| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jakuta Khan |
Posted - 27 Feb 2012 : 15:39:52
Taken from 2e Savage frontier, Page 14 :
Spine of the World Orcs: In these bleak mountains, the most
powerful orc tribes skulk in stone fortresses stolen from the
dwarves and renamed Eyegad, Tame, and Vokan. Within their
gloomy, squat buildings and oppressive, black temples are the
visible tips of sprawling underground tunnels and cavern complexes
that house tribes with names like Skortchclaw,
Skreetch, and Bleeding Eye. Others, like the Slashers and
Orcs of the Severed Tongue, lurk in the unnumbered small
caves that pepper the valleys and passes of these mineral-rich
mountains.
The Skortchclaw tribe, under King Ugra Ngarl, is forcing
goblin slaves to mine mithral beneath Fortress Eyegad. The
metal is apparently being sold in great quantity to someone in
the High Forest.
Anyone have some canon-based information on these former dwarven fortresses?
I did not find any so far. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BEAST |
Posted - 01 Dec 2012 : 03:09:13
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
On the other hand, if the orcs and goblins are always trying to kill the dwarves (which is true for thousands of years), is killing them back evil, or just self defense? I'd argue the second.
Which could be argued against as well:
The orcs were there FIRST, then the elves came along and pushed them into the mountains...then the dwarves came along and tried to exterminate them...so who is defending against who?
This sort of debate goes on and on though...if my grandfather killed your grandfather, does that mean you have to kill me?
It is a circular blood-feud logic that never plays out well for anyone.
There might be some rational conclusion to be had, if we actually knew the facts.
What were Gruumsh and the orcs like before they came to Toril? Were they already belligerent warmongers? If so, then that undermines any claims to legitimacy or justice that the orcs might otherwise have down through time, since then. If they busted into the joint a-swinging and a-stomping from the very beginning just because, then they really were just plain evil villains, and the stereotypes about them are not unwarranted.
Was there ever a real divine casting of lots, which relegated the orcs to unwanted habitats? Or did orcs actually prefer cavern homes in the rocky crags?
Did the orcs attack the elves first, out of jealousy and/or bloodlust? Or did the elves attack the orcs first, out of a smug, superior sense of racism and/or bloodlust?
I think it's pretty clear (from the circumstantial evidence available to us) that the dwarves were the aggressors against the orcs.
But mayhaps the dwarves felt that such aggression was warranted, if the orcs had already earned a reputation for not playing nicely with others in their interactions with the elves. If you already know that they shoot first, then you don't bake them a cake and ask to be friends.
We really need to know what happened back at the beginning of orc time on Toril.
Until then, we can only really say that elves and dwarves and humans have shown the capacity to live at peace with one another for mutual benefit on a large scale, while orcs have shown a proclivity for wars of aggression and general mayhem. If any orcs wish to be differentiated from the rest of their kind, then let them come forward and be judged on their own merits. Drizzt did it. But no orc should claim victimhood. Drizzt knew full well that the racism he faced was essentially justified, because most drow are frickin' evil. So should any orc. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 01 Dec 2012 : 02:52:27
quote:
Originally posted by Jakuta Khan
IMHO, coming to speak of evil and not, I think sometimes, especially Bruenor, in the books around drizzt dwarves have some evil and extremely "racist" tendencies - they see it as their natural right and even duty to slaughter goblins, orcs and other humanoids.
There was also that scene in The Crystal Shard in which Bruenor wanted to torture a captive orc to get information out of him, but Drizzt called in Regis with the enchanting ruby pendant, instead. "Bah . . . but torturin'd be more fun!" Bruenor said.
People accuse Drizzt of being a goody-two-shoes all the time, but that first book actually depicted some pretty dark versions of both him and Bruenor, if you think about it.
|
| BEAST |
Posted - 01 Dec 2012 : 02:45:37
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Giant brains and Orc blood.
Don't fall asleep near a hungry Dwarf. 
Or kiss one!
On Bruenor's behalf, at least it wasn't another dog leg (see Sojourn).
Man, did that dwarf have . . . eclectic food tastes or what?!
I'm guessing it was a touch of the aboriginal/barbarian notion that eating a slain enemy's heart would transfer some of that enemy's strength to the slayer. What warrior wouldn't want a giant's strength, or an orc's ferocity? |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 30 Nov 2012 : 20:41:11
I don't think so, though of course events at this far remove are hard to figure out for certain. I checked both Cormanthyr and the Grand History. The first concrete mention of orcs in Cormanthyr is the middle of the Crown Wars, though the section head for the First Flowering does mention their successful struggles against them.
Grand History is more specific: the first mention of orcs is when they sack the gold elves' capital of Occidan in -24,400 DR. There isn't any mention of them before this, and all of the elves' attentions seem to be on the dragons. The gold and moon elves had only been in the Realms for 1000 years at that point; it seems unlikely that they'd done much more than expand inside the High Forest. At least where it comes to the elves and orcs, it looks like the orcs started it.
In retrospect, this makes the elven wars against the orcs make a lot more sense. They'd barely escaped their first realm, and it's entirely possible there were still a few Tintageer-born alive when the horde came. They're building new homes and a new civilization in a new world, they've been focused on fighting (and dodging) the dragons, and then the orcs essentially sucker punch them. I'd take it personally as well. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 30 Nov 2012 : 19:16:05
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Except the elves, who didn't have to fight the orcs alone. And I don't think the elves ever really threatened the orc homelands, since the orcs never lived in forests. They were always up in the mountains, and still attacked the elves whenever they had a chance.
Face it, at this point (and probably back then as well), the orcs killed dwarves and elves because they liked to.
Heck yeah orcs killed elves because they liked to...but I thought the elves did push aside the orcs in the north? |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 30 Nov 2012 : 18:26:28
Except the elves, who didn't have to fight the orcs alone. And I don't think the elves ever really threatened the orc homelands, since the orcs never lived in forests. They were always up in the mountains, and still attacked the elves whenever they had a chance.
Face it, at this point (and probably back then as well), the orcs killed dwarves and elves because they liked to. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 30 Nov 2012 : 16:55:46
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
On the other hand, if the orcs and goblins are always trying to kill the dwarves (which is true for thousands of years), is killing them back evil, or just self defense? I'd argue the second.
Which could be argued against as well:
The orcs were there FIRST, then the elves came along and pushed them into the mountains...then the dwarves came along and tried to exterminate them...so who is defending against who?
This sort of debate goes on and on though...if my grandfather killed your grandfather, does that mean you have to kill me?
It is a circular blood-feud logic that never plays out well for anyone. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 30 Nov 2012 : 16:51:53
On the other hand, if the orcs and goblins are always trying to kill the dwarves (which is true for thousands of years), is killing them back evil, or just self defense? I'd argue the second. |
| Jakuta Khan |
Posted - 30 Nov 2012 : 14:08:00
IMHO, coming to speak of evil and not, I think sometimes, especially Bruenor, in the books around drizzt dwarves have some evil and extremely "racist" tendencies - they see it as their natural right and even duty to slaughter goblins, orcs and other humanoids.
So them drinking their blood and eating their brains brings them, for me, to much the same level regarding "evil" acts done to humanoids races.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 30 Nov 2012 : 05:12:12
Giant brains and Orc blood.
Don't fall asleep near a hungry Dwarf. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 30 Nov 2012 : 04:17:18
The devil's in the detail, Dalor!
-- George Krashos |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 28 Nov 2012 : 23:48:19
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Ed deals with dwarven food predilections in his latest book and specifically mentions that they don't eat orc flesh unless they have no alternative. Orc blood however is standard fare.
-- George Krashos
That was in Elminster's Forgotten Realms? How the heck did I miss that...hmmmm...must find that page. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 28 Nov 2012 : 23:24:15
Ed deals with dwarven food predilections in his latest book and specifically mentions that they don't eat orc flesh unless they have no alternative. Orc blood however is standard fare.
-- George Krashos
|
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 28 Nov 2012 : 13:50:22
Agreed. I don't understand why there seems to be this idea in this thread that if a society is "lawful" that means it isn't "pure evil." Whatever that means. In D&D it's pretty well established that the only things that are "pure evil" are the fiends of the lower planes, and that they're all different "flavors" of "pure evil."
From a practical standpoint, there's a limit to the amount of pain and suffering that a single person, acting alone, can dish out. You need civilization, law and order, to really turn the screws, as any number of regimes here on Earth have proven. And it's easy enough for the common folk to go along with, as long as they buy into the myth of "one of these days, it'll be ME on the top of the pile."
Bringing this back closer to the original question, I do think it's an interesting idea about how much orc eating the first dwarves did during their wars of conquest. Supplies would definitely be an issue, no matter how massive the migration (and, assumably, its non-warrior components). And the fact that it was primarily a war of conquest, not peaceful expansion into unoccupied territory, would make growing your own food harder.
From a purely objective stand-point, I can see a number of advantages to eating the fallen. First off, most of the fighting would be underground, which would drastically slow down the natural processes that decompose bodies on the surface. Not as many insects, for instance. Which means the bodies would remain putrid for much longer, and the polluted air could linger and block off passages. Eating them would solve much of that difficulty.
Second, as Dalor mentioned, is the supply problem. Eating orcs would at least lessen, though not remove, that logistical nightmare. Third, it would deny those bodies to the orc shamen to raise as many forms of undead (the bones would have to be carefully dealt with, however).
So I think it's entirely possible that the dwarves engaged in at least some orc eating when they came north. They would likely downplay, if not outright deny, this fact in later days. All of which, of course, adds yet another interesting dimension to the dwarven exodus. |
| Barastir |
Posted - 28 Nov 2012 : 12:14:45
That's true, and living in society does not necessarily means a race is lawful or even good. One should read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Living in a community can further your own goals and raise your survival chances, for example, and you can be altruistic to closer relatives as an egoistical reflex of your "genetic behavior".
I think Dawkins goes too far negating some principles, and I also think he is overly negative, denying cultural and religious influence in our lives, but mainly you can understand how our - imperfect - world (and we can extrapolate it to the Realms) can have entire societies of selfish beings.
Even the motivation of this interest in beings of the same species can be selfish, like an evil creature that approaches the opposite sex to satisfy his/her/its sexual desire, and avoid misrteating badly or killing the partner because the sexual instincts overcome him/her/it, and doing so could impede future relations, for example.
And elves, good and evil, are examples of chaotic societies, and some stuff was written about those alignment definitions. But this should be another topic...  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Nov 2012 : 11:47:33
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Even though I can point to several cases in FR where goblins were borderline 'good' in canon (which I assume to be cases of those rare exceptions).
Other than Nojheim, what FR goblins were borderline good?
There was a group living with some Monks in the Hordelands. Then something (Oni?) killed the Monks and enslaved the goblins - the text said that the goblins would be willing to side with the PCs against their new masters. Basically, they just leaned toward the alignment of whoever was in charge.
Was Nojheim the goblin from the Drizzt story?
That doesn't mean those goblins were good.
Yup. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 28 Nov 2012 : 11:09:08
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Even though I can point to several cases in FR where goblins were borderline 'good' in canon (which I assume to be cases of those rare exceptions).
Other than Nojheim, what FR goblins were borderline good?
There was a group living with some Monks in the Hordelands. Then something (Oni?) killed the Monks and enslaved the goblins - the text said that the goblins would be willing to side with the PCs against their new masters. Basically, they just leaned toward the alignment of whoever was in charge.
Was Nojheim the goblin from the Drizzt story? |
| Barastir |
Posted - 28 Nov 2012 : 09:35:22
At least in the history of Myth Glaurach (published in the Wizards page some years ago), it is mentioned that orcs regularly eat other humanoids, and it doesn't seem, in this particular piece of lore, that it is done out of hunger. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 27 Nov 2012 : 22:23:11
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Makes you wonder who ate who first! Maybe orcs eat others because the Dwarves, bringing no food resources with them enough, actually ate orcs and giants first!
<"Who ATE Who?">  |
| BEAST |
Posted - 27 Nov 2012 : 22:19:06
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
'Pure' evil creatures would NEVER be able to form social groups - they would be too self-absorbed.
The fact that even illithids tolerate each other shows that they aren't considered 'evil' amongst themselves. At one time I may have thought Aboleths (and probably beholders) a good choice for 'pure' evil creatures, but they have also been seen in a social organization now. Very few D&D creatures are truly 'solitary' anymore.
Are these races what D&D would categorize as "Lawful Evil", then? They are comprised of individuals who who would gladly do harm to others and enjoy it, but who also submit to the rule of law & order for the sake of the welfare of the race and/or more immediate social group?
The Lawful category is not just a statement about the leaders of a race, but just as much one about the followers. It says that the followers--the common, everyday peon representatives of the race--are concerned about the welfare of their race enough to put aside their immediate personal interests, compromise, and cooperate with one another.
And that sort of concern for the "other" would seem to preclude one from being deemed "Evil", at all.
We're then left with evil deeds being perpetrated by non-Evil creatures. Isn't that exactly the same case with humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, etc.?
quote:
Goblins & Kobolds (and all their offshoots) I do consider evil, but once again, only by human standards. I would not consider them in the same category as Drow or even Orcs. Hobgoblins I would place on the 'redeemable' end of the spectrum with Orcs, but Bugbears I'd just consider giant goblins (and therefor pretty damn evil). So in the case of most goblinoids, I would portray them (IMG) along the lines of the Tolkienesque model.
Since I consider goblins corrupted fey (from the time of the Black Diamond incident), I can buy they are 'truly evil', and not redeemable (except in VERY rare instances).
I'm not sure why or how you draw that dividing line. It seems arbitrary to me, right now.
I like Dalor's interpretation, of there just being more savage or barbaric races, who lack social graces, and end up offending more civilized sorts thereby, but who probably are not Evil deep down, after all.
Perhaps goblins and kobolds breed and grow so fast that they can assemble mass forces more quickly than orcs can, which allows these smaller races to rely more heavily on strength in numbers even moreso than other races ever could, and which also unfortunately enables and empowers the smaller races to avoid law & order and compromise and suppression of personal interests to a greater degree?
quote:
Are rats evil? I look at goblins like anthropomorphic rats, socially. They normally get along because it is in their best interest to do so. When it is not in their best interest, then they will attack each other.
I'm thinking in terms of hyenas or baboons. They can have social groups/packs/tribes, but they are also seen turning on each other and even eating each other--sometimes with little provocation. They can work together, or tear each other apart.
Think of an unstable pit bull dog. Sometimes, they just snap on their owners. They're creatures of raw instinct, and unhindered by moral scruples. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Nov 2012 : 20:10:02
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Even though I can point to several cases in FR where goblins were borderline 'good' in canon (which I assume to be cases of those rare exceptions).
Other than Nojheim, what FR goblins were borderline good? |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 27 Nov 2012 : 19:52:02
Makes you wonder who ate who first! Maybe orcs eat others because the Dwarves, bringing no food resources with them enough, actually ate orcs and giants first! |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 27 Nov 2012 : 19:37:21
Dwarves have been known to eat fallen enemies without any prompting from starvation. Witness Bruenor making a soup of giant brains in one of the early Drizzt books. He did it because he thought it would taste good (most of the rest of the group disagreed). It's been a long while since I read those books, though, so I can't give a specific page cite. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 27 Nov 2012 : 19:28:29
I don't think Orcs eat humans by choice - I think its more a matter of survival (and even humans eat each other when there is no other choice). A hungry Orc will try to find some game, or steal some livestock, etc, before resorting to eating other sentients. They just don't have as many qualms about it as humans and demi-humans do.
When I think about it, I think only elves won't eat each other when desperate. Then again, the Dark Elves did when they were first cursed (and became drow), so why do we think we are so much better then them? Because we have more choices available to us? Thats rather haughty of us, since we will resort to the same things when facing starvation.
I'm sure someone ate an orc at one time or another. The North must have had it's 'Donner Party' equivalent a time or two. Would you be nearly as disgusted coming across a human eating an orc as you would an orc eating a human? You'd probably just assume the human was mighty hungry, and forgive the offense. Thats a very bad double-standard right there. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 27 Nov 2012 : 19:10:58
My view on Orcs has now evolved a great deal to think of them more as simply a brutal tribal people. They do many "evil" things in their society...but they don't think in terms of "good" or "evil" even so much as "I'm hungry, lets go eat some humans!" Not to bring reality too much into our fantasy, but humans eat humans too...especially in fantasy! |
| Markustay |
Posted - 27 Nov 2012 : 19:06:13
'Pure' evil creatures would NEVER be able to form social groups - they would be too self-absorbed.
The fact that even illithids tolerate each other shows that they aren't considered 'evil' amongst themselves. At one time I may have thought Aboleths (and probably beholders) a good choice for 'pure' evil creatures, but they have also been seen in a social organization now. Very few D&D creatures are truly 'solitary' anymore.
Goblins & Kobolds (and all their offshoots) I do consider evil, but once again, only by human standards. I would not consider them in the same category as Drow or even Orcs. Hobgoblins I would place on the 'redeemable' end of the spectrum with Orcs, but Bugbears I'd just consider giant goblins (and therefor pretty damn evil). So in the case of most goblinoids, I would portray them (IMG) along the lines of the Tolkienesque model.
Since I consider goblins corrupted fey (from the time of the Black Diamond incident), I can buy they are 'truly evil', and not redeemable (except in VERY rare instances). Even though I can point to several cases in FR where goblins were borderline 'good' in canon (which I assume to be cases of those rare exceptions). Are rats evil? I look at goblins like anthropomorphic rats, socially. They normally get along because it is in their best interest to do so. When it is not in their best interest, then they will attack each other. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 27 Nov 2012 : 18:35:37
It's hard to believe that orcs or drow could perform the kinds of raids en-masse that they're notorious for if they didn't have leaders who at least believed in stewardship of their forces. That requires some concern for nurturing, developing, and safeguarding. Even if it were a case of some hella "tough love", it could still be seen as a form of love: love for one's people.
So even though, yes, the classic mythology right on through Tolkien and early D&D/Realmslore has always portrayed orcs superficially and ostensibly as purely evil, nevertheless, their social dynamics would still seem to have always required that there be more to them than just evil.
EDIT: fixed spelling |
| Barastir |
Posted - 27 Nov 2012 : 16:20:34
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
(...)
"Might makes Right" has been the law of nature (and evolution) since time began. Hardier lifeforms eke-out the weaker ones. Civilization itself is a aberration, when you think about it. It defies natural selection by defending the weak.
So just because Orcs think differently then humans (or dwarves, or elves) doesn't make them wrong, it just makes them different. They have their own ideas about right and wrong. Cultures that are primarily hunter/gatherer and nomadic don't even fully understand the concept of land ownership.
As I said, this is one way of developing your world. Mine is closer to the Tolkien concept, with goblinoids as cruel creatures, willing to kill for pleasure and eat even the flesh of their own species. And this view is surely influenced by the mythology that fed Tolkien's ideas. Another strong source for RPG is Conan, that puts Picts not very differently from Tolkien's orcs. And Picts are humans. And Tolkien's dwarves, in a way, had the "Might makes Right" ideal in their society. But yes, they probably wouldn't let the weak die, like in a Spartan society. |
| PaulBestwick |
Posted - 27 Nov 2012 : 16:09:39
Old school point of view here, Orcs are vermin. You have to prevent storng leadership forming, so as to prevent internal conflict amongst the clans or tribes. If this does come about you are in for a hell fo a problem, look at the history of Waterdeep for the proof. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 27 Nov 2012 : 14:39:45
For most races I would agree, but I like the idea of redeemable orcs and drow. I think if something can think, it should be able to have some free will, and therefor the the idea of a 'racial alignment' just rubs me the wrong way. Its kind of a 'nurture vs nature' thing.
"Might makes Right" has been the law of nature (and evolution) since time began. Hardier lifeforms eke-out the weaker ones. Civilization itself is a aberration, when you think about it. It defies natural selection by defending the weak.
So just because Orcs think differently then humans (or dwarves, or elves) doesn't make them wrong, it just makes them different. They have their own ideas about right and wrong. Cultures that are primarily hunter/gatherer and nomadic don't even fully understand the concept of land ownership. |
|
|
