is the problem with Obould being of a different alignment than his patron God?
We're trying to understand why Gruumsh would have continued to bestow his blessings upon Obould, rendering him a Chosen, since Obould not only stopped being evil and chaotic, but apparently stopped being evil altogether.
And then, why would Gruumsh have embraced Obould as an ascended Exarch, given that he basically had nothing in common with the god at that point except race?
This whole thing really draws the notions of being a Chosen, Exarch, the purpose of a diving blessing, serving a deity, etc.; into question. How are you serving a deity and making Him/Her happy if you're becoming completely opposed to that deity in deed and alignment?
It seems to throw everything around on its ear, making it all pretty confusing and arbitrary.
That is, unless it really just is a race thing with Gruumsh...
quote:
As for Obould displaying honour and seeking to ensure his people a stable homeland, well, boo-hoo. Having honour and a strong sense of pride in one's people isn't enough to be Good or even Neutral in D&D.
No, but it does make it Lawful, doesn't it? He's no longer Chaotic like his god, or like he himself used to be.
quote:
Yes, any system that attempts to pigeon-hole something as complex as the motivations and ethical make-up of people into a grand total of nine distinct categories will be so ambigious as to be useless and nearly guaranteed to be wrong all the time. The alignment system is a gross oversimplication that ought to hurt the brain of anyone who has one. This is all true.
I don't think so.
I think that are probably some individual examples where it might be hard to classify people's alignment.
But the definitions of the terms and the examples given in the publications seem pretty useful and sensible to me.
quote:
And by the standards that are most usually applied to D&D alignments, Obould's desire for an orcish homeland and his rational awareness that trade and diplomacy will be beneficial for orcs do not change the fact that he is violent dictator who schemed and hacked his way to power. He's Lawful Evil, sure, and in that he's far more comfortable to deal with, as well as being able to forge his orcish horde into a far more cohesive and strong whole.
OK, now I think you're talking at cross-purposes with yourself.
Obould hacked his way to power in the past.
The rational awareness about trade and diplomacy came later.
He did not rate the same alignment classification when displaying these different mindsets and behaviors. His alignment has changed. Go back and check my earlier post, for clarification.
quote:
But the fact that he displays flashes of honour does not make him Good.
Correct.
What makes him Good is that he has scruples about inflicting pain and suffering and damage and destruction on others, now. He wants peace. He has allied himself with former enemies because he doesn't want the past evils to continue, if it can't be avoided.
quote:
A kind person might interpret his actions after a certain point to mean that he's in a process of becoming Lawful Neutral.
Oh, Obould is more than morally neutral, now. He more than has a conscience; he also has made sacrifices in the name of the peace. King Obould stood up against his clerics and the traditional orcish bloodfeud against various races and teamed up with Bruenor & Co. to whack the ogre-orc Grguch, and then he signed the Treaty of Garumn's Gorge. This made him look weak in the eyes of some of his orcs, but he did it, anyway, to reduce the overall level of pain and suffering.
He again allied with Bruenor & Co. to oppose an army of erinyes and barbezu who were in league with the Hosttower of the Arcane. This came at the expense of promises of great power and wealth for him, from the evil outsiders.
quote:
Or, alternatively, whoever was assigned to write that section of the book hadn't read any of the preceding materials (time-jump means not having to be shackled by old stuff) and just grabbed the name Obould off the back of a randomly chosen novel?
Who can tell?
Yeah, it sure seems like laziness/sloppiness. Somebody/-bodies just didn't bother to check up on the many novels that have been written featuring King Obould over the last decade, or else they would've seen that his alignment has changed.
At the very least, we need some sort of canonical source to address this pretty blatant inconsistency between King Obould's alignment and actions in the lorebooks and the novels. It's glaring.
It would also be nice to have his deity's views of this explained. Why would his god embrace him, now--unless maybe Obould changed alignment back to CE, before ascension? |
| BEAST |
Posted - 07 Sep 2010 : 00:53:14
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Were the Vikings 'evil'? [...]
What of the Mongols? Or the Ottomans? Or even the Romans, for that matter? [...]
What of the Catholic Church and the Spanish Inquisition? [...]
Yes.
Yes x3.
Ostensibly no. But in many individual cases, yes.
AFAIK, D&D defines "evil" as intentionally inflicting and finding pleasure in suffering, without compassion or regret.
The Vikes, Mongols, etc., glorified destruction of their enemies. They considered it their duty and pleasure.
The Catholic violence was seen as "a necessary evil", in that sin had to be purged from the land, but most would've rathered there not be such sin in the first place.
Of course, such an environment was a perfect breeding ground for individual sadists who found the office of Inquisitor convenient...
quote:
Why are Orcs 'evil' for doing EXACTLY the same thing humans have been doing all along?
You just answered your own question. Inflict suffering purposely and for pleasure without compassion, and you're evil. Do the same thing: earn the same classification.
quote:
Elves have committed just as many atrocities against humans (and each other) for as long as anyone can remember, yet no-one considers killing them on-sight.
Do they still do it, even now? Do they organize large armies hellbent on conquering the North, as did Obould and tens of thousands of orcs?
Elves may indeed have been evil in the far past, but I think this thread is dealing with recent history.
quote:
Bottom line - its because Orcs are 'ugly' and elves are 'pretty', and people lash-out at that which they can't stand looking upon.
Um, MT, you're completely ignoring the fact that the ugly orcs just launched a war of aggression and conquest against the North right before the Spellplague hit. That's why peeps hate on orcs--not because they're ugly.
Contrast that with the half-orcs of Palishchuk, in the Bloodstone Lands. They're pretty durn fugly, too, as I understand it. But because they're cool with folks, they don't get the same bad rap. It ain't because they're somehow easy on the eyes.
quote:
Obould is just an orc, but a very smart orc, and he realized the only way to break from the cycle of slaughter (mostly for his own people) was to build a kingdom of their own and demand the RESPECT of the other races. Up until then, Orcs were just considered another 'Ugly Monster'.
You're forgetting that Obould initially assembled his horde just to hurt people, while still licking his wounds over having been expelled from his Citadel of Many-Arrows. He was mad, and he wanted to kill somethin'! And a big army kills more than a little one, so he put together a big one.
It was only later, after the clerical ritual, that he embraced this idea of a stable kingdom as an alternative to the neverending death and destruction.
Thus, he changed. Call it a change in alignment. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Sep 2010 : 18:53:16
Two points:
1) D&D alignment is a guideline, not a straightjacket. Just because someone is a particular alignment doesn't preclude them acting outside that alignment, on occasion. Alignment is just how they will, in general, act. And while it's a good point that few people consider themselves evil, evil in D&D terms is nothing more than being willing to inflict unwarranted harm on others outside of yourself or your chosen group.
2) Just because some members of a certain race choose to act in a particular manner, it doesn't mean that the entire race is that same alignment. Yeah, some humans in the Realms have gone out of their way to make unwarranted attacks on other races. But some humans in the Realms have gone out of their way to counter those unwarranted attacks. Ditto with elves and just about any of the other races considered good or neutral. Orcs of the Realms, though, have a habit of going out of their way to rape and pillage and slaughter, just because they can. There have been a few isolated exceptions, but not enough to say that the evil alignment of orcs is nothing more than an outsider's perception of them. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 05 Sep 2010 : 18:38:08
I'd have to argue a bit about the idea that alignment is in the view of the beholder rather than the creature being observed. We all do things that we justify to ourselves, even though we KNOW some of those actions to be EVIL, or at least wrong on some level. Being "evil" simply means that the person is OK with doing those things, regardless of how others see it. An orc has no problem with killing human children because they justify it by saying that their god approves of it. But those same orcs would become extremely enraged if another race was killing THEIR children!! They know that killing helpless children is a sin, or an evil act, but to them, it's a matter of who's doing it to whom that makes the difference.
It's the same with an evil elf, human, gnome, or what-have-you. They might justify what they do to themselves, but that's all it is, a rationalization of actions they know to be wrong because that is what most societies believe. Drow are for the most part irredeemably evil, but they simply don't CARE. They enjoy what they do, and don't bother with worrying about whether it's immoral or ethical. That is really what the essence of evil is about- doing whatever one feels like, regardless of who it hurts, and not feeling guilty about it. So with all the gods in D&D, and especially in FR, it seems unlikely that any given member of a race would not realize when they are doing something evil. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 05 Sep 2010 : 17:44:04
Alignment in D&D is an actual force in the cosmos that has measurable effects. Which kind of makes it hard to argue that it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Of course people justify things to themselves, but the idea behind the alignment system is that there is an objective system according to which these justifications can be judged. Of course, D&D has never bothered to define this system beyond the simplistic descriptions of alignments that are designed to avoid offending the real-world sensibilities of anyone. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 05 Sep 2010 : 16:26:09
My point was that the entire D&D system of 'alignment' is dated and silly - Unless they are a psychopath (and every race has them AFAIK), or at the very least a sociopath, no being does things it considers 'evil' - it justifies them in it's own mind, based on its worldview and religous beliefs.
Ergo, when an Orc kills a human baby and eats it (something Elminster found laughably ridiculous, BTW), it is NOT being evil, it is behaving in such a way as to be GOOD within its own worldview.
Obould is doing what he has always done - work towards the best interests of 'his' Orcs. Over time, he has changed his mind about what, exactly, those 'best interests' are, but he himself has not changed.
What HAS CHANGED is the way in which other races view him, hence the alignment change. If he could read some FR sources he would probably find it funny as hell that humans can't seem to figure him out.
Alignment is based on the view of the person reading the text, NOT the creature's viewpoint - thats an easy mistake to make. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 05 Sep 2010 : 07:40:55
People seem to be talking a bit at cross-purposes here.
First, what is the problem with Obould being of a different alignment than his patron God? Wouldn't be the first divine servant to exemplify a different side of his patron than the primary one, would he?
The high priestess of Tiamat in the center of her faith on Faerun was Tiglath, who was LN to her LE. Tiamat's Chosen, Tchazzar, CE to her LE.
I'm sure a diligent scribe could turn up plenty of more examples. The point is that there is nothing that keeps Obould from being LE and still representing a shining hope for the orcish people that The One-Eye would want to see become pre-eminent.
As for Obould displaying honour and seeking to ensure his people a stable homeland, well, boo-hoo. Having honour and a strong sense of pride in one's people isn't enough to be Good or even Neutral in D&D. Elaith Craulnober is still Evil. He murders, he steals, he deceives and he manipulates; all of it to serve his own goals and sometimes just for his own pleasure. Sure, he has a certain moral code and he has been known to feel friendship and moral obligation, but the bad outweights the good.
Yes, any system that attempts to pigeon-hole something as complex as the motivations and ethical make-up of people into a grand total of nine distinct categories will be so ambigious as to be useless and nearly guaranteed to be wrong all the time. The alignment system is a gross oversimplication that ought to hurt the brain of anyone who has one. This is all true. And irrelevant. We are discussing things in the terms of this system because it is the one used for publications.
And by the standards that are most usually applied to D&D alignments, Obould's desire for an orcish homeland and his rational awareness that trade and diplomacy will be beneficial for orcs do not change the fact that he is violent dictator who schemed and hacked his way to power. He's Lawful Evil, sure, and in that he's far more comfortable to deal with, as well as being able to forge his orcish horde into a far more cohesive and strong whole. But the fact that he displays flashes of honour does not make him Good.
A kind person might interpret his actions after a certain point to mean that he's in a process of becoming Lawful Neutral. I understand that Wizards of the Coast elected not to go that route with the character in their new 4e setting. I don't think I'm qualified to comment on materials from that setting, as I prefer the Forgotten Realms, but I understand that the 4e aligment system has even fewer categories than previous ones.
Perhaps there just wasn't space for any subleties so they just stamped the character with whatever stamp they put on other orcs? Or, alternatively, whoever was assigned to write that section of the book hadn't read any of the preceding materials (time-jump means not having to be shackled by old stuff) and just grabbed the name Obould off the back of a randomly chosen novel?
Who can tell? |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 05 Sep 2010 : 05:10:23
MT, do I detect a bit of anti-elfism?  Irony- spelled Markustay, lol! JK. Actually, I think some interesting points have been raised. Orcs are considered evil for running around bashing people just because they don't like them, but when humans or others bash THEM, they're doing the world a favor. Maybe Gruumsh had a legitimate gripe, after all!  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 04 Sep 2010 : 21:51:05
Were the Vikings 'evil'? You know... they landed on the coast and hacked people up, and carried their treasure and women away. They considered themselves 'noble warriors'. They even took slaves.
What of the Mongols? Or the Ottomans? Or even the Romans, for that matter? All considered themselves warrior cultures destined to rule through war and victory. Were they 'evil'?
What of the Catholic Church and the Spanish Inquisition? They were murdering innocent folks for the sake of 'good'. Or take into account the Realms version - Maztica and it's natives.
Why are Orcs 'evil' for doing EXACTLY the same thing humans have been doing all along? Elves have committed just as many atrocities against humans (and each other) for as long as anyone can remember, yet no-one considers killing them on-sight.
Bottom line - its because Orcs are 'ugly' and elves are 'pretty', and people lash-out at that which they can't stand looking upon.
Its human nature.
As silly as the old TV series Lost in space was, there was one very poignant episode I remember vividly, wherein the humans of the Jupiter II sided with a beautiful Golden Alien against a hideous, toad-like one, who were trying to kill each other. In the end, the humans found out the golden-skinned alien was the evil one, and they had made a mistake. Not bad for a terrible 60's show.
Obould is just an orc, but a very smart orc, and he realized the only way to break from the cycle of slaughter (mostly for his own people) was to build a kingdom of their own and demand the RESPECT of the other races. Up until then, Orcs were just considered another 'Ugly Monster'.
Racism at its core is the belief that your race should dominate (and perhaps kill-off) all other races. It is an incredibly evil concept, but it is one that nearly every race in fantasy practices to some degree. Even halflings look upon other races with distrust, and try to 'get over on them'. The Orcs are no more evil then anyone else, they are just better at displaying their hatred for the others.
And 'Racism' is not only allowed by 'the gods', it is encouraged by many, including most human deities. At least Gruumsh is honest when he tries to hack you in two, rather then looking down upon you with disdain as many Seldarine do. Give me an honest orc over a scheming elf any day - at least I know where I stand. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 04 Sep 2010 : 20:59:37
quote:
Originally posted by jordanz
A Barbarian warrior of Tempus can be savage and still be "good". Also if he can now have an LG cleric representing him I see no reason what he would have a problem with the goody Obould. I assume savagery and strength and survival are what Grummish cares most about even though he himself may be evil. Or perhaps a God can evolve and change just like a mortal can. As seen above heis no longer part of the "evil" domain. I guess that's a whole different thread!
The FRCG 4E says Gruumsh is not just a god of savagery, but a god of conquest, driving his followers to expand their power by brutal means. His shamans urge orcs to raid, kill, and conquer.
That just doesn't sound like what Obould became, at all. He eschewed all the above in order to accomplish something that he considered to be greater than the ideals of that god.
If an exarch "serves" his god, then how is Obould serving Gruumsh by rejecting all of the above ideals? Did he somehow change back to CE alignment on his death/ascension, leaving the mortal Obould dynasty to live LG lives? |
| jordanz |
Posted - 04 Sep 2010 : 17:10:47
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I think King Obould went from CE to LE in "The Hunter's Blades Trilogy", upon his clerical upgrades. In The Orc King, he displayed LN tendencies. But he ended up acting Lawful Good. And I'm with Wooly in that it doesn't seem orcish or Gruumshish for Obould to act this way. I'd even go further and say that it doesn't seem orcish or Gruumshish for the rest of his orcs to go along with his agenda.
CE (The North boxed set, FRCS 3E, The Thousand Orcs):
Recall the earlier lore about King Obould in the Citadel of Many-Arrows. His orcs were no good at carrying out a stable society, there. There was constant in-fighting and disease, and never enough resources. Obould himself rose to power by wiping every other challenger out. The orcs regularly raided merchant caravans and enslaved people to make them do the work necessary to achieve some level of stability and constancy.
In The Thousand Orcs, yes, King Obould organized lots of orcs with his charisma and appeal to force, but there is no indication that this was a stable army. It was a violent mob. Gerti's frost giants and the drow instigators didn't enjoy working with the orcs--not just because they were orcs--but also because they were continuing to act like typical thugs. Obould basked in his power, but his primary aim at the time was just to take it to the dwarves for having ousted him from his citadel.
I particularly enjoyed reading how Obould liked to use his orc clerics for propaganda. He not only manipulated his fellow orcs by employing the clerics, but he also played his clerics, themselves. He was careful to avoid saying things that would offend their Gruumshish sensibilities, and instead would couch things in words that they would accept and relish. It was never really made clear that Obould did this out of actual reverence for Gruumsh himself, but rather, simply because it works. Thus, it doesn't seem as if Obould really had much allegiance to any higher authority than himself, at that point in the story.
LE (The Lone Drow, The Two Swords):
Over time, though, after his clerical upgrades, King Obould began entertaining the notion of a stable kingdom somewhere, and interacting with neighbor nations through trade and diplomacy, as opposed to straight-up war. But in order to accomplish this vision, he would first have to carve out a piece of land for himself in order to initiate this kingdom, and a whole lot of people would have to die, first. And he was perfectly OK with that.
LN (The Orc King):
After TTS's cease-fire, an upstart group of ogre-orc half-breeds decided to ramp up hostilities against the goodly folk of the North again. King Obould sat on the sidelines, taking it in. He didn't order the hits, nor did he directly, explicitly approve of them. Actually, he worried that these upstarts might be more trouble than they were worth. But for a good long while, he let them do their thing in the name of orc power.
LG (The Orc King ending, The Pirate King):
And so, King Obould sent an emissary to King Bruenor to distance himself from these upstarts, and to request a mutual mission to dispatch them. Obould and Bruenor cooperate to whack Chieftain Grguch, and the Treaty of Garumn's Gorge is signed. And Obould's kingdom is finally official and legit, recognized in written law by the goodly folk of the North.
The Orc King's Prelude view of the next century shows us that the Obould dynasty continues to try to quell the typical thuggish orc tendencies within the Kingdom of Many-Arrows, for the sake of peace, prosperity, and stability. Conquest and revenge are not the royal goals.
However, the latter are the goals of a considerable number of the kingdom's common orcs, though. Regardless of the change of heart of the Oboulds and their inner circle of loyal followers, the masses of the orcs seem to be on the fence for the next century, never quite fully buying into King Obould's dream.
And the FRCG 4E tells us that the dwarves of the North don't feel comfortable enough with the unstable orcs to remain allies with them in the League of the Silver Marches, either--no matter what the top orc says.
This, then, brings me to ask, "How in the Hells did Obould ever warrant Gruumsh's blessings as a Chosen, as manifested by the upgrades; and how in the Hells did a LG guy like Obould ever become an ascended Exarch of such a bastardly god as Gruumsh?" There seems to be some major disconnects there. Even if, for the oft-cited reasons, the deity Gruumsh chooses not to intervene in mortal affairs by wiping out all of the sacrilegious, goodly orcs aligned with King Obould, why would Gruumsh ever show favor to Obould as an individual? And why would he continue to show favor to Obould, given the orc king's so blatantly atypical orcish behavior?
This would seem to require not only a change in alignment of Obould, but also of Gruumsh. But the FRCG 4E indicates that the deity is just as evil as ever, so what gives?
Agreed I'm more shocked by the actually "goodness" (and not necessarily lawfulness) he displayed in the novel. I'm definitely curious as how the Orcs should have realistically reacted to this "goodness". I think it comes done to:
How much is evil tied into being an ORC? Also what exactly is GRUMMSH's portfolio? As would be the case with a follower of say Cyric, are evil acts I critical component?
I read up on wiki that SAVAGERY is a staple of GRUUMISH. To be exact, this is what I pulled up:
Portfolio
Conquest
Orcs
Strength
Survival
Territory
Worshipers
Fighters, orcs
Cleric Alignments
LG NG CG
LN N CN
LE NE CE
Domains
Destruction, Storm, Strength[1]
Formerly: Cavern, Chaos, Evil, Hatred, Orcs, War
A Barbarian warrior of Tempus can be savage and still be "good". Also if he can now have an LG cleric representing him I see no reason what he would have a problem with the goody Obould. I assume savagery and strength and survival are what Grummish cares most about even though he himself may be evil. Or perhaps a God can evolve and change just like a mortal can. As seen above heis no longer part of the "evil" domain. I guess that's a whole different thread!
|
|
|
