Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Whistledown 03-30-05, 02:15 PM	So I'm running a campaign where the players are Red Wizards. I'm going to re-create Conrad's Heart of Darkness as a 3-4 session mini-campaign. You can't find a better setting for a re-make than the Underdark. The plot is that a leader of an trade enclave way in the Underdark has gone bonkers (Kurtz) and set himself up as god amoungst some impressionable denizens. The characters are tasked with "sorting out" the situation and re-establishing the profitable trading post. I've read The Underdark and was suprised that there was no mention of Kobolds-- the closest thing is "goblinoids." I need a race to use as my "natives" and I'm thinking Grimlocks or Kobolds would be a good choice. Grimlocks because they are feral, Kobolds 'cause they are minors -- both could be manipulated easier than say Drow or Kuo-toa. Does anybody have any ideas to help me out? Which do you prefer as the "natives"-- Grimlocks or Kobolds or another race? cheers ! W
Oluevara 03-30-05, 02:16 PM	gee, this is racist...
Whistledown 03-30-05, 02:26 PM	gee, this is racist... actually, that's one of the classic conflicts about the book-- is Conrad's portrayal of the natives stereotypical or not-- does he infantalize the natives of the Congo? I don't know if you're serious, or not, but the Thayans are evil
Oluevara 03-30-05, 02:36 PM	i'm aware of the conflicts of Josef Conrad's fiction. Explicitly equating colonized Africans with, in your terms "feral," "minor," inhuman evil monsters strikes me as deeply problematic. Particularly given how skittish the WizO's are about equating faerunian cultures with actually existing ones. While the equation of red wizards with evil capitalist colonials is interesting, perhaps you need to consider what's at stake in where and upon whom you inscribe this analogy...
Faraer 03-30-05, 03:23 PM	D&D and Forgotten Realms 'races' and monster species are not the same as, or equivalent or analogous to, 'races' of humans. Kobolds are monsters, inherently evil and inferior to humans. As I posted to the rasalvatore.com boards, In Tolkien's cosmos, Elves are superior to Dwarves and Men, who are superior to Orcs. This is not racist, because these groups are not analogous to real-world ethnic groups (or, on the other hand, to species, either). They are an imaginative construct designed to tell stories and embody transcendent truths. (That is, these elements are not our-world things that happen to be fictional, but imaginative things that sometimes happen to resemble, sometimes only superficially, familiar our-world things.) In the Forgotten Realms, it also is not safe to speak casually of racism when referring to one character's thoughts about some race or other. (These are two different, though not entirely different, uses of the word 'race'!) It is quite rational and sane to be afraid of, and think ill of, demons and devils, or obviously inhuman monsters such as orcs or mind flayers. There is ambiguity, though, as to whether the drow are fundamentally demihumans (a kind of elf) or a monster race (as they were considered at least pre-Unearthed Arcana and The Crystal Shard); whether their evil is due to upbringing or their innate nature. Treating them as demihumans, negative responses to a drow could be considered racism, or similar to racism. But almost all drow are evil and will seek to murder you and your family, so how *should* you respond to one you meet? That's the framework under which I'd approach this subject.Particularly given how skittish the WizO's are about equating faerunian cultures with actually existing ones.Skittish? It just happens that WizO_BigSister is aware of the nature and design intent of the Realms with regard to Earth analogues.
Whistledown 03-30-05, 04:04 PM	He is making the same mistake that Conrad's critics make, only his is a little silly since we are talking about an imaginary world with true "good" and "evil." Conrad describes the situation of the Belgium colony but doesn't explicitly condemn it enough for some people, or else they take issue with his portrayal of africans, not grasping the subltle fact that Conrad is writing a european's viewpoint of africans. At any rate, I thought my question was simple enough? What's up with Kobolds in the Underdark?
Faraer 03-30-05, 04:13 PM	They're there; I don't have Underdark and don't know why they were omitted (though any 3E book is only as accurate as its authors and developers). Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark:Kobolds are short, lawful evil humanoids with scaly hides that range from dark, rusty brown to rusty black, and nonprehensile, ratlike tails. Although kobolds are little more than pests in the Realms Above, competing with gnomes for food and living space, in the Underdark they are a major threat. Kobolds can quickly strip a region of resources if their numbers remain unchecked. The more powerful races of the Underdark enslave many kobolds; they are used primarily as front-line troops in the initial skirmishes of any war. Urds, relatives of kobolds with leathery, batlike wings, are largely unknown in the Underdark. A few tribes were once found dwelling in great chasms beneath the earth, but most have fallen victim to more powerful competitors such as cloakers and beholders.Goblinoids should properly be goblinkin: the Goblin Races, all humanoids related to goblins -- orcs, hobgoblins, goblins, and by some accounts kobolds.
Oluevara 03-30-05, 06:27 PM	In the Forgotten Realms, it also is not safe to speak casually of racism when referring to one character's thoughts about some race or other. (These are two different, though not entirely different, uses of the word 'race'!) It is quite rational and sane to be afraid of, and think ill of, demons and devils, or obviously inhuman monsters such as orcs or mind flayers. There is ambiguity, though, as to whether the drow are fundamentally demihumans (a kind of elf) or a monster race (as they were considered at least pre-Unearthed Arcana and The Crystal Shard); whether their evil is due to upbringing or their innate nature. Treating them as demihumans, negative responses to a drow could be considered racism, or similar to racism. But almost all drow are evil and will seek to murder you and your family, so how *should* you respond to one you meet? I wasn't making the argument you're critiquing here. I am upset by the very deliberate insertion of a complex text about race, colonialism, capitalism, and empire into such a manichaean, black and white context. FR wasn't really built to accomodate things like racial formations or theorizing amiguities. The problem isn't that Whistledown is being racist against kobolds, or that he is drawing a parallel between kobold-red wizard interactions and 19th century european colonialism in central africa, the problem is that he is imposing horrible complexities on a system which values simplicity and fun as its guiding principles, something which trivializes and obscures the terrible violence and, to borrow a phrase from Conrad himself, "horror," of a very real history. He is making the same mistake that Conrad's critics make, only his is a little silly since we are talking about an imaginary world with true "good" and "evil." Conrad describes the situation of the Belgium colony but doesn't explicitly condemn it enough for some people, or else they take issue with his portrayal of africans, not grasping the subltle fact that Conrad is writing a european's viewpoint of africans. At any rate, I thought my question was simple enough? What's up with Kobolds in the Underdark? As i said, i'm fully aware of the many arguments surrounding Heart of Darkness. What you seem unwilling to consider is that Conrad's act of writing a European's viewpoint of Africans may in itself be racist, or that his own racism may infuse his narrative in ways which might seem unintentional or incidental. Faerun may be an imaginary world in which massacring large numbers of "others" need not be problematized in the least. Central Africa, or The Great Plains of what is now he united states, or Nahuatl-speaking Mesoamerica, or postcolonial Vietnam, however, are not Faerun. This, i suppose, is where i take umbrage. Also, you can, if you wish, address me in the second person -- i am fully capable of reading and understanding your argument. As for your question, i suspect one reason that Underdark did not deal much with kobolds is because their ubiquity is presumed and taken as a given.
Krash 03-30-05, 07:18 PM	Grimlocks. The ones in the North are devolved Uthgardt barbarians. See "Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark". -- George Krashos
Borris 03-30-05, 10:02 PM	Goblinoids should properly be goblinkin: the Goblin Races, all humanoids related to goblins -- orcs, hobgoblins, goblins, and by some accounts kobolds. Goblinoids include goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, and dekanter goblins. In terms of ancestry, kobolds and orcs don't have anything to do with goblinoids.
ericlboyd 03-30-05, 11:05 PM	Grimlocks. The ones in the North are devolved Uthgardt barbarians. See "Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark". -- George Krashos Yeah, but if I had it to do over again, there's a minor race in Races of Destiny that's perfect for the devolved humans who ventured into the Underdark. Also, regarding kobolds ... there was an "Elminster's Note" column a long time ago (Dragon #200 or thereabouts) that talked about kobolds of the Realms. The closest ones to your area of interest laired beneath the islands south of the Altumbel peninsula. There may also be a hint about this in Sea of Fallen Stars, although some of the islands have now received three different names (one in Dragon, one in SoFS, and one in UE). --Eric
Faraer 03-31-05, 10:04 AM	Goblinoids include goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, and dekanter goblins. In terms of ancestry, kobolds and orcs don't have anything to do with goblinoids.That's according to 3E sources, but other sources list kobolds as goblinkin: the obvious in-Realms explanation is that it's a matter of scholarly difference. "Elminster's Notebook: Kobold commotions" is in Dragon #216.
Whistledown 03-31-05, 10:58 AM	Ol. . . . Your mention of the "other" shows you clearly have some training in the issue, be it from reading Lacan, Focault or others. Surely you can see applying post-modern cultural theory, which grew out of our unique (and real) history doesn't really jive with a fantasy world? If I read you right, and let me know, your beef seems to be that I am making the D and D world too gray and moral. . . . . . . trust me, it's that kinda campaign and the players can handle it cheers b
Kuje31 03-31-05, 12:36 PM	BTW, FR has always been a world where there are shades of grey. It's better for it also. The lines of black and white really don't exist. :)
Alac Luin 03-31-05, 12:51 PM	Just one word. Quagloths (sp?)
Whistledown 03-31-05, 01:23 PM	What book are quagloths (sp?) in? :confused:
Alac Luin 03-31-05, 01:29 PM	Quaggoths (sorry for my misspelling) Detailed in Monsters of Faerun, and briefly mentioned in Underdark (pg20)
Arilou_skiff 03-31-05, 08:00 PM	inherently evil Actually kobolds aren't inherently evil, just mostly so. They are not devils or demons (born out of evil itself) nor Illithids or Eye Tyrants (possessed of odd diets or mindsets).
arrianna 04-01-05, 11:01 AM	Gibberlings....
Alac Luin 04-01-05, 06:31 PM	Gibberlings.... Have you ever tried to reason with a bunch of Gibberlings? :D
Gond 04-01-05, 06:37 PM	Drow have kobald slaves. Quite a few escaped. Just use that.