Cleric of Gruumsh in a party with an Elf

[Riley37]

Of course interesting things happen when the alliance has outlived its usefulness (I think only A-bombs curbed that in the case of Stalin and Churchill).

I've read Churchill's book on the endgame of World War II. Even before the fall of Berlin, Stalin was positioning forces for immediate follow-up. Churchill's attempts to persuade FDR that "Uncle Joe" might act in bad faith, were as unsuccessful as Churchill's attempts, from 1932 to 1938, to persuade his nation that dialogue and compromise with Hitler were futile. Churchill noted with deep regret that Britain declared war in 1939, to defend Poland... and that Britain did not, in the 1945 outcome, secure Poland's autonomy and freedom.

Churchill's treatment of India as a conquered territory had unpleasant parallels with Hitler's attitude towards the Slavic "untermenschen". In 1931, he said "“It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle [Inner] Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.” And then some years later, very different things, such as “Mr. Gandhi has gone up very high in my esteem since he stood up for the untouchables”. He had a noble character in some ways, and a savage character in other ways, and he changed over time.

There are people who see the real world in black and white, eternally, and who bring that perspective to their D&D campaigns. They baffle me. *shrug* To each their own.

 

[Oofta]

I agree. The elven and dwarven gods took everything for themselves, with no regard for others. That's how the PHB defines "evil". I see no shades of grey in this story: they committed an evil action, and Gruumsh reacts as a Paladin of Vengeance.

First they took all the lands, without self-restraint or compassion, then they *laughed* at Gruumsh. On the day that the elves stop denying the forests to orcs, then Gruumsh will cease hostilities against the elven lands. When the dwarves decide to share the mountains with orcs, then Gruumsh will make peace with the dwarven settlements. Until then, orcs will "take and destroy all that the other races would deny them", as you have so clearly established with your canonical source material quotations. Gods and mortals are both most dangerous when they have nothing left to lose.

If you consider Gruumsh evil, then you must also consider Nelson Mandella evil. Which, at this point, would not surprise me.

Are you going to justify the actions of the elven and dwarven gods? Oh, go ahead and try; this will be amusing.

I don't care.

Yep. That's it. All I've got. Orcs are evil because the rules say they are. Does that logic apply to the real world? Nope. I don't care. Do clerics in the real world espouse consistent ideology or follow a narrow path like clerics of Gruumsh should? Nope. I don't care. Is the concept of black and white, good and evil, law and chaos realistic? Nope. Say it with me: I don't care.

While the foundation of the games I run could be loosely defined as "what would the world be like if there were magic and monsters" I also accept that it's just a game. Gruumsh is evil because the books say he is. You are perfectly OK at 1 hit point and then fall over unconscious at 0 because the rules say so. Armor Class stops all damage or none of it while armor suffers no significant wear and tear because that's how AC is defined.

You want to impose moral relativism in your game, treat orcs as noble savages who got a raw deal? As with all house rules and changes to the core assumptions of the game, you should discuss it with your players during your session 0. Other than that, I don't care.

 

[Maxperson]

That you would represent Christianity so inaccurately, and then claim parallels to Gruumsh, is telling. Have you *ever* been wrong? Is there *any* topic on which you don't have absolute and infallible answers?

The real world has pretty much nothing to do with my argument, though. Why are you still avoiding?

 

[Maxperson]

I agree. The elven and dwarven gods took everything for themselves, with no regard for others. That's how the PHB defines "evil". I see no shades of grey in this story: they committed an evil action, and Gruumsh reacts as a Paladin of Vengeance.

First they took all the lands, without self-restraint or compassion, then they *laughed* at Gruumsh. On the day that the elves stop denying the forests to orcs, then Gruumsh will cease hostilities against the elven lands. When the dwarves decide to share the mountains with orcs, then Gruumsh will make peace with the dwarven settlements. Until then, orcs will "take and destroy all that the other races would deny them", as you have so clearly established with your canonical source material quotations. Gods and mortals are both most dangerous when they have nothing left to lose.

If you consider Gruumsh evil, then you must also consider Nelson Mandella evil. Which, at this point, would not surprise me.

Are you going to justify the actions of the elven and dwarven gods? Oh, go ahead and try; this will be amusing.

"Since then, the orcs have taken particular joy in slaughtering elves." Revenge is one thing. To take joy in death of others, though, especially over not getting a house to stay in, is pure evil. Oh, and it's not evil to refuse to share your living space with evil monsters.

 

[Riley37]

You want to impose moral relativism in your game, treat orcs as noble savages who got a raw deal? As with all house rules and changes to the core assumptions of the game, you should discuss it with your players during your session 0.

As you demonstrated with your canonical texts, the core books of D&D establish that the orcs got a raw deal, and *only then* turned against elves and dwarves. If you wanna play otherwise, if YOU wanna change the core assumptions, then discuss that with your players; it's your table.

 

[Oofta]

As you demonstrated with your canonical texts, the core books of D&D establish that the orcs got a raw deal, and *only then* turned against elves and dwarves. If you wanna play otherwise, if YOU wanna change the core assumptions, then discuss that with your players; it's your table.

Which doesn't change the fact that the PHB lists them as exemplars of chaotic evil, or the alignment entry in the monster manual says they are chaotic evil or that they "gather in tribes that satisfy their bloodlust by slaying any humanoids that stand against them."

Change the rules if you want to fit your game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't care.

Yep. That's it. All I've got. Orcs are evil because the rules say they are. Does that logic apply to the real world? Nope. I don't care. Do clerics in the real world espouse consistent ideology or follow a narrow path like clerics of Gruumsh should? Nope. I don't care. Is the concept of black and white, good and evil, law and chaos realistic? Nope. Say it with me: I don't care.

While the foundation of the games I run could be loosely defined as "what would the world be like if there were magic and monsters" I also accept that it's just a game. Gruumsh is evil because the books say he is. You are perfectly OK at 1 hit point and then fall over unconscious at 0 because the rules say so. Armor Class stops all damage or none of it while armor suffers no significant wear and tear because that's how AC is defined.

You want to impose moral relativism in your game, treat orcs as noble savages who got a raw deal? As with all house rules and changes to the core assumptions of the game, you should discuss it with your players during your session 0. Other than that, I don't care.

Hey, its fine that you like 'cartoon evil' and that's really not any sort of bad or hard to understand choice. It works great for any campaign where the basic modus of play is 'slay all them evil guys' and you have a list and the list is always right, and there's nothing more to it than that. Its a game, that game is fun to play (certainly for many people, I find it gets old after a while, but it certainly works fine).

HOWEVER, when you start telling the rest of us that we're doing it wrong, that our way of playing is some sort of 'variant' game that, in effect, "isn't really D&D" and we have to have a therapy session with the players to discuss how they can't be mean to orcs, I'm calling BS! OK?

This sort of thing is highly variable, nobody can claim that one sort of alignment theory and concept of how to treat evil or any other element is 'baked into' D&D such that we can even say unequivocally which way is 'the rules'. In fact the entire argument is preposterous and not worth having. So we're just going to leave it at this. You have your opinion, and you can discuss how that relates to how YOU would play this thing out, and others of us will have OUR opinion and we will not call each other wrong or claim that the other guy's version of D&D is not 'the real thing'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

"Since then, the orcs have taken particular joy in slaughtering elves." Revenge is one thing. To take joy in death of others, though, especially over not getting a house to stay in, is pure evil. Oh, and it's not evil to refuse to share your living space with evil monsters.

Sort of like certain real-world situations (but lets not go there) where we have people that are 'DEFINITELY EVIL' in the eyes of those who have everything, while they have nothing. YES, it tends to breed a form of moral stunting, being relegated to the fringes of the world where everyone hopes you will just shut up and quietly expire. When instead you get PISSED and start a murder spree, well your just EEEEEVVVVVVIIIIIILLLLLLL!

Now, I think that its reasonable to look at orcs as 'fallen'. They may or may not have been nice guys back when Gruumsh got cheated out of a nice spot in the cosmos, but they could have taken a higher moral path, and they didn't. That doesn't make the elves and dwarves blameless, nor make the orcs any less victims (at least in that telling of the story, whether its the whole truth is another question).

It would be possible, for example, to see Gruumsh as actually being a less morally corrupt orcish paragon. Yes, he believes in strength over all, and knows that he isn't going to get what he wants except by fighting, but maybe he actually doesn't espouse WANTON violence, only a sort of 'Klingon-esque' sort of "brutal realism". Maybe his priests actually kill (and eat) elvish prisoners MERCIFULLY! Who knows? I mean, I think the sort of 'default' assumption is more like cartoon evil, but I don't think you have to rewrite any of the material to read a little more into it and take it as mostly one side's story.

 

[Jonathon Robinson]

I would never encourage players to fight directly but a little antagonism can go a long way to flavor the characters. I agree with everyone else here who has said let the player play the character and that Gruumsh wouldn't necessarily care about this particular elf.

That said, I would encourage the player to understand Gruumsh lore.

I would also encourage the players to work together. Perhaps Gruumsh would like this player to help corrupt the elf and turn him evil in order to spit in the face of Corellon (or whatever god the elf follows). You can encourage the player to work with the elf on things that are decidedly evil (yes, let's kill the prisoner instead of setting him free, I think the elf should do it). This can be a lot of fun for the players and still encourages cooperation.

From the Fandom page, Gruumsh isn't against working with elves if it suits his purpose: According to lore, Gruumsh once had an alliance with the conniving elven goddess Araushnee to bring down her fellow elven deities once and for all. Their plan failed and Araushnee was transformed into Lolth and her elven followers into drow. The two deities (and the orcs and the drow) have been great foes ever since.

Work with the lore and find ways to encourage the players to work together even if Gruumsh's motives are deceitful and corruptive in nature. It can make for a great campaign down the line where the character finally has to face Gruumsh and either turn over his friend (due to failed corruption attempts) or fight Gruumsh. Or maybe the elf submits and there's a showdown with Correllon. It's fun to sit back and see what the players will do with this, just make sure it is in a cooperative setting.

 

[Jonathon Robinson]

Oh, and don't feel like once you've chosen path you can't switch directions. One of the best things about having a god of chaos as an NPC is that he can change his mind whenever he goddamn wants and it's always within character.