Why the dwarves are not part of Luruar - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Why the dwarves are not part of Luruar

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
naex
Aug 27, 2008 5:35:23 I was looking over the Silver Marches supplement and the reason behind these stalwarts abandonment of the alliance came to me. The primary motivator behind the alliance was Alustriel, and upon her death, the council, already strained, fractured. The Dwarves, proud as always, felt that it was they who had forced Obould back and held his Orcs in the mountains. When the elves and humans on the council balked at the idea, the Dwarves decided that they would shed no more blood for those ungrateful members of their alliance, and so pulled out.
#2
rauric
Aug 27, 2008 6:44:12 After reading the Marches years ago I would say that most of the dwarves were putzs except for Mithril Hall. The book made them appear to be selfish and argumentitive and I alwaya made them neutral and not goodin my Nesme game. That is fine since it makes them more realistic and not some generic "Force for Good!"

I would get arguments on these board that good can act as the dwarves did but I always thought that was silly. If a ruler thinks the way they did in my game they become closer to neutral than anything else. That does not make them bad, just more real.
#3
keveras
Aug 27, 2008 6:54:46 The dwarven citadels always try to defend their own people first. But if they can't even defend themselves, why should they try to protect some elves and humans hundreds of miles away, who are not so much at risk as the dwarves are (due to their location)? So imho it's quite reasonable that they are no longer part of the alliance (though they still are allies ;))
#4
lord_donnachie
Aug 27, 2008 7:49:30 I didn't even see Fellbar on the big map. But I know it was mentioned in the book...
perhaps Fellbar was destyored by _____ and Adbar seeing this rethought the whole mutal assitance pact and is keeping troops close to home.

But really with the current conditions thru out the world and a "kingdom" of orcs on their doorstep they need to look out for their own...
#5
ChrisTheS
Aug 27, 2008 10:20:20 There's also that the humans have more to gain from more-or-less peaceful coexistence with the Kingdom of Many-Arrows than the dwarves (or rather, they have about equal to gain, but the dwarves have countless generations of racial hatred built up that prevents them from seeing the potential trade opportunities), so if the dwarves were part of the alliance it would destroy any chance of having a definite policy on the orcs (since one part of the alliance would be for reasonable dealings when possible and the other would advocate genocide even if treaty were a viable option).
#6
Charles_Phipps
Aug 27, 2008 10:37:09 Isn't the Kingdom of Many Arrows an enemy of the Silver Marches? Ironically, I think it's Mirthil Hall that is existing in an uneasy peace with them.
#7
lord_karsus
Aug 27, 2008 11:56:54 -Why? Because they smell, that's why!

-The friction between King Bruenor and Alustriel in The Orc King may or may not be relevant, being as we don't know why they just aren't listed because someone forget about the Dwarves, or because of some secret reason the designers know about, but haven't told us.
#8
lord_donnachie
Nov 12, 2008 9:05:39 I like my dwarves more N than good also
#9
davesaunders
Nov 12, 2008 11:46:28 I do the same thing. Dwarves are good people deep down to people they know and care about. For everyone else they are gruff and neutral towards. It takes a lot to get a dwarf as your friend to care about you.
#10
kerym_ammath
Nov 12, 2008 12:33:36 The reasons dwarves are not in the alliance. 1) Dwarves have a tendency to be isolationist in their worldview, preferring to keep to themselves, and making their own choices. They can choose to help, the choice is not made for them by some piece of paper. Likewise they can choose to not get involved if they feel it is folly. 2) Citadel Adbar at least has to deal partially with a resurgent Netheril, and with humanoids unaligned with Obould. Is Nesme going to send significant assistance to their aid? Probably not. 3) The dwarves probably feel that they would be sacrificing more than their fair share in this alliance, both in blood and gold. 4) The personalities who originated the alliance are long dead, and over the years things have slowly slid apart. This is not to say they will always remain so.
#11
Stigger
Nov 12, 2008 16:13:35 Mostly its because they're stinky and foul tempered, and no one really wants to hang out with them too much... ;)

Honestly though, the dwarven-human military alliance there never sat that well with me, so I'm kind of glad its over. Trade alliance, sure I could see that, but not military.
#12
markustay63
Nov 12, 2008 18:13:52 I'm going to have to side with LK (and Stigger) and this one - it's because they smell funny. :P
#13
Mr_Miscellany
Nov 15, 2008 3:24:59
When the elves and humans on the council balked at the idea, the Dwarves decided that they would shed no more blood for those ungrateful members of their alliance, and so pulled out.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

You have to wonder if there wasn't/isn't some abiding need in the Dwarves to consolidate their gains and just hunker down, especially with the progression of an orcish kingdom right at their doorstep.

That is, while the humans (and certain foolish elves) might want to pursue peace with the orcs, the dwarves in their stony hearts just know better.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the dwarves are secretly gearing up for a war they’re certain will come.
#14
msatran
Nov 15, 2008 12:36:36 In the Orc King it SAYS that Obould's son was ambitious and launched a new war after his death.
#15
markustay63
Nov 16, 2008 14:44:09 Yup - stupid decendents un-made a lot of the gains that Obould had made for his people.

I'm just not seeing that prologue in all of this, however. It seems more like it should have taken place soon after Obould, not after his decendents screwed everything up.

I had an idea for a fluff-piece based around that prologue, but then I never submitted it because I found out that the DDi was NOT taking fluff-only articles. In retrospect, it wouldn't have made a whole lot of sense now that we know how things turned out (which is that everything went back to the way it was - Yeeesh).
#16
brimstone_blackheart_dup
Nov 19, 2008 14:08:28 Rebuilding their strength to fight another day.
#17
creyzi4zb12
Nov 20, 2008 5:44:11
In the Orc King it SAYS that Obould's son was ambitious and launched a new war after his death.

Only thing that got me confused in the prologue, is why was Drizzt siding with the orcs.
#18
Stigger
Nov 20, 2008 5:51:22 Drizzt accidentally looked in the mirror, saw he was actually still a drow rather than a redeemed dark elf, and had little choice but to side with the evil orcs... it was his nature now sadly. ;) :D
#19
creyzi4zb12
Nov 20, 2008 6:12:59 I was thinking the opposite actually.
#20
brimstone_blackheart_dup
Nov 20, 2008 7:52:33 A Spellplague can do that to someone....
#21
rinonalyrna_fathomlin
Nov 20, 2008 9:51:49
Drizzt accidentally looked in the mirror, saw he was actually still a drow rather than a redeemed dark elf, and had little choice but to side with the evil orcs... it was his nature now sadly. ;) :D

Exactly. Drizzt wasn't "saved".
#22
Stigger
Nov 20, 2008 13:15:26 And predetermination rears its ugly head in the Realms...
#23
lord_karsus
Nov 20, 2008 13:22:19
In the Orc King it SAYS that Obould's son was ambitious and launched a new war after his death.

-The prologue, and the FRCG do indeed seem at odds, concerning the current state of diplomacy in the north.
#24
yakman
Nov 22, 2008 8:45:28 It's possible that Dwarfen membership in Luruar was built on the Dwarfen Lords relationship with Alustriel. With Alustriel gone, it's natural that the Dwarfs would go back to their own ways.
#25
lord_karsus
Nov 22, 2008 11:25:46 -Definitely possible. Though, if I recall, wasn't the new leader of Silverymoon one of her children? Let's see...Yes. Methrammar is the leader. Since that's the case, and he is her son after all, I would hope that that didn't lead to total diplomatic breakdown. Him being someone new, I mean.
#26
Stigger
Nov 22, 2008 13:53:34 Given what was said in Silver Marches, I would say it was more likely they left because they didn't get a shot at the throne... wasn't it supposed to shift around every seven years or something? I'm guessing that didn't happen for some reason and the dwarves got miffed, gathered up their toys, and went back to the citadel, so to speak.
#27
lord_karsus
Nov 22, 2008 14:07:33 -Many have noted that the "throne" of Silverymoon wasn't a monarchy, in that Alustriel's son/daughter would become the ruler of the city upon her demise.
#28
Stigger
Nov 22, 2008 14:18:04 Thought that dragon was her heir... oh well, not like I ever paid much attention to Silverymoon and the rest of the region.
#29
lord_karsus
Nov 22, 2008 14:50:59 -I didn't much, either. Never liked Silverymoon too much.

-But, yes, the ruler of the city wasn't necessarily passed on through ancestry. In this case, Methrammar became the Lord of Silverymoon right after Alustriel's passing. The mantle of leadership passed from mother to son. Without knowing the context, of course, because of the "loreshield", we can only speculate. But...
#30
rinonalyrna_fathomlin
Nov 24, 2008 12:51:40
Given what was said in Silver Marches, I would say it was more likely they left because they didn't get a shot at the throne... wasn't it supposed to shift around every seven years or something?

Yes, that's correct--the Silver Marches weren't "rule for life", and the throne wasn't supposed to be hereditary.
#31
creyzi4zb12
Nov 24, 2008 12:59:22
In the Orc King it SAYS that Obould's son was ambitious and launched a new war after his death.

Can any of you guys put in a quote from the novel about this? Because I think it was the other way around.
#32
yakman
Nov 30, 2008 12:59:09
Yes, that's correct--the Silver Marches weren't "rule for life", and the throne wasn't supposed to be hereditary.

Theory and Practice are different things.
#33
rinonalyrna_fathomlin
Dec 01, 2008 10:32:22
Theory and Practice are different things.

We aren't talking about a "theory", though, but an actual, specific law that was mentioned in the Silver Marches sourcebook.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 naex Aug 27, 2008 5:35:23	I was looking over the Silver Marches supplement and the reason behind these stalwarts abandonment of the alliance came to me. The primary motivator behind the alliance was Alustriel, and upon her death, the council, already strained, fractured. The Dwarves, proud as always, felt that it was they who had forced Obould back and held his Orcs in the mountains. When the elves and humans on the council balked at the idea, the Dwarves decided that they would shed no more blood for those ungrateful members of their alliance, and so pulled out.
#2 rauric Aug 27, 2008 6:44:12	After reading the Marches years ago I would say that most of the dwarves were putzs except for Mithril Hall. The book made them appear to be selfish and argumentitive and I alwaya made them neutral and not goodin my Nesme game. That is fine since it makes them more realistic and not some generic "Force for Good!" I would get arguments on these board that good can act as the dwarves did but I always thought that was silly. If a ruler thinks the way they did in my game they become closer to neutral than anything else. That does not make them bad, just more real.
#3 keveras Aug 27, 2008 6:54:46	The dwarven citadels always try to defend their own people first. But if they can't even defend themselves, why should they try to protect some elves and humans hundreds of miles away, who are not so much at risk as the dwarves are (due to their location)? So imho it's quite reasonable that they are no longer part of the alliance (though they still are allies ;))
#4 lord_donnachie Aug 27, 2008 7:49:30	I didn't even see Fellbar on the big map. But I know it was mentioned in the book... perhaps Fellbar was destyored by _____ and Adbar seeing this rethought the whole mutal assitance pact and is keeping troops close to home. But really with the current conditions thru out the world and a "kingdom" of orcs on their doorstep they need to look out for their own...
#5 ChrisTheS Aug 27, 2008 10:20:20	There's also that the humans have more to gain from more-or-less peaceful coexistence with the Kingdom of Many-Arrows than the dwarves (or rather, they have about equal to gain, but the dwarves have countless generations of racial hatred built up that prevents them from seeing the potential trade opportunities), so if the dwarves were part of the alliance it would destroy any chance of having a definite policy on the orcs (since one part of the alliance would be for reasonable dealings when possible and the other would advocate genocide even if treaty were a viable option).
#6 Charles_Phipps Aug 27, 2008 10:37:09	Isn't the Kingdom of Many Arrows an enemy of the Silver Marches? Ironically, I think it's Mirthil Hall that is existing in an uneasy peace with them.
#7 lord_karsus Aug 27, 2008 11:56:54	-Why? Because they smell, that's why! -The friction between King Bruenor and Alustriel in The Orc King may or may not be relevant, being as we don't know why they just aren't listed because someone forget about the Dwarves, or because of some secret reason the designers know about, but haven't told us.
#8 lord_donnachie Nov 12, 2008 9:05:39	I like my dwarves more N than good also
#9 davesaunders Nov 12, 2008 11:46:28	I do the same thing. Dwarves are good people deep down to people they know and care about. For everyone else they are gruff and neutral towards. It takes a lot to get a dwarf as your friend to care about you.
#10 kerym_ammath Nov 12, 2008 12:33:36	The reasons dwarves are not in the alliance. 1) Dwarves have a tendency to be isolationist in their worldview, preferring to keep to themselves, and making their own choices. They can choose to help, the choice is not made for them by some piece of paper. Likewise they can choose to not get involved if they feel it is folly. 2) Citadel Adbar at least has to deal partially with a resurgent Netheril, and with humanoids unaligned with Obould. Is Nesme going to send significant assistance to their aid? Probably not. 3) The dwarves probably feel that they would be sacrificing more than their fair share in this alliance, both in blood and gold. 4) The personalities who originated the alliance are long dead, and over the years things have slowly slid apart. This is not to say they will always remain so.
#11 Stigger Nov 12, 2008 16:13:35	Mostly its because they're stinky and foul tempered, and no one really wants to hang out with them too much... ;) Honestly though, the dwarven-human military alliance there never sat that well with me, so I'm kind of glad its over. Trade alliance, sure I could see that, but not military.
#12 markustay63 Nov 12, 2008 18:13:52	I'm going to have to side with LK (and Stigger) and this one - it's because they smell funny. :P
#13 Mr_Miscellany Nov 15, 2008 3:24:59	When the elves and humans on the council balked at the idea, the Dwarves decided that they would shed no more blood for those ungrateful members of their alliance, and so pulled out. That sounds pretty reasonable to me. You have to wonder if there wasn't/isn't some abiding need in the Dwarves to consolidate their gains and just hunker down, especially with the progression of an orcish kingdom right at their doorstep. That is, while the humans (and certain foolish elves) might want to pursue peace with the orcs, the dwarves in their stony hearts just know better. I wouldn’t be surprised if the dwarves are secretly gearing up for a war they’re certain will come.
#14 msatran Nov 15, 2008 12:36:36	In the Orc King it SAYS that Obould's son was ambitious and launched a new war after his death.
#15 markustay63 Nov 16, 2008 14:44:09	Yup - stupid decendents un-made a lot of the gains that Obould had made for his people. I'm just not seeing that prologue in all of this, however. It seems more like it should have taken place soon after Obould, not after his decendents screwed everything up. I had an idea for a fluff-piece based around that prologue, but then I never submitted it because I found out that the DDi was NOT taking fluff-only articles. In retrospect, it wouldn't have made a whole lot of sense now that we know how things turned out (which is that everything went back to the way it was - Yeeesh).
#16 brimstone_blackheart_dup Nov 19, 2008 14:08:28	Rebuilding their strength to fight another day.
#17 creyzi4zb12 Nov 20, 2008 5:44:11	In the Orc King it SAYS that Obould's son was ambitious and launched a new war after his death. Only thing that got me confused in the prologue, is why was Drizzt siding with the orcs.
#18 Stigger Nov 20, 2008 5:51:22	Drizzt accidentally looked in the mirror, saw he was actually still a drow rather than a redeemed dark elf, and had little choice but to side with the evil orcs... it was his nature now sadly. ;) :D
#19 creyzi4zb12 Nov 20, 2008 6:12:59	I was thinking the opposite actually.
#20 brimstone_blackheart_dup Nov 20, 2008 7:52:33	A Spellplague can do that to someone....
#21 rinonalyrna_fathomlin Nov 20, 2008 9:51:49	Drizzt accidentally looked in the mirror, saw he was actually still a drow rather than a redeemed dark elf, and had little choice but to side with the evil orcs... it was his nature now sadly. ;) :D Exactly. Drizzt wasn't "saved".
#22 Stigger Nov 20, 2008 13:15:26	And predetermination rears its ugly head in the Realms...
#23 lord_karsus Nov 20, 2008 13:22:19	In the Orc King it SAYS that Obould's son was ambitious and launched a new war after his death. -The prologue, and the FRCG do indeed seem at odds, concerning the current state of diplomacy in the north.
#24 yakman Nov 22, 2008 8:45:28	It's possible that Dwarfen membership in Luruar was built on the Dwarfen Lords relationship with Alustriel. With Alustriel gone, it's natural that the Dwarfs would go back to their own ways.
#25 lord_karsus Nov 22, 2008 11:25:46	-Definitely possible. Though, if I recall, wasn't the new leader of Silverymoon one of her children? Let's see...Yes. Methrammar is the leader. Since that's the case, and he is her son after all, I would hope that that didn't lead to total diplomatic breakdown. Him being someone new, I mean.
#26 Stigger Nov 22, 2008 13:53:34	Given what was said in Silver Marches, I would say it was more likely they left because they didn't get a shot at the throne... wasn't it supposed to shift around every seven years or something? I'm guessing that didn't happen for some reason and the dwarves got miffed, gathered up their toys, and went back to the citadel, so to speak.
#27 lord_karsus Nov 22, 2008 14:07:33	-Many have noted that the "throne" of Silverymoon wasn't a monarchy, in that Alustriel's son/daughter would become the ruler of the city upon her demise.
#28 Stigger Nov 22, 2008 14:18:04	Thought that dragon was her heir... oh well, not like I ever paid much attention to Silverymoon and the rest of the region.
#29 lord_karsus Nov 22, 2008 14:50:59	-I didn't much, either. Never liked Silverymoon too much. -But, yes, the ruler of the city wasn't necessarily passed on through ancestry. In this case, Methrammar became the Lord of Silverymoon right after Alustriel's passing. The mantle of leadership passed from mother to son. Without knowing the context, of course, because of the "loreshield", we can only speculate. But...
#30 rinonalyrna_fathomlin Nov 24, 2008 12:51:40	Given what was said in Silver Marches, I would say it was more likely they left because they didn't get a shot at the throne... wasn't it supposed to shift around every seven years or something? Yes, that's correct--the Silver Marches weren't "rule for life", and the throne wasn't supposed to be hereditary.
#31 creyzi4zb12 Nov 24, 2008 12:59:22	In the Orc King it SAYS that Obould's son was ambitious and launched a new war after his death. Can any of you guys put in a quote from the novel about this? Because I think it was the other way around.
#32 yakman Nov 30, 2008 12:59:09	Yes, that's correct--the Silver Marches weren't "rule for life", and the throne wasn't supposed to be hereditary. Theory and Practice are different things.
#33 rinonalyrna_fathomlin Dec 01, 2008 10:32:22	Theory and Practice are different things. We aren't talking about a "theory", though, but an actual, specific law that was mentioned in the Silver Marches sourcebook.