Leisure Time: Orcs, Humans, Elves, Dwarves

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

This isn't precisely true. While the ravages of disease did decimate the Aztec and Peruvian populations, the populations were still well away and large to to kill the Spaniards if they had known how. There were literally thousands of Aztecs or Peruvians for each Spaniard....

...Montezuma would have fallen regardless of the disease factor, which is overplayed (because the disease weakened his allies as much as his enemies). This is all pretty standard history.

Actually, I've never heard anyone say that the reasons for Spanish success at that time were anything other than
1) Disease
2) Cavalry (not just the natives' lack of it, but the fact that they were terrified of horses)
3) Metalurgy
In that order. The estimates run between 60% and 90% of the population being incapacitated or dead as the result of disease by the time Cortez got to the capital. That's a pretty significant number. Besides, if technology was the only salient factor, why didn't Custer wipe the floor with the Sioux? There's no doubt that the superior tech of the Europeans would have won out over time. People who claim disease was the only factor are revisionists of the PC variety. But the process was greatly sped up by the influx of disease. Cortez himself would not have gone as far as he did. His successors would have finished it quite handily, though, I imagine.

 

[Sulimo]

Are you quite certain about this?

And incidentally, did you know that certain European legends refer to dwarves as "dark elves"?

These kind of things make you wonder...

I dont have any actual direct eveidence, but stories like that could only be made up by those dirty dwarves. They're just jealous of us.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Dwarven Worker Unite

I don't know, Dwarves seem really coordinated and, well, social. I mean you never see a lone dwarf. The closest you get is a dwarf working with an elf to carry a bunch of worthless humans and halflings while a mighty wizard figure out what to do next.

When dwarfs organize things, they travel in bands of no less than ten, secure competent magical and roguish talent early, get someone else to kill the dragon, and hold out in a fortified positions while their enemies face each other down and reinforcements arrive.

And their leisure time is community leisure time, Elves will just go off and dance by themselves, but no dwarf will spend non-working hours alone. They're off participating in dwarven performance art and culinary finery, grog and singing, or participate in team athletics, goblin hunting.

If you ask me, those aspiring Machiavellis had best watch out. They might fool some of the high ranking nobles, but then it's just a matter of time before Urlbag Lenninson and the Dwarfen committees on social justice correct the problem.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Re: Dwarven Worker Unite

If you ask me, those aspiring Machiavellis had best watch out. They might fool some of the high ranking nobles, but then it's just a matter of time before Urlbag Lenninson and the Dwarfen committees on social justice correct the problem.

Well, as long as the dwarves are unable or unwilling to project their power outside of the mountains, they are pretty much irrlelvant...

 

[Chrisling]

(Checks MM)

Hmmm. I notice that "standard elves" use longbows, while orcs only have javelins. Plus, elves are smarter and wiser than orcs, which suggests to my mind that elves would do the sensible thing and not charge the orcs with their brandished swords, but hide in the bushes and kill them off with arrows at a long range.

Sure, in melee combat your basic orc has a good chance of killing a "standard elf" (though even that depends on who rolls the better initiative - and again, the elf has the advantage here). But that's only relevant for peopl who view single combat with members of uncivilized races as something desireable.

I've been sorta waiting for someone to try this point.

Elves live in forests. As I live in Maine, I have a fair bit of experience with forests. The utility of a long bow in a forest isn't very great, not against a sentient target (even a not-too-bright one). Lots of cover, lots of chances to advance in cover.

Of course, while forests provide cover for the archers, too, there's a decent way to get rid of that pesky cover: fire. Hiding in a forest, hoping the enemy comes in so you can shoot them with your bow, is basically digging your own grave. It's the reason so few battles happen in forests -- the forest is your enemy.

For good or ill, when talking armies, we're talking fields. And in the field, orcs kick elvish booty -- <i>especially</i> because orcs outnumber elves about a billion to one. ;p

And the advantages that orcs have are . . . pretty overwhelming. The average elf has 3 hp, the average orc 4. The average elf does 1d8 damage -- so when hitting an orc, the elf has about a 50% chance of putting the orc down. When an orc hits an elf, the <i>lowest</i> damage the orc does puts the elf down. This differential is mathematically awesome. And in melee combat, orcs hit more often, too -- given the nature of battles, there's no real way that hand-to-hand combat can be avoided . . . unless you do fortifications, which elves seem loathe to do.

All other things being equal, bet on the orcs. However, all other things aren't equal . . . .

Sure, the old orcs are tough as nails, and understand the value of the right tactics in warfare.

Unfortunately, they are surrounded by hordes of younger orcs who don't...

Which is generally the case. It's a few elves against hordes of orcs. The advantage is all orc. Maybe elves should have had those sheltered childhoods.

Additionally, it gets worse in the long run. Consider a decade of war. 1/4th of the elvish population has been destroyed and 1/2 the orcish population has been destroyed. In fifty years, the first generation of elves will only be halfway to maturity while there will have been three generations of orcs to reproduce their numbers.

Having a long cycle isn't an advantage in a lot of ways.

Elder Things, actually. And yes, that was a sloppy piece of work (leaving aside the mistakes they made when they let those hairy monkeys loose...).

It all depends on how diligent the creator race in question is. If they regularily check up on the genes that say: "You find the pheromones emitted by elves incredibly sexy and will do everything they say", then there shouldn't be any major problems - apart from a giant monster now and then that goes off to eat a human village or something.

LOL. Elder Things. My bad.

However, sure, the intelligent creature might realize how its being manipulated. Even if they turn to goo at the sight of an elf, there could be a tremendous amount of resentment and mixed feelings going on, there. It's entirely possible the whole species would turn out schizophrenic; smart enough to see the chains that bind them, but unable to break them due to what would often be percieved as their own personal weakness -- or an unethical manipulation to keep them as slaves.

Plus, consider: one of the creatures in question is a <i>dryad</i>. Okay. Even if everything goes "as planned" and the dryad falls in love with the elves . . . how does this make them good workers? I mean, someone gooey in love with a person isn't necessarily an inducement to working hard. Plus, what about . . . jealousy. Would the dryad be envious of elven women for having the relationship that is denied to her? What about other emotions? Let's also not forget that the dryad can try to charm the elves, too -- who would be in charge, there?

Or you're postulating a level of power that's way, way up there. Heck, you are, anyway. ;p

I mean, could it work? Sure, possibly. But there are so many ways it could also fall apart.

As a second point, too, we're talking a project that is likely to be multigeneration even for elves. We're seem to be presuming that during all of this where wouldn't be any radical changes that might force these elvish eugenics masters to either cut short or abandon their project. The very scale of time it takes to accomplish this task works against the elves.

Plus, even presuming success (which I don't think is a given in the first place), what happens when, for instance, a bunch of dryads and pixies are "behind enemy lines," cut off from the elves. Not necessarily at the mercy of anyone else, but just . . . cut off from the elves. This is a very realistic scenario.

Being clever beings, they would certainly adapt -- and would have much time to reflect on the nature of their bondage to the elves, and their kin's bondage. A dryad Martin Luther King and a pixie Nelson Mandela, anyone?

Well, is it allowable for good people to have serfs to lord over?

And what about kings, anyway? Did the people vote them into office? If not, what gives them the power of life and death over their subjects?

In my opinion? No. In my games, and I've been quite clear about this, aristocracy as practiced in Europe is inherently non-good. Even aristocrats who free their serfs or something equally unlikely can't be good unless they repudiate serfdom as a morally legitimate system. I'm pretty sure that other people will disagree, but that's my thinking on the subject.

And kings can be elected. A large number of pre-Middle Ages monarchs were elected into office through a variety of mechanisms. So it's possible to have an elected king, tho' in most games they are not. So, IMC, hereditary kings are of a good alignment only if they reject hereditary nobility as having legitimacy. Again, other people will certainly disagree.

So, for purposes of argument I'm willing to pretend I think serfs and kings can be of a good alignment.

Well, humans are fairly bright monkeys. But monkeys got organisation and hierarchy before they ever recieved what we so laughingly call intelligence.

Intelligence, at least in a fantasy world, does not automatically mean you will want to be part of any hierarchy.

(Realistically some kind of organisation is probably required for a species evolve to sapience. But if you are going for this level of realism, then you will have to ask yourself how plant matter could ever evolve brain tissue, and then you will have to ask more and more questions unless you just assume that treants are an artificially created species - which just proves my point. )

Since you tagged me about the Lovecraft thing, I have to mention that humans are <i>apes</i>, not monkeys.

Which is precisely my point, tho'. Being an intelligent critter doesn't imply you want to belong to a hierachy.

Any hierarchy. Including an elvish one when some snotty elves come around and start to claim to be "forest lords."

And, yeah, we're <i>waaaaaay</i> outside the bounds of strict scientific realism, here.

Possible? Yes. Likely? No. After all, the treants are smart and wise enough to recognize a setup that is to their advantage - and it is.

It is? I haven't been sold on how taking orders from a group of people shorter lived, not as far-sighted, arrogant and who will bring their frivolous wars to your beautiful forest and saying they're your lords is an advantage.

I mean, I consider myself a good guy. As in good alignment. I would have serious reservations about the elves you describe being my lords. They're really creepy guys. They're involved in this magical manipulation of other species to keep them in a state of <i>sexual slavery</I> because they're too damn lazy to grow their own wheat! Whoa. Not to mention they do bring with them a passel of enemies. It's a lot of interpretation to say that elf stewardship of a forest would be a good thing.

Well, they do seem to be living in the forests, which means that at least some of them know what they are doing...

Which could as easily be "keep the treants away" as "work with them for the good of the forest."

As you, yourself, have pointed out, elves seem to like bossing everyone around. Some people don't like that and might not want to deal with it. I know I wouldn't, no matter how benevolent they might otherwise be.

 

[Chrisling]

Re: Dwarven Worker Unite

And their leisure time is community leisure time, Elves will just go off and dance by themselves, but no dwarf will spend non-working hours alone. They're off participating in dwarven performance art and culinary finery, grog and singing, or participate in team athletics, goblin hunting.

If you ask me, those aspiring Machiavellis had best watch out. They might fool some of the high ranking nobles, but then it's just a matter of time before Urlbag Lenninson and the Dwarfen committees on social justice correct the problem.

LOL. Dr. Strangemonkey has an interesting point. But I wonder if it is true. I mean, if the dwarven motto is "all working dwarves unite," why do they still have a king at all? Something has got to be keeping them locked in an absolutist monarchy -- which seems to be the sort of standard view of dwarves, with one king making decisions and no one to oppose him, no matter how bad those decisions are.

Dwarves, kind of traditionally, also have a serious, serious problem with greed. Unless we just wave our hand and make dwarvish lust for gold and such disappear, that would be a simple and almost reliable way to get dwarves to do morally and ethically questionable things. It also suggests that they're not precisely a worker's paradise down there.

But, who knows? Perhaps I was making the same error with dwarves as others were making with orcs. Just become something isn't immediately recognizable as aesthetics or culture, or philosophy, doesn't mean it's not.

I still think the general lack of political experience of dwarves would be a big problem, however. They do not seem to be political creatures.

 

[Rhialto]

I've been sorta waiting for someone to try this point.

Elves live in forests. As I live in Maine, I have a fair bit of experience with forests. The utility of a long bow in a forest isn't very great, not against a sentient target (even a not-too-bright one). Lots of cover, lots of chances to advance in cover.

Of course, while forests provide cover for the archers, too, there's a decent way to get rid of that pesky cover: fire. Hiding in a forest, hoping the enemy comes in so you can shoot them with your bow, is basically digging your own grave. It's the reason so few battles happen in forests -- the forest is your enemy.

For good or ill, when talking armies, we're talking fields. And in the field, orcs kick elvish booty -- <i>especially</i> because orcs outnumber elves about a billion to one. ;p

And the advantages that orcs have are . . . pretty overwhelming. The average elf has 3 hp, the average orc 4. The average elf does 1d8 damage -- so when hitting an orc, the elf has about a 50% chance of putting the orc down. When an orc hits an elf, the <i>lowest</i> damage the orc does puts the elf down. This differential is mathematically awesome. And in melee combat, orcs hit more often, too -- given the nature of battles, there's no real way that hand-to-hand combat can be avoided . . . unless you do fortifications, which elves seem loathe to do.

All other things being equal, bet on the orcs. However, all other things aren't equal . . . .

Just had to pipe in here. You're ignoring the elves superior ability at magic, as well as all around higher intelligence, willpower, and sheer personality. All this is going to have an effect on their strategy. Also, motivation comes into play. Elves generally aren't going around trying to conquer the orcs--the orcs are trying to conquer the elves. That means the orcs are going to have to fight on the elves home turf eventually, whether they want to or not. Guerella warfare anyone? And if the orcs set things on fire--well, the elves can just summon a fierce rainstorm, and that is that...

Which is generally the case. It's a few elves against hordes of orcs. The advantage is all orc. Maybe elves should have had those sheltered childhoods.

And rather sparsely populated Byzantium stood against hordes of barbarians for over a thousand years. They did so by knowing the best way to fight them, and making sure they forced the barbarians to fight on their terms. (Well, that and bribery, but I think the elves' ability to summon fiery death from above nicely replaces that...)

And lets remember something else about those orc hordes--they don't get along with each other. When the Bloody Fang tribe bumps into the Rotting Head tribe, they don't settle down for a nice long draught of orc spirits, and a hearty orc war song. No, they have a pitched battle, that leaves hundreds of orcs dead on both sides, and both tribes in a weakened state. Alliances between tribes are rare, and when they happen are generally temporary arrangements marked by double-dealing, and plotting. An orc tribe alliance usually presages either the absorption of one tribe by another, or the beginning of a long rivalry. We are not talking about a race with an overwhelming amount of love and trust, after all...

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: Dwarven Worker Unite

Dwarves, kind of traditionally, also have a serious, serious problem with greed. Unless we just wave our hand and make dwarvish lust for gold and such disappear, that would be a simple and almost reliable way to get dwarves to do morally and ethically questionable things. It also suggests that they're not precisely a worker's paradise down there.

But the greed of a dwarf is not usually self-motivated (at least not fully). It's usually clan-motivated. They want to acquire gold, weapons, etc. for the benefit of their clan/city/etc. This is why they are Lawful, because the benefit to the group means more than the benefit to self.

"Urlbag Lenninson" makes great sense, because a dwarf community could actually sustain communism in a large community. True Communism (like True Democracy) relies on the idea that given the option of being selfish and corrupt or doing their job properly, human beings will choose to do their job properly. This does not generally happen, because humans rationalize away the harm they are doing to distant others because the benefit to themselves is closer and, ultimately, more important to them. Dwarves don't have that problem. Every member of the clan is as important as themselves, including ones they hardly know or who live on the other side of the mountain. This is also why they make bad politicians. If all the people around you growing up are as important as you are, you're not going to learn to lie to them (an essential political skill).

So, 1) Their leaders don't lie to them. 2) Wealth is shared amongst the clan. 3) They actually love to work

Sounds like a worker's paradise to me.

Long discussion of orcish military superiority over Elves.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. D&D Elves (and Dwarves to a lesser extent) should have been wiped out entirely eons ago. The supposed need for game balance weakens them to the point that the history of most worlds no longer makes sense. In order for the historical perspective of Elves weathering the storm for centuries or eons against the "lesser" races, the average elf would have to be able to personally account for at least 10 humans or 50 orcs in battle. With the stats as they are, that's just not happening.

 

[Chrisling]

Just had to pipe in here. You're ignoring the elves superior ability at magic, as well as all around higher intelligence, willpower, and sheer personality. All this is going to have an effect on their strategy. Also, motivation comes into play. Elves generally aren't going around trying to conquer the orcs--the orcs are trying to conquer the elves. That means the orcs are going to have to fight on the elves home turf eventually, whether they want to or not. Guerella warfare anyone? And if the orcs set things on fire--well, the elves can just summon a fierce rainstorm, and that is that...

Actually, given that elves are no more prone to cooperating with each other than orcs are -- both are chaotic -- the superior intelligence, willpower and personality aren't precisely marks in their favor. They're more willful and self-important than orcs. Orcs are easier to dominate than elves.

And I'm not ignoring the magic. Like I said earlier, elvish magic supremacy isn't really supported in the rules. They don't have Int, Wis or Cha bonuses. Yes, in all these areas they're modestly better than orcs, but orcs are quite a bit better in fighting. Given that the orcs have huge numbers on their side . . . .

The picture becomes even more orc slanted if you include psionics in your game (as something like 2/3rd of people seem to). Since psions choose the ability that their PPs come from, orcs -- with their exceptional Strengths -- make extremely good egoist psions, and those are the sort of psions that heal people.

I also challenge that elves don't go around conquering orcs. In my reasonably broad gaming experience, the elves have attacked the orcs -- usually muttering something about pre-emptive strikes or preventitive war -- just about as often as the orcs have attacked other people. Indeed, as a gamer, I've attacked orcs <i>way</i> more often than orcs have attacked me.

Furthermore, if you're fighting on your home territory, <i>you've already lost</i>. It will be your fields, forests, towns and cities that will be burned. It is bad, bad, bad to fight a war in your own country.

And to address your particular point of using a rainstorm to kill the fire, well, uh, that will also work in orcish favor, you realize. Given the general physical power of the orcs, taking away longbows as their weapon forces things to go hand-to-hand where the orcs really shine.

And rather sparsely populated Byzantium stood against hordes of barbarians for over a thousand years. They did so by knowing the best way to fight them, and making sure they forced the barbarians to fight on their terms. (Well, that and bribery, but I think the elves' ability to summon fiery death from above nicely replaces that...)

And lets remember something else about those orc hordes--they don't get along with each other. When the Bloody Fang tribe bumps into the Rotting Head tribe, they don't settle down for a nice long draught of orc spirits, and a hearty orc war song. No, they have a pitched battle, that leaves hundreds of orcs dead on both sides, and both tribes in a weakened state. Alliances between tribes are rare, and when they happen are generally temporary arrangements marked by double-dealing, and plotting. An orc tribe alliance usually presages either the absorption of one tribe by another, or the beginning of a long rivalry. We are not talking about a race with an overwhelming amount of love and trust, after all...

Byzantine history is definitely interesting, because the Empire pretty continually shrank. I mean, y'know, that country doesn't exist, anymore. That's a pretty curious example if you're saying the elves are the Byzantines and the orcs are the barbarians.

Another interesting example of what happens when you put barbarians against an "enlightened" civilization is China. Repeatedly, China fell to the barbarians, be they Mongols or Manchurians. The only thing that saved Chinese civilization is the fact that the Chinese and the invaders were of the same species, really. When orcish civilization sweeps through elvish civilization, I wouldn't expect for that to be the case.

(Tho' you could have some <I>real</i> fascinating games with the long-lived orcs "civilizing" their orcish conquerers. I'm gonna do that one, some day.)

We must also remember that those <i>elves</i> don't get along with each other, either. They do not cooperate well with each other! They are <i>also</i> chaotic!

Furthermore, as I've consistently said, the constant warfare of the orcs probably works in their <i>advantage</i>. It's all they do. They fight, and the winners fight, and the winners of those fights fight, until the orc tribe with the most efficient military engine unifies the clans and they re-enact the Mongol Hordes sweeping from China to Egypt. The fact that orcish culture is constantly under intense strain <i>strengthens</i> it, not weakens it.

Just some thoughts, and often my tongue is in my cheek, here.

 

[Chrisling]

Re: Re: Re: Dwarven Worker Unite

But the greed of a dwarf is not usually self-motivated (at least not fully). It's usually clan-motivated. They want to acquire gold, weapons, etc. for the benefit of their clan/city/etc. This is why they are Lawful, because the benefit to the group means more than the benefit to self.

"Urlbag Lenninson" makes great sense, because a dwarf community could actually sustain communism in a large community. True Communism (like True Democracy) relies on the idea that given the option of being selfish and corrupt or doing their job properly, human beings will choose to do their job properly. This does not generally happen, because humans rationalize away the harm they are doing to distant others because the benefit to themselves is closer and, ultimately, more important to them. Dwarves don't have that problem. Every member of the clan is as important as themselves, including ones they hardly know or who live on the other side of the mountain. This is also why they make bad politicians. If all the people around you growing up are as important as you are, you're not going to learn to lie to them (an essential political skill).

So, 1) Their leaders don't lie to them. 2) Wealth is shared amongst the clan. 3) They actually love to work

Sounds like a worker's paradise to me.

I've never read anywhere that dwarvish greed is clan motivated -- not that particularly improves things. I mean, isn't greed for your clan's one of the prime motivating factors in <i>orcish</i> psychology?

I've never, ever grasped how a <i>clannish</i> culture can honestly be said to be lawful. I associate lawful with large bureaucracies, and centralization, not family governments in dispersal.

However, even if their greed is clannish, this will lead them to wars with other people in order to increase their clan's power. True communism is completely international and I strongly suspect it would also be interspecies -- in a fantasy setting, communists would not say "working dwarves of the world unite," they'd still say, "workers of the world unite." Including humans, elves, halflings, etc.

So long as there is greed, either for the self or the state, there will be classes. One group will conquer and dominate another group, creating class -- indeed, this is how class formed, when one group conquered another and put them to work for the benefit of the conquerers (which is all very standard Marxism and Hegelianism).

So, so long as there is greed, you have the motivation for conflict. Communism must be international and (I believe in a fantasy world) interspecies for it to be valid.