Jump to content


HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Trencher last won the day on October 7 2005

Trencher had the most liked content!


About Trencher

  • Rank
    Cosmically Powerful Superhero
  • Birthday 06/13/1975

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student of history

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well that is the point. People make up their own version of elves so it is okay to dislike them. Tolkien the creator of orcs were a World war one veteran. He saw the futility of total war and were naturally enough inclined to promote the idea that peace and kindness were the way for humanity to survive. I say this to put this notion in context: You can just as well see the strong as people who force others to adapt to them. Changing and adapting is not really about strength but about surviving. Which is the orcs weak spot. Orchish lives mean nothing to them. Victory for the dark lord and thereby themselves means all. Strength, aggression and violence are not ways for them to adapt their own culture (such as it is..) to better survive but to change other cultures and people into another state. These states being enslaved and dead respectively. Off course in epic fantasy based on a humanistic morality the morale of said stories are usually to show the futility of the orc (or equivalent) kill or be killed attitude. And the value of peace and kindness (like hobbits for instance). Many games and books show the inhuman conditions of the orcs warfare and the heavy toll it takes on themselves and how it lead to their doom. Very few epic fantasy promote the total war soloution that orcs represent. Usually they glorify the single warrior against many and or honor and chivalry in war. For instance showing mercy to conquered enemies are often shown to pay of at a later date. To take video games as an example the excellent video game "Shadow of Mordor" takes to be mild quite a lot of liberties with the lore of middle earth. However there is one thing that game gets right and that is to show of the hopelessness and futility of the orcish condition. The cost of their way of life. Both physically and psychologically. But there is another example seen in a recent world of warcraft cinematic. In it we meet an old cool looking orc who have doubts about war, especally the current one againt the heroic alliance which could really be avoided and are not fought in an way that appease the orchish sense of honor. (As in this game the orcs are a noble warrior race). He then meet an young and a naive troll who idolizes him, idolize war and are ready to fight for the honour of the horde. The old warrior orc is implied to know better. Then the troll dies infront of the warrior orc. AND THIS CONVINCE HIM TO FIGHT ON! And the cinematic shows this as a cool and heroic moment. War is the way. War is cool! Fight on! Dont quit! These are two approaches not only to war. But to the total war that orcs usually represent. The authors of the cinematic are trying really hard and doing a really good job at making unjust war seem like an honorable. The opposite of what orcs were intended to do. I think that some people are just attracted to that idea of total war and they try to it honorable and shown as the "only way". Off course they dont really want to do that. So story wise they often meet themselves in the door and have to make their warriors extra kind and sensitive like they have done with the world of warcraft orcs. From the first warcraft game orcs who looted pillaged and stabbed each other in the back up until to the warcraft movie where the orcs were just looking for a place to belong and raise their cute litte orc babies. Each version of the warcraft orcs are heaped on with more and more humanistic qualities while all the players want its to play tusked hulk and smash puny alliance humans. Its diffent wants and needs dragging the concept of the orc in different directions.
  2. True like most of the problems in dnd it can be laid at Gygax feet. Arnson were more palatable but he had also his own ideas about race. As for evil I figured people never talked about nor thought of themselves as evil. Off course since most dnd player think of evil pretty much as black plate armour, and being feared is cool. that went out of the window pretty early. Blunders like aligment languages did not help. Then you have pathfinder who are working around the clock to make lawful evil into the new good. They say lawful evil is actually people who are willing to sacrifice everything to make sure the law is upheld rather than sneaky sneaks who hide behind their law to do their evil deeds. And that the devils in the abyss is actually some kind of bullwark against the demons, ignoring that demons existed millennia before devils fell in most campaings and that demons dont have to crush hell before they invade the campaign world. Its just a bit of characterful background. Also TSR and wizards trying to milk the annoyance we gamers felt from being called satantistic by selling "books of darkness" and other crap to make the game look as occult as possible. Yes that is a good point. Elves was usually labeled as racist even though elves in the dungeon and dragons book were noted for hanging out in the forest and having parties. They were hippies not nazis. But still players on some level wanted them to be racist and their counter part the orcs to be freedom fighters. This is ironic since Tolkien created elves and orcs as two faces of the same coin. Elves were cultural one who loves nature, art and harmony. While orcs were the warlike ones who hates nature, loves technology especially weapons and wants to exterminate all the other races in the world. Both were the same race. Just two facets of the same culture. And since fantasy is closely related to fairy tales where evil is clearly marked by ugliness and good is clearly marked by innocence. The good elves were beautiful while the evil elves were ugly orcs. But dnd, warcraft and players in general wanted so much that the aggressive orcs who wanted to exterminate humanity and bring in the new era of the orc and Sauron (You cant stop progress!) to be on THEIR side and the "wussy" (peaceful) and "snooty" (cultural) elves to be their enemy. In psychology that is an easily recognized instinct some humans want to suck up to those who are more powerful than us and they want to attack and destroy those who are weaker than them. Its the same with Klingons, Stormtroopers and so on. Off course people dont want to admit that they are morally evasive so they invent stuff like they are racist or they hate us or something like that to explain their instinctual behavior. But in the end it is about this: Some players want to be on the side they perceive would win. Because in fantasy without our merry band of heroes the forces of evil would win. The point of fantasy is that small heroic bumps can topple a big cart of evil and give hope to humanity in an world where evil often win. But that does not speak to some peoples instincts they want to win and they want to win easy and fast and the fasted way to do so is to join the side with the biggest guys and the largest most organized army. Showing us that to some players the point of fantasy just go straight over their head.
  3. Aryan is ancient tribe of people from India. Hitler just stole the term togheter with the sun cross because he thought it was cool. Also you mean Aryan in the hitler term which means white not drow black, purple, grey, blue or whatever dnd use for drow skin now adays. Which makes no sense no matter from what angle I am looking at your argument in. Furthermore the evil of drows are because of their evil goddess and their matriarchal rule. Black matriarchs are not the same as the hitler youth. I seen this attitude in lots of players both online and off line. Orcs and other powerful aggressive conquering types are either misunderstood victims or cool warrior people worthy of admiration. While passive and contemplative races that spend most of their time in the woods drinking wine and doing poetry are seen as "actually" evil and hateful. And if the game designers take this into consideration and create evil elves for instance. (In rpgs now I think there are more evil elves concepts than good tbh) Then the players start to interpret the evil elves as either as cool misunderstood victims or bad ass warrior people worthy of admiration. It seems to be instinctual in some people. Anything that is threatening and coming after you, like orcs are bad ass alpha individuals that should be sucked up to. And everything that is passive, cultural and maybe a little bit feminine, like elves are looser victims that should be crushed, spat on and hated. And lets be honest here. there is more than a little bit of dislike of potentially gay and or the feminine woven in with elves hatred, maybe not that much at my table but certainly online. In my dnd campain back in the day I could not stand for such nonsense so I had one of the evil npcs high priest of the blood religion kill off the last elven tribes. So if you wanted to play an orc you could go test your steel on heavy dwarven infantry instead. Focused on macho ritualistic behavior of the orcs which most often the players would succeeded at but they could also fail at created an "on the edge" and slightly paranoid culture which gave the orcs a distinct flavor but also made the players aprichaite humanity and human culture more. Which to be honest is perhaps what orcs should be?
  4. Oh one more thing lol. Instead of fixing their main books Wizard are going to sell another book which tells players how to "fix" a problem wizards created in the first place LOL!
  5. Back in the day when my first game master showed me the dnd stats for "orc" and told me what it meant he said "and this is alignment. This orc is chaotic" then I asked "do all orcs have to be chaotic?" and he said "You can do as you want" And that was that. I never used the alignment system for races to any degree other than a vague suggestion. And I have never met any gamers who have. But I have met many who enjoy playing the misunderstood good member of an scary but powerful race of beings. Which is something I think dnd can hold on to for new editions of the game as the misunderstanding itself can apply to more than one. I really really get it when people fear that moral relativism will creep into their game. But the removal of the blanket statement of evil in game can actually aid the game master and players in creating real evil enemies and villains we can all love to hate. Evil will now be a choice which makes it extra morally justified to cut off the head of whatever entity that is looting the village.
  6. The hitler meme is from something disturbing too. Making disturbing things into jokes is a way to deal with it. The greedy merchant stereotype could fit in everywhere. In fact this is the first I heard of it as Jewish. Maybe it was because it was a such a weird alien that we did not see any human cultural traits in it.
  7. Speaking of listening to academics who both argue sense and have the experience and education to back it up. https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/potential-fraud-why-mail-elections-should-be-dead-letter Yet when you go to wikipeida he is labeled "alarmist" a vague yet threatening term that will create an emotional response rather than a rational one. There are off course nothing to back that accusation up except for some referrals to news sites and on those news sites gives nothing substantial. Off course there are a threat of unprecedented voter fraud if it goes all by mail. It is impossible to secure in any meaningful way. You would have every voter escort their letter to where its counted and then you could just show up to vote anyway
  8. Hopefully things will improve soon.
  9. Atleast they admit what they are and set themselves up for counter arguments that can be taken seriously.
  10. Ok I am done anyway I am going to go for a walk and have an ice cream. Sorry for getting ranty but there is a lot of negativity going around.
  11. Touche. But I will point out that there re some differences. I am just a guy on a forum he has a whole set up created by staff and designers to make him look like an authority on whatever subject he will talk about this time. And I am taken to task by you guys. While his program and his message is designed to have him be met by delighted laughter and clapping. Giving us the viewer a subconscious message of him being "the leader of the pack" and someone to be listened to. While my posts are an invitation to come up with some counter argument. What really really burns my hide though and why I get so angry at this smug douche is that he preys on peoples desire to feel smart. By saying things in a certain way and by presenting his joke as "laugh here to show that you are smart enough to get it" rather than being actually funny is very very annoying!
  12. No they do enough research to say whatever they want to imply, or what mood they want to create or what spiel they want to throw at you sound plausible but they are not journalists because they dont care about truth they only care about the SEMBLANCE of truth a veneer that they can sell to people who like to sound smart. And then you add the comedy as an convenient absolution of responsibility and you have a social disaster. It brought Donald Trump into the white house and it created the idea that every American lives in an action movie and no matter what you do it is justifiable because you are the hero. Communists have developed tactics for taking over academia using social pressure and exclusions to do so. Off course right wingers use the fact that there are communists in academia to discredit the idea of academia itself. Because they themselves are very often anti intellectual and want a society where knowledge is the purview of the rich and powerful and their chosen servants. This does not hamper the communists though if anything it helps them as it makes academia feel hunted by "the outside" making the environment ripe for indoctrination into the cult. Which is what communism is. Freedom of speech yes. Have voice yes. Be listened to yes. Be able to vote yes. Be given the benefit of trust when they are speaking from the position of being a minority of some kind and they speak from their perspective yes. Be allowed to dominate the conversation completely by pretending to be knowledgeable while making everything a cynical joke, avoiding intellectual responsibility and cultivate a veneer of trustworthyness to make your half truths and outright lies easier to swallow? NO!
  13. Half truths do have a kernel of truth. But by setting himself up as an authority in practice but not in a manner that makes him take any responsibility for what he is saying because he is "just a comedian" have a long term negative effect that cannot be ignored! Enough already! This guy can take his sanctimonious lying ass straight to hell for all I care! And you know who can join him? Those low brow but try to feign wisdom by saying the most obvious truisms guys who run the South Park show! Sure they are right about a lot of stuff just like this comedian but when everything is drenched in a cynical funny ha ha crap then you loose track of what is important, what is ideal and what is true and humane! To hell with them too! Even though I will admit they dont lie as much as that comedian dude. As for my anti communist spiel its based on a historic precedent.
  • Create New...