Dwarves are not heroes...

[Plane Sailing]

My last major campaign had dwarfs up in the mountains. Think of them as klingons with the serial numbers filed off (and several inches filed off from their legs too, naturally). Favoured class was Barbarian.

Made a nice change from the typical Scottish or Russian themed dwarfs.

 

[Cyronax]

I am not going to post the link, because someone may mistake my intentions.

However, I have been reading some articles on wiki and elswhere about the conflation of Dwarves with Dark Elves, due to the term Svartalfheim -- i.e. one of the so-called Nine Worlds of Norse myth.

I kind of like this as a replacement to the relativly modern rise of the emo drow.

A non-good dwarf culture and a non-good elf culture at war over perceived slights and real issues. Throw that together with a healthy mutual hatred of orcs and a patronizing view of humans, and both races become much more interesting IMO.

Somehow that sounds even more classic and quinessentially D&D than considering elves as beautiful always good fey and dwarves as lovable drunkard beserking smiths.

C.I.D.

 

[Pbartender]

...do the goblins melt the metalwork down to slag and give it back to the miners?

But, you see, the miners aren't actually create anything, they're simply digging something out of the ground that was already there. The smith, on the other hand, takes the metal and turns it into something useful and valuable.

It's the difference between collecting raw materials and creating a finished product.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In my Midwood campaign, the dwarves (displaced from their mountain kingdom hundreds of years ago by a green dragon who's now apparently vanished -- but no one comes back alive from their/her mountain ...) are Appalachian hillbillies, complete with hound dogs, moonshine, bluegrass music and the like. I found it a surprisingly good fit, done with affection.

 

[Reynard]

But, you see, the miners aren't actually create anything, they're simply digging something out of the ground that was already there. The smith, on the other hand, takes the metal and turns it into something useful and valuable.

It's the difference between collecting raw materials and creating a finished product.

I once had a dragon who paired deep beneath a gold mine, after accidentally awakened by the PCs, decide to retrieve his "plundered hoard" -- i.e. every coin minted or jewelry crafted from the gold mined there.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

It's the difference between collecting raw materials and creating a finished product.

It's funny where the line gets drawn. The crafter is, of course, useless without the gatherer.

Brad

 

[WizarDru]

It's funny where the line gets drawn. The crafter is, of course, useless without the gatherer.

Yes, but one is a laborer while the other is a craftsman. The miner retrieves the materials, but are his materials somehow transformed from the action of retrieving them? Are they indistinguishable from other raw materials of the same kind mined by another miner? No. The miner has not transformed the material in any meaningful way, other than having removed it from the earth and possibly cleaned it off.

But there is only one Sword of Godric Gryyfndor, forged by a specific goblin artisan. There is only one Sistine Chapel. The Sistine Chapel may belong to the Vatican, but one only thinks of Michaelangelo, Raphael or Botticelli as it's creators. I doubt most people could even name the Pope who commissioned it. The theory for the goblins in Harry Potter works on a variation of the smae principle. The Goblin King made the sword and sold it to Gryfyndor. When Gryfnndor died, he expected it back....but instead, it was passed to Gryffndor's heirs, which angered the Goblins and apparently led to a rebellion against the Wizarding state.

In the eyes of the goblins, Ragnuk created the thing and ultimately ownership of it belonged to him. He sold it to Gryffndor for life....and expected it back when the one he'd sold it to had died. The goblins didn't believe in transitive property rights. They expected that if the heirs were to take it, they would get recompense...essentially as if it had been sold anew. Given the intimation that the goblins (like Rowling's elves) are second-class citizens with unequal rights, it's not surprising they seem resentful of a practice that rewards the wizards and penalizes them. From their perspective, it's just one more way that the wizards mistreat them (along with denying them wandcraft).

 

[Pbartender]

It's funny where the line gets drawn. The crafter is, of course, useless without the gatherer.

Brad

As Obi-Wan once said, "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

And that, of course, is exactly what makes different cultures different... Clinging to truths that are based solely on a particular point of view.

 

[Rel]

Yes, but one is a laborer while the other is a craftsman. The miner retrieves the materials, but are his materials somehow transformed from the action of retrieving them? Are they indistinguishable from other raw materials of the same kind mined by another miner? No. The miner has not transformed the material in any meaningful way, other than having removed it from the earth and possibly cleaned it off.

But there is only one Sword of Godric Gryyfndor, forged by a specific goblin artisan. There is only one Sistine Chapel. The Sistine Chapel may belong to the Vatican, but one only thinks of Michaelangelo, Raphael or Botticelli as it's creators. I doubt most people could even name the Pope who commissioned it. The theory for the goblins in Harry Potter works on a variation of the smae principle. The Goblin King made the sword and sold it to Gryfyndor. When Gryfnndor died, he expected it back....but instead, it was passed to Gryffndor's heirs, which angered the Goblins and apparently led to a rebellion against the Wizarding state.

In the eyes of the goblins, Ragnuk created the thing and ultimately ownership of it belonged to him. He sold it to Gryffndor for life....and expected it back when the one he'd sold it to had died. The goblins didn't believe in transitive property rights. They expected that if the heirs were to take it, they would get recompense...essentially as if it had been sold anew. Given the intimation that the goblins (like Rowling's elves) are second-class citizens with unequal rights, it's not surprising they seem resentful of a practice that rewards the wizards and penalizes them. From their perspective, it's just one more way that the wizards mistreat them (along with denying them wandcraft).

Yeah but like...what happens when the creator dies? Does ownership pass to HIS heirs?

 

[Pbartender]

Yeah but like...what happens when the creator dies? Does ownership pass to HIS heirs?

Certainly, but in this case "heir" might be defined as the most skillful of the apprentices he's trained.