|
Post by ducky on May 1, 2014 15:40:54 GMT -5
Thanks, Lore! Love your name, BTW. If what the other posts are saying is true, then it looks like a game decision, which is disappointing. I fear it will affect the stories! How remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by mattymoron on May 16, 2014 21:36:15 GMT -5
I posted this on the old board, I'm still not entirely certain which of the two is more active, so I'll post this here as well:
I'm troubled by the regression to an "all orcs are irredeemably evil" black and white that seems to be what we're getting, as D&D Next moves the Realms more in line with what it has classically always been. "Progress has been slow" Obould's descendant laments, but there has been progress! And now it will all be undone, by a handful of drow, serving a spiteful goddess. And, honestly, I'd be ok with that outcome, if we were being honest about it. If at least someone in the book, and perhaps Drizzt will be that person, recognized that even though Luarar must protect itself from the orcs once the drow rile them up, it doesn't make it a "just war," and all it REALLY means is that the Realms is losing its shot at a chance for a better way for an entire race of beings, because sometimes hope is snuffed out unfairly. That's the conflict I want to see, if we ARE going to snuff out this hope. It's way too easy to just say, "Oh, well, Mielikki told me they were bad, so forget everything that's been worked for, it's ok to kill them all now!" In my mind, Mielikki's nature as the deity of rangers would prevent her from seeing any other way, it's been demonstrably proven time and again in the Realms that even the goodly deities are by no means omniscient or flawless.
Of course the Orcs have raided and pillaged over the past century, by no means has it been an overnight shift. But, if there has been progress, slow and partial as it may have been, then that just makes the struggle for uneasy peace by any forward-thinking orcs and people of Luarar all the more tragic, now that it will be undone by the capricious whims of an evil goddess and the drow. To me, this version of the conflict is much more compelling, and much more real, than simply saying, "Oh, no, all that hope was always false, Orcs can't ever be good." If this hope dies, not because it is false, but because sometimes hope dies, I think that would be a much bolder artistic statement than simply relegating orcs to their classic boogeyman-other status. I think, if that's what's happening, then we're owed that level of honesty.
|
|
|
Post by ducky on May 17, 2014 20:43:50 GMT -5
Yes, I can agree with that, although I would rather hope not die at all. To me, all orcs as bad guys is terribly boring and...well, the story was just far more interesting when they were CHARACTERS, not just plot devices. I said from the beginning that it's possible I'm taking this too seriously, but I'll just be terribly disappointed if that's the road they're taking.
WoW has managed to have complicated the orc race nicely, though perhaps the comparison is vastly unfair. Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Brinkman on Oct 13, 2015 13:54:52 GMT -5
I had trouble with her blanket statement covering all of goblinkind. When Obould was blessed by Gruumsh and given extraordinary power and intelligence, his desire for peace began to grow. This, combined with Bruenor's discovery of the city of both orcs and dwarves, the statues of Moradin and Gruumsh together, seemed to indicate that not all goblinkind were evil. The god of orcs, embodied by Obould, desired peace with the dwarves. Was it purely for a tactical advantage? If Salvatore's goblins are completely evil, no orc, and especially not Obould fueled by Gruumsh's desires, would have signed that treaty.
|
|