House Tharask:Naive? [Archive] - Wizards Community

House Tharask:Naive? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
ydirbut
06-22-05, 09:28 PM :confused:
In the Dragonshards request thread, somebody mentioned House Tharask being "naive", which is totally not the vibes i'm getting from them. I didn't want to clutter up that thread, so I decided to start a discussion about it.
The Fireballed Mage
06-22-05, 11:45 PM Not to toot my own horn (well, not much anyway), I've written up a few of the Houses, and Tharashk is one of the ones I've done.

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=442444

Nothing written there is canon, although I've tried not to conflict with material that is. In my view, they're not naive; more straighforward and 'simple' (as in unclutered), but not naive. They understand the role and uses of power as well as any other House.
okaynowa
06-23-05, 03:06 AM Tharashk may be the youngest of the Houses, but that just means it's been around for five centuries instead of ten. To put it in perspective, House Tharashk is about twice the age of the United States-- plenty of time to get wise. Being mainly orcs from the Shadow Marches, they may seem unsophisticated, but they're still an established, successful, international power.

PS-- The Fireballed Mage's write up is a really, really good interpretation.
ydirbut
06-23-05, 03:20 PM Excellent work, TBM
(Psi)SeveredHead
06-23-05, 09:03 PM I was under the impression that Tharask was quite new. Anyway, what happened 500 years ago? Was that the time of the Wars of the Marks?
ydirbut
06-26-05, 11:16 PM on page 241 of the ECS, at the bottom of the first column, it talks about how aspirants are the lowest rank, and initiates is the second. But on the next column, same paragraph, it talks about how initiates are the first rank, and asirants the second. Which one is right?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ydirbut 06-22-05, 09:28 PM	:confused: In the Dragonshards request thread, somebody mentioned House Tharask being "naive", which is totally not the vibes i'm getting from them. I didn't want to clutter up that thread, so I decided to start a discussion about it.
The Fireballed Mage 06-22-05, 11:45 PM	Not to toot my own horn (well, not much anyway), I've written up a few of the Houses, and Tharashk is one of the ones I've done. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=442444 Nothing written there is canon, although I've tried not to conflict with material that is. In my view, they're not naive; more straighforward and 'simple' (as in unclutered), but not naive. They understand the role and uses of power as well as any other House.
okaynowa 06-23-05, 03:06 AM	Tharashk may be the youngest of the Houses, but that just means it's been around for five centuries instead of ten. To put it in perspective, House Tharashk is about twice the age of the United States-- plenty of time to get wise. Being mainly orcs from the Shadow Marches, they may seem unsophisticated, but they're still an established, successful, international power. PS-- The Fireballed Mage's write up is a really, really good interpretation.
ydirbut 06-23-05, 03:20 PM	Excellent work, TBM
(Psi)SeveredHead 06-23-05, 09:03 PM	I was under the impression that Tharask was quite new. Anyway, what happened 500 years ago? Was that the time of the Wars of the Marks?
ydirbut 06-26-05, 11:16 PM	on page 241 of the ECS, at the bottom of the first column, it talks about how aspirants are the lowest rank, and initiates is the second. But on the next column, same paragraph, it talks about how initiates are the first rank, and asirants the second. Which one is right?