Too many campaingns have you fighting orcs/undead.

[pyrophorus]

Regarding the elves, it is not known, as much about the elves' culture indeed was not told by Tolkien. But that it is not described does not mean that it does not exist in the first place.
About the orcs, yes, that's true; but that's a problem much bigger, as during the Third Age there also dwelled men (from Harad and Rhûn) in Mordor, especially when Sauron got all his armies. However, this is a subject unrelated to the general problem whether orcs eat; and I understood the books as if they ate raw meat, and even that of their own kindred.

You're reading Tolkien's works as if they were the description of some real world he discovered. If so, the map could be completed where 'white spots' remain. But Middle Earth is a fancy world, so what you say is pure nonsense. Since this is not described, it don't exist in any way: readers'imagination can fill the gap as usual, but this is not part of the book. The book itself is the only real thing we can speak of, not what it describes or what you have in mind about it.

Right, both decisions seem to be right – and that's exactly my point: You cannot say whether the people in Tolkien's work are either good or evil, but they always are a bit of both – some have more of the good side, some more of the bad one. Take for example the Maia (so, also a super-humanly creature) Saruman, who first was more good and later became more evil. However, even as he was evil, he could still be understood in his doings; and he even was still pitied by the fellowship.
Also, IIRC, Tolkien never said that the orcs were really evil, but that they were only used (as they have been "created" for), first by Melkor, and then later by Sauron. This might be wrong, though.
I still would like to hear your opinion on the part of my post you disregarded – the stories about the time before LotR took place. One just cannot say that the three Kinslayings of the Noldor were good in any way, which somehow defeats your point...

Here, you're applying your own good/evil ideas on the book. There's nothing wrong about your ideas, but the book tells something about good/evil too, not obviously the same as yours (and about this very part of the book, I don't think the point is about Galadriel's morality). IMO, it's much more interesting to read a book trying to discover what it really tells, instead of trying to find a confirmation of one's ideas. You're twisting both the book and what I wrote to resurrect contradiction: Saruman is not an elf, so what I said about elves don't apply to him, it should be obvious. And I didn't said there was no moral ambiguity in LotR characters in general, but only in orcs and elves (taptap said the same in previous post). I didn't said the main problem was to know if orcs and elves ate or not, but how they got their food and supply. More of that, your main arguments come from the Silmarillon which is not a Tolkien book, but a mere compilation of papers and notes collected by his heir. Maybe you could ask yourself why Tolkien didn't incorporate them in LotR ? Here you're just casting ideas as they come in your mind. That's not very respectful of your interlocutor, you know...

IMO, the problem in this thread is there is contradiction between Wesnoth game structure where all factions are equivalent (balanced), and the stories campaigns authors can build on it where ugly foes are needed. Any faction can technically play the role: many campaigns prove that. Each one has its own coherence, then of course the big picture results in "a tale full of sound and fury told by an idiot". In some campaigns, orcs are ugly evil guys who must be pitylessly crushed. In orcs campaigns, another faction(s) play(s) this role. This means one can't build a coherent description of any race or faction. Since it's not enforced by the game rules, orcs and elves can be anything you want: pure heroes or black fiends. But, since these types inherit more or less from LotR, where they're clearly aligned, orcs are much more often on the evil side. This shows in their pictures: elves look more handsome than orcs to most users.
There are many ways to avoid the contradiction (I think it's impossible to solve it). For instance, many players just ignore the stories: to them, there are no characters, only units. Others probably do like taptap, assuming any hero has his own different limited point of view which is not the whole truth. But I think he raises a good question: is anything acceptable in the name of relativism ? (he thinks clearly no, and I agree on this).

[Crendgrim]

You're reading Tolkien's works as if they were the description of some real world he discovered. If so, the map could be completed where 'white spots' remain. But Middle Earth is a fancy world, so what you say is pure nonsense. Since this is not described, it don't exist in any way: readers'imagination can fill the gap as usual, but this is not part of the book. The book itself is the only real thing we can speak of, not what it describes or what you have in mind about it.

What does a fancy world have to do with not telling about elves' agriculture? I don't really understand your point here.

More of that, your main arguments come from the Silmarillon which is not a Tolkien book, but a mere compilation of papers and notes collected by his heir. Maybe you could ask yourself why Tolkien didn't incorporate them in LotR ? Here you're just casting ideas as they come in your mind. That's not very respectful of your interlocutor, you know...

Whoa, whoa, stop there. That is plainly wrong. The Silmarillion is a Tolkien book, it is part of Tolkien's world exactly as LotR! Although Tolkien wanted to rewrite certain parts of it (and never got around to do so), he would not have changed the behavior of the sons of Feanor, and he would not have been able to edit out the kinslayings without breaking all lore, as LotR is based on what happened during the first two ages (and before that).
Actually, Tolkien planned to release the Silmarillion together with LotR, and just did not do so because of other people telling him that this would have been too much, and because he didn't complete his revision of the Silmarillion.
I think you're mistaking the Silmarillion here with the Books of Lost Tales (which are part of The History of Middle Earth), which indeed are only a collection of older drafts.

[pyrophorus]

I don't really understand your point here.

True... and not only this one. That's why I think it's better to stop here.
Friendly,

[taptap]

Well, there are eras that don't feature your classic orcs or undead and are pretty even handed among their factions and have well done campaigns. E.g. Era of Four Moons (= Panther Lord campaign) or to a lesser degree the Imperial Era (it has orcs but they feature rarely as a campaign enemy afaik). For people who need a change I would advise playing one of them instead of worrying endlessly about orc lore.

[AxalaraFlame]

Since undead and orcs are obviously evil, fighting them with high frenquency is reasonable. However, always fighting them is really boresome. Another kind of enemy which appears very often is the outlaws. Then come the trolls, nagas, saurians, ogres or some other foolish stuff.

I wonder if we don't fight orcs and undead what kind of enemy could we fight? The unfaithful human seperatist, unreasonable elves and dwarves who blackmail you gold when you pass through their land, winged volcano creatures, or clueless monsters?

[The_Other]

At the risk of releasing the worms from the aluminium prison to which they have so recently been confined.....

undead and orcs are obviously evil

Why?
I'm aware that this has already been discussed in this and other threads, but I still find it impossible to support the statement that "XXX is evil, because it just is".

Unpleasant? Definitely. Unnatural? Almost certainly (in the case of undead). But what precisely is it that guarantees that they must be evil?

[AxalaraFlame]

Why?
I'm aware that this has already been discussed in this and other threads, but I still find it impossible to support the statement that "XXX is evil, because it just is".

Unpleasant? Definitely. Unnatural? Almost certainly (in the case of undead). But what precisely is it that guarantees that they must be evil?

Oh yes...I realized that this statement is not very precise. I use "obviously", because undead and orcs are innately designed as evil units; this does not necessarily mean they must be evil. However, most people in the world of Irdya recongize them as the symbol of "evil" creatures, just naturally. So I don't think that is wrong. I just wonder what to fight if we don't have orcs and ndead to kill for fun?

[The_Other]

Looking at real-world history, people never seem to have much trouble finding enemies, even without having orcs or undead to pick on. I can imagine plenty of conflicts between humans and elves (perhaps over logging or even hunting rights in the Forest of XYZ), humans and dwarves (access to minerals in mountains that are technically within human borders), and especially rival groups within the same race (I still find it vaguely implausible that there is only one major human nation in the known world - or two, allowing for the Khalifate).

[AxalaraFlame]

Looking at real-world history, people never seem to have much trouble finding enemies, even without having orcs or undead to pick on. I can imagine plenty of conflicts between humans and elves (perhaps over logging or even hunting rights in the Forest of XYZ), humans and dwarves (access to minerals in mountains that are technically within human borders), and especially rival groups within the same race (I still find it vaguely implausible that there is only one major human nation in the known world - or two, allowing for the Khalifate).

Agreed. However, do you think it would be impossible to have so many conflicts against elves or dwarves? Since orcs are more warlike and always overestimate their own power, the conflicts between any comparatively peacelike races and orcs would be technically more frequent.

[The_Other]

That's probably true, but there's only so many variations of the same war. Just because humans fight orcs twenty times for every time they fight elves, I don't want to play 20 campaigns against orcs before I find one against elves.

[taptap]

Looking at real-world history, people never seem to have much trouble finding enemies, even without having orcs or undead to pick on. I can imagine plenty of conflicts between humans and elves (perhaps over logging or even hunting rights in the Forest of XYZ), humans and dwarves (access to minerals in mountains that are technically within human borders), and especially rival groups within the same race (I still find it vaguely implausible that there is only one major human nation in the known world - or two, allowing for the Khalifate).

Personally I found The Rise of Wesnoth really missed a chance in this respect - the conflict already started and then was subverted to troll and saurian killing. But faction != nation, though endlessly playing loyalist vs. loyalist matchups probably gets old very soon too.

[AxalaraFlame]

That's probably true, but there's only so many variations of the same war. Just because humans fight orcs twenty times for every time they fight elves, I don't want to play 20 campaigns against orcs before I find one against elves.

That's right. However, I think that kind of trouble comes from a bad tradition, from the very begining of all campaigns. Maybe kick out some human and elf campaigns (too many and that's enough!) and add few more mainline drake/troll/saurians/naga/undead/orc campaigns would be better. Let the players have multiple chance to fight different enemies, may be fair for all factions.

[taptap]

You're reading Tolkien's works as if they were the description of some real world he discovered. If so, the map could be completed where 'white spots' remain. But Middle Earth is a fancy world, so what you say is pure nonsense. Since this is not described, it don't exist in any way: readers'imagination can fill the gap as usual, but this is not part of the book. The book itself is the only real thing we can speak of, not what it describes or what you have in mind about it.

It is not the readers imagination but Frodo and Sam are wondering explicitly in LotR how Sauron feeds his armies - and the answer is given in the book by referring to the large tracts of land in southern Mordor where slaves labor on the fields and trade with lands further east - but which Frodo and Sam have not seen and can not know but we as readers who are told by the narrator can. Later on, it is mentioned that those slaves were set free by Aragorn and stay in this region.

[alluton]

Also it is when Merri and Pippin are captured by Uruks there is debate between orcs and uruks whether to eat bread or kill hobbits to get meat. So seems both bread and meat was eat-able. Tought orcs atleast didn't seem to be fancy about having bread.

[Telchin]

@taptap -I think the source of food for Mordor orcs was already mentioned b ythe Black Sword and by myself on the previous page. That said how did this thread devolved into discussion of where do Tolkien's orcs get bread?

Some random thought on how are some races depicted: The Saurian's Augur's description mentions that they use black magic. Now, it's true that they use cold magic for offense like DAs do. However, augur line are healers. How is healing black magic? Is it that just because Saurians are less pretty than humans, elves and mermaids that they magic must be evil? Do they make healing potions from blood of orphans or what?