When does Verisimilitude break down?

[Orius]

Also, the "quote" between Shagrat and Gorbag that "proves" the orcs are long-lived is laughable. There is absolutely nothing in that exchange of dialogue that even suggests that either of them have any direct memory of Morgoth except under the most twisted and reaching of interpretations.

Morgoth, eh? FWIW, most of the immortal orc arguments I've seen regarding that quote say they're refurring to the Seige of Barad-dur at the end of the Second Age, not the Seige of Angband in the First.

I know very well the history of Tolkien's writings, although I haven't gone very deep into HoME. The simplest answer is that there is no real definitive answer, because Tolkien tried to massively overhaul the entire background and mythology of his world but died before he could finish it.

 

[Desdichado]

I've only ever heard it referred to in regards to the seige of the Eldar on Angband. Either way, it hardly needs to imply that either Shagrat or Gorbag personally remember any such times. Here's the two passages in question:

'But anyway, if it does go well, there should be a lot more room. What d'you say? -- if we get a chance, you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our own with a few trusty lads, somewhere where there's goot loot nice and handy, and no big bosses.'

'Ah!' said Shagrat. 'Like old times.'

'No one, no one has ever stuck a pin in Shelob before, as you should know well enough. There's no grief in that; but think -- there's someone loose hereabouts as is more dangerous than any other damned rebel that ever walked since the bad old times, since the Great Siege. Something has slipped.'

Nothing in either of those two passages leads me to believe that Shagrat and Gorbag have to be thousands of years old and remember anything at all personally.

Although looking over it again, I can't remember why I thought it referred to the current seige on Gondor, as it clearly seems to not do so. Oh, well. Nobody's memory is perfect, eh?

 

[William Ronald]

To me, there is nothing which seems to indicate that Shagrat and Gorbag are thousands of years old. Considering the orcish propensity for violenece, I doubt that even an immortal orcish race would have many members over a few hundred years of age.

Also, I took the reference to the Great Siege to be the siege of Barad-Dur. The orcs of Mordor and elsewhere would likely tell a lot of stories about those times which must be the stuff of their nightmares.

Getting back to the main topic, it would seem that a key ingredient in keeping a campaign very close to the real world is a strong limit on magic and monstrous creatures. This approach is typified by nemmerle and by Joshua Dyal, based on their statements.

SHARK seems to go with a world where magic and monstrous creatures are fairly commonplace. In such a world, people would likely find some way to adapt. Thus, the average NPC in such a world is higher level than in some other settings.

I think a common thread in both types of setting is that the "common man" is protected from various threats by armies and by heroes. The dynamics may be different in each type of setting, but there is that common thread. Historically, when a nation's army collapses, its populace is often subject to the attacks of that nation's enemies -- who often become the new lords of the land. (The Visigothic invasions of Italy come to mind as a good example of this type of scenario.)

I think believability depends in large part of how a world is set up and if it obeys its own internal logic. Setting the ground rules is perhaps the hardest part of creating a campaign. I have seen some high level campaigns work well, in large part, because of a good story and a good DM.

Note: As SHARK has been mentioned several times, I have left a few messages for him at his web site SHARK EMPIRE, although the site has been fairly quiet it seems.