|
A lot of good points made previously. Particularly on fighting styles, interest surrounding Droskar, and the fact that the same boring cookie cutter dwarf is still the focus.
My brother and I play dwarves almost exclusively. And while we love traditionalist style play, adherence to the rules, avoiding radical house rules,(etc) we always challenge the status quo where character creation is concerned because its boring. I do not want to play a LG dwarven fighter who worships Torag. I've never had the desire.
But what deity should my Neutral Dwarf Rogue revere? He can choose tunnel fighter as a trait, he can choose trap spotter as a rogue, he can follow the rough basis for dwarven characteristics, but only up to a point. Why aren't there more feats for fighting in narrow tunnels with piercing weapons? An axe or warhammer is not suitable for that terrain. Why is the God(Goddess?) Dranngvit lawful? Vengeance hardly seems like a lawful endeavor in most cases, but would make for a great patron of an Inquisitor hunting down orc raiders, or drow assassins for a horrible crime against their people.
I'm with you on vengeance not being inherently lawful but in my mind I see the L part coming from the way Dwarves execute it. Think like Eberron where the dwarves basically were forced to formalize themselves into one cohesive unit or face extinction due to the constant inter-clan warfare or the book of grudges in Warhammer. Like I can totally see vengeance for many clans as something akin to going to small claims court where the dwarven victim and the accused state their case to the head of said church of vengeance and after much deliberation and investigation the dwarven judge (most likely a cleric or inquisitor) deems whether the vengeance has any legs to stand on and potentially how much time or resources they can commit to the endeavor. Basically it keeps the vengeful dwarves from annihilating each other into extinction.
These rules could even extend to other races like humanity or even the other underdark races like the drow and orcs. I would say that most of those other species wouldn't often show for said trials for their various reasons (the orcs probably wouldn't care, the drow just deny it, etc.) but those who do decide to show up may argue their case whatever it may be. Should said group not show up the case is heard with the offending party being tried in absentia. Should the offending party be found guilty the next stage is again to determine the amount of supplies and force the tribe may submit to the effort. This helps prevent the dwarves from going to war when a group of orc bandits raids a boarder town and kills a favored nephew and helps them discover when those random deaths in a clanhold is actually a drow assassin killing key members of the defense to prepare for an all out assault.
Inquisitors would function as both investigators and assassins. They are who the clergy sends out to investigate claims of the clients and to verify evidence, witness testimony, etc. After that they can also be hired by clans to execute their vengeance. This ensures that the job gets done in a manner approved of by the church and the claimant while at the same time is performed by a neutral third party whom is known for being impartial.
Now if said god/church is LN you can get some sway in corruption of the system with LE clerics & inquisitors looking to use these grudges and cases to fulfill their own ends. Meanwhile LG ones more likely to pick the options that help the good rather then what the law clearly states like trying to squash a solid case because the attacker unlawfully killed a high ranking official who dealt with drow in some vile manner but at the same time was keeping they and their dwarven clan in armistice.
Actually seeing vengeance as unlawful is quite modern concept.
In many societies taking revenge on the offender was not only allowed but expected, socially and even legally. Refusing to do so might resulted in loss of social standing and diminishing of offended one's legal status.
|
That all makes pretty good sense. Certainly the idea that dwarves could execute vengeance in a lawful and organized manner. But to me, the root idea of vengeance is in restoring a balance. Which is where the neutral portion comes in. I suppose its all in how you execute it. Its a response to a wrong done. So what if the wrong done involves the murder and burning of an entire city?
I have a feeling the dwarves wouldn't find the responsible party and kill them each in an organized, albeit brutal fashion. I think they would march to the culprits front door, smash it down, and commence to handing out the same business they received. To do otherwise wouldn't be vengeance. It would be justice. And while dwarves have a strong sense of justice, and its recognized as an integral part of their society and culture, vengeance is something totally different.
Seeking revenge almost cannot be a lawful endeavor. Vengeance is action spurred on by emotion. Justice is achieved through logical enforcement of rules, laws and regulation through force or threat of force. If I were a dwarven brewer, and a group of human bandits robbed the Inn & Brewery I operated along the underground road between Kolvar and Rolgrimmdur, The Five Kings Mountains would dispatch soldiers or guards to apprehend the humans and mete out justice. If I fled my Inn with remnants of my adventuring days, to include an axe and my old suit of chainmail, and then proceeded to hunt them down and kill them before my fellow dwarves could find them, I would have stolen justice from the dwarven people to seek retribution. I am no longer operating by the laws of the Five Kings Mountains. I am operating under my own need to inflict harm on the same people who have harmed me. That seems inherently unlawful.
My main argument is that they had a grand opportunity to step away from the narrow LG/NG/LN spectrum that dwarven deities exist in to give us something different (aside from Droskar). But they didn't. And while I like that they kept the traditional dwarf in tact, I still feel like Pathfinder would benefit from a few options that deviate from the norm, where dwarves are concerned.
|
|
That all makes pretty good sense. Certainly the idea that dwarves could execute vengeance in a lawful and organized manner. But to me, the root idea of vengeance is in restoring a balance. Which is where the neutral portion comes in. I suppose its all in how you execute it. Its a response to a wrong done. So what if the wrong done involves the murder and burning of an entire city?
I have a feeling the dwarves wouldn't find the responsible party and kill them each in an organized, albeit brutal fashion. I think they would march to the culprits front door, smash it down, and commence to handing out the same business they received. To do otherwise wouldn't be vengeance. It would be justice. And while dwarves have a strong sense of justice, and its recognized as an integral part of their society and culture, vengeance is something totally different.
Seeking revenge almost cannot be a lawful endeavor. Vengeance is action spurred on by emotion. Justice is achieved through logical enforcement of rules, laws and regulation through force or threat of force. If I were a dwarven brewer, and a group of human bandits robbed the Inn & Brewery I operated along the underground road between Kolvar and Rolgrimmdur, The Five Kings Mountains would dispatch soldiers or guards to apprehend the humans and mete out justice. If I fled my Inn with remnants of my adventuring days, to include an axe and my old suit of chainmail, and then proceeded to hunt them down and kill them before my fellow dwarves could find them, I would have stolen justice from the dwarven people to seek retribution. I am no longer operating by the laws of the Five Kings Mountains. I am operating under my own need to inflict harm on the same people who have harmed me. That seems inherently unlawful.
Actually I think you are applying modern societal/cultural concepts to anothers philosophy. In the aforementioned scenario said dwarf that would hunt down and kill the thieves would most likely have to then find a dwarven outpost as soon as possible and present his acts to the church who would then determine whether his acts are just. If found unjust he would most likely have to pay a fine to the disposed party or the church if those harmed cannot be repaid and move on. Think of this as something like classic germanic and nordic law which functioned around weregild. With the weregild system the act of murder wasn't what got you in trouble with the law, what got you in trouble was killing a man and being unable to pay the price for his life. The dwarves probably have a system like this in place as well. As for the difference between justice and vengeance I can be with you there in that vengeance is an emotional act but so is justice, we just approve of the latter more then the former.
Second though vengeance is emotional that doesn't mean it is uncontrollable, just like how in many other situations when one has emotions run high they can channel it into other avenues. This is called sublimation and is likely what the dwarves do. They take that vengeance and channel it into a plan to handle the situation like what punishment they feel fits the crime and with how they plan to execute it. Combine this with the societal and cultural laws in place within dwarven society and dwarves are pretty much trained and encouraged to do this "vengeful math" in order to figure out what level of revenge they can afford to commit against their attackers. This is also where inquisitors and assassins of the gods faith would become rather handy as they would offer their services to enact these sanctioned attacks for clients who require them, can afford them, and are incapable of meeting their vengeance needs themselves.
In summary I can be with you on the need for some alignment diversity amongst the dwarven pantheon but vengeance can be lawful. The best thing you can do is start adding some new gods to the mix or adding the worship of some of powerful outsiders into the mix like empyreal lords, or maybe even baphomet.
Maybe you could institutionalize vengeance? Let the officials apprehend the perpetrators and put them on trial. If they are found guilty and then sentenced, the aggrieved party may claim the right of punishment.
|
|
Maybe you could institutionalize vengeance? Let the officials apprehend the perpetrators and put them on trial. If they are found guilty and then sentenced, the aggrieved party may claim the right of punishment.
That is basically what I am espousing. I think the exact way in which they perform these trials will look a lot different from what we are used to in a lot of circumstances (the one being punished often tried in absentia with representation showing up, collecting their statements before or after, etc.) but it would basically be a trial to determine if the aggrieved
1.) has a right to his vengeance aka something actually happened to warrant the harsh beat down he's about to give
and
2.) How harsh the aggrieved can be in their retribution. The point of this trial is to calm the nerves of the victims and get life back to normal quickly, not escalate the violence. Therefore the cleric who presides over this determines where the too far line is and will dole out punishment should said party go to far. This also has the added benefit of keeping the original attacker from having too many allies aid him since they would be both fighting the law and would gain greater benefit should they obey the ruling and just catch the aggrieved going over the stated line.
Vengeance is a chaotic system. It is the chaotic society EQUIVALENT of justice. The justice system refers to a publicly known set of written laws that prescribes the punishment for various crimes the society doesn't like. In a chaotic society, i.e. one without a strong central power, things are far more fluid. Your social standing is regulated not by title, but by reputation, built up by your actions and contacts within said society. Even such a society has a need to prevent undesirable actions, and falls back on giving the aggrieved party a recognized right to "deal with the problem" without getting punished for it. The problems start in the next step. If this right is given to a powerful person, vengeance will be served and little can prevent it. If it is given to a powerless person, say, one without martial skills, family members and money, nothing will happen. The powerful people in such a setting will have strong incentives not to let this change, and will not support the emergence of a strong central authority. There may also be an escalation of vengeance, which could lead to wiping out entire families, and even such cultures tend to demand some limit to what can be meted out. Note that the principles of justice and vengeance are the same: Punishment, warning, shaping behaviour.
How does this relate to dwarves? Well, the classic dwarves are all for central authorities. They should have a strong tradition of justice... for crimes against SOCIETY. If you murder a dwarven soldier in the army, you have (whatever else) weakened the kingdom, and need to be punished. Treason, poisoning wells, starting fires, and so on go here. Next up is the general idea that dwarves have clans. Clan societies generally go with dowries, arranged marriages, and so on, but also provide several huge power players within society. Thus, there will also be crimes against a clan. Killing said soldier isn't JUST a crime against the society, but also demands punishment in some form for hurting his clan. THIS is where vengeance may enter into it. I would write it that these things were were-gild offenses, a fine to repay the work of the murdered. Pay that and everything is fine. However, if you do not pay, things get complicated. Dwarves are lawful, so they will decide carefully on it, generally in a clan council, after checking a family tree of the offender's clan.
The clan has lost the value of the were-gild. This does not mean they will necessarily kill the murderer, especially not if his value is far higher. That would risk a feud, meaning a corresponding new vengeance from the other clan. Instead, they will try to match the victim to the value of the murdered. Someone will be expected to kill the chosen person, or the aggrieved family will lose status. "They consider it okay to have their clan members killed" will be the general thought. This is quite enough for the chosen person to fight to the death for this. Note that dwarven society, with lots of people that live together for very long times, also fits this bill perfectly. If you live for three hundred years with someone, you have a very strong reason NOT to start conflicts with people, so you provide alternative systems, such as were-gild.
Next is what happens within the clans. Each family has power there, and murder within a clan would once again trigger this system, in approximately the same way. It is possible that the clan elders could choose to pay the family to forgo vengeance, to limit damage.
Finally, and this is what would make dwarves known as vengeful, dwarves would see outsiders committing crimes against dwarves as "outside the system". Since authority means king, clan or family, and an outsider has different such, the general choice is simple. The aggrieved party would come before the king and demand military intercession. The king then has a choice: Do this, and settling the issue that way through having protected his citizens, or don't. If he doesn't deal with it, he could invest the citizen with the right to do it himself. I.e., vengeance. With outsiders, the general, cautious rules would not apply since they are seen as fleeting, chaotic people, though someone could possibly choose to pay a were-gild, and this could be honoured, depending on the dwarf. A dwarven king would know the risks sending people out would entail, and might institute a policy that says "You go out those doors, you are on your own" to avoid it, of course.
This has gotten interesting fast. I think the problem here is that vengeance doesn't go well with the alignment system.
One of my favourite deities from Forgotten Realms was a Lawful Neutral deity of Vengeance. The main revenge deity of Golarion is Chaotic Neutral.
Hoar had a strong element of fate/karma, which would more metaphysically push it toward law. Calistria is far better aligned.
I am not sure how authentic the wall of text I wrote above is, but vengeance systems have been well described in the Icelandish sagas. The reason for it was that the only central authority the powerful families allowed was a council that could give recommendations and had no tools for enforcing their decisions.
One person I talked to was from a middle eastern clan society. Someone in his clan had killed someone from another clan, and since he was being judged to be worth about the same as the victim, the other clan was going to try to kill him, despite him having nothing to do with the murder.
Tolkiens dwarves were a combination of the dwarves of Norse/Germanic myth and inspiration from reading Jewish history.
Tolkien also elaborated on Jewish influence on his Dwarves in a letter: "I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue..." talking how they maintained their culture and society after being dispossessed of their homeland.
He mixed Anglo Saxon Runes and an analogue of a Semitic language influenced by Hebrew phonology to create Khuzdul his dwarven language.
The information given to us about the Dwarves of Golarion is extremely sparse. Most of my table top RP experience comes from Warhammer Role Play second edition which might have spoiled me. I am used to receiving language primers name tables slang and alphabets in my source books. Not to forget name tables calendar systems holidays and festivals and historic timelines.
Dwarves in Golarion are also lacking a distinct visual style to their clothing art and buildings. We see a few peeks of it in the source book but I would like to see a couple of pages with sketches.
Heck I think I might have to make my own OGL source book to flesh things out a little....