"Elves are not warlike by nature..." rant (spoilers)

[Orcish Shyde]

I'd say if anywhere, Ashevire is best shown as being evil in the backstory. I'd say that it shows something, if you are very happy that your son killed your husband.

1) Who is narrating the backstory?
2) It could show... that your husband was abusing you, mentally, physically, sexually, whatever, and you lacked the courage to do him in yourself.
3) It could show that you know your husband to be an incompetent fool who only did so much good for Wesnoth because you were manipulating him, and that your son is both smarter and more apt to listen to you.

[LemonTea]

I'd say if anywhere, Ashevire is best shown as being evil in the backstory. I'd say that it shows something, if you are very happy that your son killed your husband.

1) Who is narrating the backstory?
2) It could show... that your husband was abusing you, mentally, physically, sexually, whatever, and you lacked the courage to do him in yourself.
3) It could show that you know your husband to be an incompetent fool who only did so much good for Wesnoth because you were manipulating him, and that your son is both smarter and more apt to listen to you.

It could also mean the exact opposite.

Ok, we set up a civil court right now.

Orcish Shyde (Plaintiff) vs. Heir to the Throne (Defendant)

Yes, you are the plaintiff, because the HttT story already existed, and you are challenging it.

Now, neither side can give ANY evidence at all to support their claims. What does the court decide?

This court rules in favour of the defendant! Why, you say, but they didn't give any evidence either! Well, the actual responsibility to providing the evidence rests on the plaintiff. The defendant didn't decide to sue, so it's up to the PLAINTIFF to show that they have a case. You don't, as you have no evidence at all to back any of your claims. The defendant also doesn't, but they don't HAVE to show anything.

Case closed.

EDIT, but you have shown SOME evidence in Orcish Shyde vs. Wesnoth Unit Guide. I'm not sure whether it is upholding, however. Ask a real lawyer (preferably one who wears a suit).

[Orcish Shyde]

Ref Orcish Shyde VS Heir To The Throne: case understood; innocent until proven guilty. I just think HTTT doesn't completely fulfil the plot's potential that's all - as I said, I'd be as happy if they (or I; this is open source after all) made Asheviere an actually compelling villain as if they subscribed to my warped version of events.

As for Orcish Shyde VS The Manual, I've yet to see anyone cite campaign evidence against me. Would someone please step up as the manual's attorney?

[Limabean]

You think orcs are so warlike by nature, play Son of the Black-Eye - on average, orcs aren't much worse than the average human

Ok, i'll start with Son of the Black Eye, which btw is one of my favorite campaigns too. Well, we all agree that the humans started the war so most of the Orcs' killing is justified because its war. But there is that unnecesary killing that shows the personality.
How about scenario 2 or 3, Through the Mountains of Haag: Kapou'e's wolf rider suggests they just ignore the dwarves and go around. Kapou'e suggests they defeat the dwarves who, btw are just protecting their homes, and then "collect taxes" on the villages. I don't know what you think that means, but to me that implies murdering the poor innocents and pillaging all their posessions, just general nasty stuff. It's starting to sound like Kapou'e is almost "cruel by nature".

Now scenario 8, Silent Forest: Ok, now the orcs are fighting elves, which in itself is perfectly understandable. They also capture an elf and interrogate (maybe torture?). This is already way worse than what any of those loyalist heroes we've played as have done. I don't recall Konrad, Haldric, Deoric, or Gweddry participating in any torture scenes. Anyway, it just gets worse:

Code: Select all

        [message]
            description="Kapou'e"
            message= _ "Well folks, it looks like we have our work cut out for us. We must destroy this enclave."
        [/message]

        [message]
            speaker=second_unit
            message= _ "With pleasure. But what should I do with this guy?"
        [/message]

        [message]
            description="Kapou'e"
            message= _ "Behead him."
        [/message]

        [message]
            speaker=unit
            message= _ "Ahhhhh!"
        [/message]
    [/event]

At this point I ask myself: was that really necessary? I hate to tell you, but Kapou'e isn't really proving this biased manual witer wrong.

Now from scenario 14, Back Home:

Code: Select all

[message]
            description="Kapou'e"
            message= _ "WHAT! The human-worms and tree-shaggers have gone too far! BLOOD AND STEEL! I want every human and elf in this area slaughtered! Show no mercy or quarter!"
        [/message]

        [message]
            speaker=second_unit
            message= _ "What should I do with this one?"
        [/message]

        [message]
            description="Kapou'e"
            message= _ "Throw him in the lake. If he freezes to death, all the better."
        [/message]

pretty vicious eh?

Now your turn: find me one example of a human protagonist (Konrad, Gweddry, Deoric, Haldric) doing anything close to the same cruelty as Kapou'e.

[Orcish Shyde]

First things first

You think orcs are so warlike by nature, play Son of the Black-Eye - on average, orcs aren't much worse than the average human

I never said orcs weren't, on average, worse than the average human. Just that it's not by a lot. Nor did I say Kapou'e was nice. He's not particularly heroic, I acknowledge that - but I assure you, most of the heroes in campaigns are nicer than the average military leader.

How about scenario 2 or 3, Through the Mountains of Haag: Kapou'e's wolf rider suggests they just ignore the dwarves and go around. Kapou'e suggests they defeat the dwarves who, btw are just protecting their homes, and then "collect taxes" on the villages. I don't know what you think that means, but to me that implies murdering the poor innocents and pillaging all their posessions, just general nasty stuff. It's starting to sound like Kapou'e is almost "cruel by nature".

To me, "collecting taxes" implies intimidating the poor innocents into handing over their possessions without any actual violence involved - still not nice, but certainly not cruel. If the orcs were so naturally cruel Kapou'e wouldn't be using a euphemism for what he's doing to the villagers either - he'd be glorying in his crime.

Now scenario 8, Silent Forest: Ok, now the orcs are fighting elves, which in itself is perfectly understandable. They also capture an elf and interrogate (maybe torture?). This is already way worse than what any of those loyalist heroes we've played as have done. I don't recall Konrad, Haldric, Deoric, or Gweddry participating in any torture scenes.
Anyway, it just gets worse:

Code: Select all

        [message]
            description="Kapou'e"
            message= _ "Well folks, it looks like we have our work cut out for us. We must destroy this enclave."
        [/message]

        [message]
            speaker=second_unit
            message= _ "With pleasure. But what should I do with this guy?"
        [/message]

        [message]
            description="Kapou'e"
            message= _ "Behead him."
        [/message]

        [message]
            speaker=unit
            message= _ "Ahhhhh!"
        [/message]
    [/event]

At this point I ask myself: was that really necessary? I hate to tell you, but Kapou'e isn't really proving this biased manual witer wrong.

Yes, interrogating the elf is probably worse than any non-orcish hero, even Malin Keshar, has done- but they managed to pull off the interrogation within the space of Kapou'e's turn, in the middle of a battlefield, which sorta limits the methods they can use for torture. Not to mention Deoran, Konrad etc. never had a good reason to interrogate enemies, so they never got put to the test. As for beheading the elf, yes it's unnecessary, but we have no evidence that the elves would do any better to a captured orc - and as methods of killing a person go, beheading is actually pretty kind compared to, say, hanging by the neck from a tree, or carving them up and letting them die of blood loss, or beating or stoning them to death. Viciousness and cruelty are two different qualities; Kapou'e has so far displayed only the first.

Now from scenario 14, Back Home:

Code: Select all

[message]
            description="Kapou'e"
            message= _ "WHAT! The human-worms and tree-shaggers have gone too far! BLOOD AND STEEL! I want every human and elf in this area slaughtered! Show no mercy or quarter!"
        [/message]

        [message]
            speaker=second_unit
            message= _ "What should I do with this one?"
        [/message]

        [message]
            description="Kapou'e"
            message= _ "Throw him in the lake. If he freezes to death, all the better."
        [/message]

pretty vicious eh?

Bear in mind that this bit is written when Kapou'e has learned that the elves pointlessly murdered half the Great Council, who are not warriors and thus are strictly off the "justified by war" list of kills. The elves really HAVE gone too far at this point, and if you ask me, throwing their leader into a cold lake to drown and/or freeze is too good for him.

Now your turn: find me one example of a human protagonist (Konrad, Gweddry, Deoric, Haldric) doing anything close to the same cruelty as Kapou'e.

One example of a human protagonist doing something to the same degree of cruelty as Kapou'e...

1) Haldric's great betrayal of the elves is probably worse than any single thing Kapou'e does, condemning them to warfare with the orcs without his help. This has the mitigating factor that they absolutely deserved it, but so does the worst crime of Kapou'e's that you have mentioned.
2) Haldric also has the option to pointlessly kill Lady Outlaw (or attempt to pointlessly kill her; I chose to spare her and haven't tried the other option at all yet) in scenario 2, even though she's offering to join him - a much less justifiable position than having captured a prisoner or brought low the murderer of half the Great Council.
3) Haldric murdered a cave full of docile, contemplative trolls just because the elves told him to. (Troll Hole, by the way, is tied with NR's Stolen Gold for Worst Scenario Evarrrr if you ask me - if I wanted to fight troll spamming I'd try to become a forum moderator)
4) Konrad's murdering a Gryphon to steal her eggs so he can raise them in captivity probably counts; how would you feel if someone killed a human woman and took her babies to raise as his slaves? Since gryphons are outright stated to be sapient creatures like humans, my usual "it's an animal, man is superior" line doesn't apply, and even if it did they could have tried to take her alive.
5) (borderline) Gweddry's capturing and enslaving some ogres, if you chose to kill the Dark Sorcerer instead of the Orcish Warlord in the scenario before a river crossing. This is borderline as ogres are, by human standards, retards who happen to have the right vocal equipment to speak English. Hell, in The Crossing, the enemy orc leader asks if anything the ogre leader says makes any sense. When the species' average intelligence is comparable to low outliers of human intelligence, they could well be called dumb animals.

Further evidence that the orcs aren't all bad really comes in Kalun Black-Eye's backstory organising of the Great Horde, showing that these savages can actually join forces when it matters, and in the ending, when Kapou'e is able to lead them into a golden age implied to outlast him. Admittedly they'd never have managed it without their orcish messiah, but it was still an orc who gave this boon to them, not an elf or a troll - and Orcish Sovereigns, while rare, are also inevitably famous within their lifetime, so it's not like Kapou'e was the Great Horde's only hope for moral redemption (admittedly, he was their only hope for not getting brutally murdered by Lanbech, but that's beside the point).

The prosecution rests.

[Akkarin345]

Stop having a go at the Ogres lol!

Aren't we going a bit off topic here that we were talking about Elves and now we have moved onto campaign heroes?

I think we could safely say that a number of the descriptions do not 100% fit what we see, but they can't it would not be possible. You could write an essay about all the different sections through that ages of one race and say whether what they did was lawful/unlawful etc but who is really going to read all that?

Also could you tell me where this description of the Elves say they are not warlike. In 1.5.6 descritpion it doesn't say this as far as i can see, unless it says it in a unit description, and infact it says:

As a result, elves excel at archery, which is perhaps their most important methord of warfare.

Showing that by nature they are good at archery and they use this for war.

[Orcish Shyde]

This thread is a rant, it's allowed to veer off topic.

And now, the entries that offend by their inaccuracy:

Elves are not warlike by nature, but in times of need, their natural grace and agility serve them well, as does their skilful craftsmanship. An elf can grasp the basics of swordsmanship and archery in an uncannily short time, and put them to effective use on the battlefield.

The longetivity and natural intelligence of elves make them apt for military matters, enough even to counter their general distaste for such things.

The evidence does not support this; as I said, in the campaigns, elves choose war over peace several times. Even their betrayal of Haldric, on the face of it a delaying of elves entering war, is an example of this - they planned to feed Haldric to orcs and murder whoever came out alive, rather than negotiate with whoever came out alive, and they put off a squabble with the dwarves to attack Haldric's colonists without first thinking "negotiate".

[Akkarin345]

The Elvish Fighter :

I think what it means is the Elves were not originally war like but the troubled times has changed them. They put their archery and swordsmanship to ' effective use on the battlefield'

The Elvish Marshal:

They dislike war but they see it is necassary but are not warlike by nature, ( from the same description ) 'Certainly, on those rare occasions when an elf sets his mind to war ....


They are peaceful expect in self defence and it times of need for war.

[turin]

Well obviously that's what those descriptions mean. That's not his point. The issue is that those descriptions - with their implication that elves are naturally peaceful - is pretty obviously false, based on the campaigns themselves, which are the only necessarily accurate sources of information about the world of Wesnoth (descriptions can be biased, but the canonical campaigns are understood to be narrating actual events, and we can judge based on those events).

[Akkarin345]

Well we would only get to see them in warlike situations or self defence, in most books if it tells you something you assume it is correct. If the description say they are normaly peacful i don't see why any person would think contradictory as they would see they only act in times of need.

[TheGreatRings]

So its just a coincidence that the chaotic factions are undead, orcs, trolls, outlaws, and scary lizards? Hmmm, its been a while since i've seen any of those portrayed as the good guys in other fantasy things. Also, the necromancers and outlaws are humans so its not like they can see better in the dark than the loyalist humans. They are the same species.

It doesn't mean that you can see better in the dark, nessissarily. It means you fight better at night, which might apply to any faction who's actions were illegal, or that used tactics favoring stealth.

Also, the chaotic factions being those you listed above proves nothing. The undead I agree with, but orcs and trolls in Wesnoth are not orcs and trolls in The Lord of the Rings, and are not nessissarily evil, just members of a more warlike species or culture. Outlaws are not always the bad guys, in fact they have often fought for the supposed good guys. Their is nothing evil about being an outlaw, if the laws in question are unjust. And as for saurians, you assume they are evil because they are "scary lizards?" That, sir, is racism. Granted I have yet to see a good guy saurian in a mainline campaign (though they may exist, along with good orcs, in the add-ons), but that doesn't mean they are all born evil.

Now we can look at good old symbolism. Ask yourself: What do light and dark usually symbolize? Think Tolkien: Sauron lives in a black tower in the Black land which is defended by the black gate. He commands armies of orcs and trolls as well as the black riders. He also tries to become immortal, kind of like some other sorcerers I can think of. Also, think of Gandalf, the White Rider, nemesis of the black riders. Now look at wesnoth: There are Dark Adepts and Dark Sorcerers. What do their names suggest about their character? Is there any particular reason that all the necromancers parade around in black cloaks? Why don't we see any of them wearing lively happy colors?

Tolkien's symbollism is common, but not universal. Their are pleanty of good guys who wear black, and bad guys who wear other colours. What about Batman? He wears black, while the Joker wear lots of lively colours. What about the White Mages fighting for Ashevier? Unless you too believe that Ashevier was misunderstood.

As it happens I agree with you about the undead being evil, I just disagree that black inherrently equates to evil symbollically.

Now lets go on to orcs. I'll use the Wiki:

In appearance, orcs are half men and half beasts. They are taller, sturdier and stronger than humans. They are warlike, savage, and cruel by nature. Their blood is darker and thicker than that of normal humans and they have little care for personal hygiene or their personal appearance. Although Orcs are violent even among themselves creatures, they are pack-oriented; an orc never travels long or lives alone in groups smaller than half a dozen

So they look like their part animal. Big deal. No doubt some racists in Wesnoth would asume that this means they are half animal. Doesn't make it true. They are stronger, ok, you don't want to piss one off. But physical strength does not equate to evil. "Warlike, savage, and cruel by nature," well, if you said the same about humans you wouldn't be the first. But even if they are more violent on average, it doesn't mean they are all evil. "Their blood is darker..." Since when was the colour of one's blood proof of an evil nature, in Wesnoth any more than in the real world? And as for the rest, you could say the same with perfect validity about wolves or other pack hunters. Are wolves evil?

Wow, thats exactly how I would describe a good guy.
Half Beast, cruel by nature, dirty, savage and dark blood (more symbolism!?). Is that a typical descripion for a hero or a villain?

Face facts. Wesnoth has all the classic fantasy stereotypes of good and evil. Lawful represents all the degrees of good, chaotic represents all the degrees of evil.

First, even if you are completely right about orcs, saurians, and undead, their are mainline examples of outlaws fighting with the good guys. Kind of torpedos a hole in your argument doesn't it? Also, their are lawful characters portrayed as villains.

Their is no official statement from the developers, to my knowledge, that states that lawful/neutral/chaotic has anything to do intrinsically with morality. Until such a statement is released, we can only begin to aproach the subject by looking at the individual actions of the characters. In which case we see that their are lawful villains, and chaotic heros. Yes, its usually the other way around. But not always.

[Orcish Shyde]

Well we would only get to see them in warlike situations or self defence, in most books if it tells you something you assume it is correct. If the description say they are normaly peacful i don't see why any person would think contradictory as they would see they only act in times of need.

In most books you have encountered maybe, but by no means in all books. The manual is written by an in-universe scholar whose information is clouded by his point of view. Warhammer 40000 makes a point of this - the only canon information I know about that isn't clouded by the writer's POV and knowledge is the timeline in the 5th Ed rulebook, and that includes the entire rest of the rulebook's background material. It's never truly confirmed if the Mechanicum really don't know how their machinery works or are just perpetrating an aura of mysticism to awe the masses, and the Tau Empire, while on the face of it far more idealistic and benevolent than the Imperium of Man, has an oppressive, expansionist dictatorship literally just under the surface of the description. At least, it does for all beings that aren't Tau - including the subtle implication that one of their "friendly" races, the Vespid, are being mind-controlled by the Tau-made helmets their leaders are issued.
The Sceptre of Fire was one big case of elves being warlike for the hell of it; they had no need at all to pursue Rugnur. Then again it's presented as a legend being told. A better example would be The Hammer of Thursagan, where the elves - the perfectly normal, ordinary elves - try to murder all your dwarves and mages just for trying to travel along a road that goes through their forest. That's not "time of need emergency". That's warmongering.
HTTT also stands as an example that elves are warlike - Asheviere is clearly neither stupid, nor unwilling to make deals with her enemies. The pacifist thing to do when threatened by her would be to shoot for conditional surrender - she gets X trees a year plus the pretender and elves don't have to risk their lives in war. There's no indication that they even attempted this. Also, in the scenario where you're fighting two orc leaders and it's snowing, Kalenz - the "wise, non-warlike" elf lord - is trying to rush all your troops through the snow to reach the Sceptre, whereas Konrad - human, much younger, and generally a tad more hot-headed - wants them to rest through the harsh winter, and has Delfador's support in this.
The Eastern Invasion gives proof in the Xenophobia mission, where the local mainstream elves decide to kill you for no reason at all, not even considering the possibility of letting you fight their battle for them without their help.

Granted I have yet to see a good guy saurian in a mainline campaign (though they may exist, along with good orcs, in the add-ons), but that doesn't mean they are all born evil.

Introducing Inarix, of Son of the Black-Eye, a minor character who give troops to Kapou'e in return for protection. Not a nice Saurian, but certainly one of the good guys by comparison to Lanbec'h and his cronies.

[Limabean]

...................

ok, you win.
The topic isn't too important to me so I don't mind admitting defeat.
Just notice I left myself a little escape route in one of my posts:

Lawiful represents all the degrees of good, chaotic represents all the degrees of evil.

Really, I never said orcs or outlaws were pure evil, just that they are generally on the bad end of the spectrum.
So I guess I agree with you.

on average, orcs aren't much worse than the average human.

They aren't much worse, just a little.

[Thrawn]

I applaud orcish shyde for his actual looking into the wesnoth backstory, and showing the bias in it reminds me of turin and all back in the day, when people first tried unifying a history for wesnoth.

I actually just posted to say that

if I wanted to fight troll spamming I'd try to become a forum moderator

made me laugh... O_o

[roadkill]

Taking the stereotypical fantasy races and comparing then to wenoth still holds true in this case.

Elves are not warlike, but they do start wars, men don't understand the minds of elves and their actions may not make sense. But at the end of the day I don't see any evidence that indicates elves have started a fight purley because they were spoiling for one.

They may have started battles/wars out of what they believe to be the right path to allows their race to prosper in the long run, perhaps quelling a threat before it happens, this isn't neccesarily warlike or evil.

Haven't seen it depicted in wesnoth yet, but warlike (normally in the case of orcs). Means that even if there were peace, a leader would decide to go conquesting for fun. (using material gain as an excuse).