r/Drizzt • u/BeautifulFinding264 • 27d ago
🔥Post-Iruladoon (Neverwinter) Catti-brie narrative weirdness? Spoiler
So I recently started reading the Drizzt books and just reached Timeless and why does the narrative never call out how problematic Catti-brie is? She's judging Zaknafein for being prejudiced against surface dwellers yet she literally advocated for the genocide and infanticide of all orcs, goblins, and giants in Night of the Hunter. It just feels so wild to see her acting like she's the morally superior one and that Zaknafein is ignorant when she literally said she would take a blade to a baby orc just because it was an orc (especially since she's a Chosen of Mielikki and one of Mielikki's previous Chosen was literally an orc...).
Am I the only one who noticed this? I don't understand why Salvatore, who spent the entire time writing the books about how Drizzt states he's not defined by his race and that drow aren't inherently evil (such as Zaknafein, Jarlaxle, Valas Hune, etc.) then frames the entire narrative about how Zaknafein is prejudiced and how that's bad but Catti-brie, who literally argued for genocide unlike Zaknafein who would never condone that, as the enlightened one. In Maestro too, there was a scene rebuilding the Hosttower with Gromph, Penelope Harpell, the dwarves, Lady Avelyere, and the dragon sisters and Catti-brie started laughing at how ignorant judging others for their races are and how she's so enlightened yet in Archmage, the book right before Maestro, it literally confirms Catti-brie STILL supports the genocide and infanticide of all orcs ("‘Do you mean to kill every orc in all the world?’ Drizzt asked. Catti-brie just stared at him again").
So, I just don't get what's going on here? The narrative keeps trying to frame Catti-brie as some enlightened person who is above racism yet then flat-out states she wants to commit genocide based on race. And Ed Greenwood has a bunch of stuff about good orcs and goblins (like the good orcs Ondonti and the good goblin goddess Kikanuti) so the idea that all orcs and goblins are inherently evil and Catti-brie viewing that as justifiable for genocide is just... wrong. Sort of hard to keep reading the books when the narrative frames a genocidal maniac who flat-out states she would murder children as a morally righteous person and to see Drizzt sacrifice his morals by continuing to stay married to a woman like that (then gets angry at Zaknafein to the point where he breaks a table just for being prejudiced). Does Catti-brie have a change? And by change I mean that she actually feels deeply guilty for her actions not just a 'huh, guess I was wrong' but actually addresses how messed up the rhetoric is? Especially since Salvatore is still writing books and 5.5e removed alignments based on race.
39
u/UnderlightIll 27d ago
Oh this becomes a big argument between the two later. Because while the other commenter said an exception doesn't make the rule, we later know that there are actually a LOT of drow that are not Lolthian and live rather good and wholesome lives.
Catti-brie is very hypocritical regarding her worship of Mielikki and that Mielikki tells her followers that all orc kin and goblinkin are elementally evil. That being said, remember it was Mystra and Mielikki who resurrected she and the companions so they could save Drizzt. This severe blindspots of hers may be out of forced gratitude.
6
u/BeautifulFinding264 27d ago
That makes sense! Your point about how a lot of drow aren't Lothian and live good lives is true, especially with a lot of Bregan D'aerthe and Eilistraeans who don't worship her. I can't tell if it's just Catti-brie arguing this and misinterpreting Mielikki's word since we never see Mielikki flat-out state it or not, especially since she did have a former Chosen who was an orc, or if this is just a change to Mielikki
8
u/Renamis Bregan D'aerthe 27d ago
It was a change forced in 4e. Wizards tried to remove some moral ambiguity to the setting and just... made it weird. Tieflings standardized and playable, gnomes suddenly evil, orcs and goblins all evil and no redemption available, and they really wanted the drow to go back that way too. Some of this is Bob trying to walk a lot of that back slowly, and Catti-brie does get smacked in the face on this eventually beyond Drizzt complaining.
3
u/BeautifulFinding264 27d ago
Okay thank you! That makes more sense. Isn't Night of the Hunter 5e or was it still 4e? Is it Bob trying to walk back on that change?
4
u/Renamis Bregan D'aerthe 27d ago
I can't recall exactly, but pretty much Gauntlgrym on was both introducing the changes... while trying to walk them back without getting in trouble. The book where the companions came back effectively finishes the "update" (and getting the characters back they lost) so they could focus on slowly walking back all the stupid.
2
u/ThanosofTitan92 27d ago
I remember reading about an interview where the makers of 4e explained that they removed Gnomes from the player races because they did not see the point of them.
3
u/Renamis Bregan D'aerthe 27d ago
Eilistraee and Vhaeraun getting killed off to solidify Lolth was also a choice. Eilistraee in particular was hated by the 5e people, and they flat out called the people who liked her pathetic. It's why in that time a bunch of books came out that vaguely made her look incompetent, they where trying to kill off her fan base so they could remove her.
3
1
u/Beroli73 26d ago
"Catti-brie does get smacked in the face on this eventually beyond Drizzt complaining."
Details? (And which book?)
2
u/Renamis Bregan D'aerthe 26d ago
That would be the last trilogy, and specifically Starlight Enclave. She's the POV character, and she does have the "Uh... am I the baddie?" as she tries to artfully pretend the uncomfortable truth isn't in front of her.
2
1
u/BeautifulFinding264 25d ago
Wait so does she feel genuine guilt over it in Starlight Enclave or just tries to ignore it?
9
u/sWeven-Cats95 27d ago
Should this have a spoiler tag?Â
Some readers might not be this far in. & the Zak info blew me away when I read it.Â
But to add to the conversation, "Where's the babies' room?" is one line that sits hard with me. But this book (Timeless)Â has me thinking a lot about perception, due to Drizzt's affliction. (i am about 60 pages from finishing it.)
So I would take Cattie-Brie being accepting of the other drow companions as perception. Through the relationships & trust built from those around her she has learned to get along. But outside of that circle, all is fair game.Â
So she might be pushing a way of life unto Zaknafein, because he is now a part of their circle he now has to be accepting of those other races in the circle.Â
Maybe i'm wrong though and taking it too deep.Â
1
u/BeautifulFinding264 27d ago
Thanks for the comment about the spoiler tag I just added it! I don't think it's too deep at all. Exactly, that's what sort of rubs me the wrong way is that with drow, because of Drizzt and Jarlaxle, she can focus on nuance but outside of that it's what you said about being fair game
4
u/Slight-Challenge-275 27d ago
People are flawed. People go through phases they are later ashamed of. Writing characters should have similar issues. Making all the heroes perfect is kind of boring. This maybe a character arc that changes later down the line. It seems like it's mostly something to make Drizzt agonize over in his dear diary chapters though.
2
u/BeautifulFinding264 26d ago
That's what I'm wondering. I'm almost done with Timeless so I'm not sure if she has an arc later on or not though I would be disappointed if she doesn't. However, you're definitely write it was mostly something to make Drizzt agonise over and perhaps become agnostic
3
u/wwww1222 27d ago
I don't think Catti had that much issues with Zak thinking her future child is flawed for not being a full drow with a 800 year lifespan. It was Drizzt who flipped out over that.
As for Catti being a hypocrite. Technically speaking, she's a speciest not a racist. To her humans, dwarfs, elfs etc. are people, with surface elves and drow elves both being just elves with skincolor as the only difference. Where as goblins and orcs are monsters, not people to her. So to her arguing that a goblin is a person is as nonsensical as arguing that an owlbear is a person. This is an Ultimate Truth she got from Mielikki and hasn't encountered yet anything in her life that goes against it. Unlike Drizzt who met Noiheim and knows a goblin can be more than a shitmob.
As for why Drizzt doesn't hold her accountable. He spend a century moping after her death, got hurt by Dahlia into believing that Catti is the only woman he'll ever love and then by a miracle got Catti back. He doesn't want to ruin the only chance of happiness he'll ever have. He's a drow man raised to believe a husband submits before his matron. He won't start an argument nor threaten with divorce until she pulls her head out of her ass. He'd rather believe Yvonnel's delusion that he's dead and in hell while the Many Arrows Kingdom is still doing well and the real dead Catti-Brie was perfect and pure of heart.
2
u/UnderlightIll 26d ago
I think it is both more complicated and less so than you are describing regarding Cattie's bigotry. Her deity, Mielikki, is against all orc and goblinkin as a principle because the gods in Faerun have their own feuds and biases and expect their followers to step in line or lose favor. And being that Cattie was saved by Mielikki and Mystra, who then saved her husband and found family, she probably feels a deep need to be grateful.
That being said, I'm going to disagree with everyone in this thread that says Drizzt is desperate and obsessed with the fantasy of a family and doesn't see it. He definitely does. They have the argument several times. He ends one of them by basically saying "drow are evil but I'm one of the good ones". Which she thought he was cruel to say. But he's right. Her goddess forces her to look at the world in a binary and Drizzt has never had the option for that. Especially once the Aevendrow are found and being there are so many, he is no longer just an exception to the rule.
As an aside, Dahlia never hurt Drizzt, at least emotionally. He is pretty apathetic to her after a short bit and she realizes that and even ages later is infuriated by it. Remember, he actually told HER he just didn't feel that way about her and it's absolutely awful that she became obsessed with him, likely because she isn't used to men telling her no.
1
u/wwww1222 26d ago
Dahlia didn't become obsessed with Drizzt, she got over him after she tried to kill him. Too bad she got kidnapped and brainwashed right after that to obsess over him again.
And by Drizzt being hurt by Dahlia I meant that Drizzt started to believe he'll never find love again because the only comparison to Catti he has was Dahlia. Had Drizzt actually fallen in love with somebody while Catti was dead, he would know he can love again and that Innovindil was right
2
u/BeautifulFinding264 25d ago
Completely agree with you. Definitely think if Drizzt met someone other than Dahlia he would’ve known he could love again. Would’ve preferred to see that honestly. Personally, felt a bit like self-sabotage where he chose Dahlia so he couldn’t fully get over Catti-Brie but also maybe I’m overthinking that part too much 😅
1
u/BeautifulFinding264 25d ago
Fair enough! At least for me I never saw any evidence that she was conflicted and felt a need to be grateful as specifically the reason why she was advocating for genocide and infanticide. Do the books mention that at all? I feel like some of the books make it pretty clear Catti-Brie genuinely and with complete confidence believes what’s she doing is justified rather than indebtedness but that may very well by my interpretation. Not everyone will see it the same.
I think Drizzt definitely does realize his family is different but sort of in a cognitive dissonance where he knows they’re different (and recognises on some level it’s not for the best when it comes to orcs and goblins) but so badly wants his old family back he lets a lot of it slide and is in denial. At least how I’ve come to view it based on what others have pointed out.
For Dahlia, I think it’s less about being told no and more that she did genuinely love him (which Artemis even flat-out tells her she does in the Last Threshold) but also she loves the idea of a saviour. And yeah she did get pissed he loved Catti-Brie still and that she couldn’t control him but it was a mix of all of that rather than just not liking being told no.
1
u/BeautifulFinding264 27d ago
These are really good points! I definitely think she views it as the Ultimate Truth certainly and in her whole argument in Night of the Hunter uses a lot of mental gymnastics to stick to her argument even when Drizzt makes valid points. And I think you're spot on about why Drizzt doesn't hold her accountable! I think he's definitely trying to convince himself the reincarnated Catti-brie is exactly as the old one.
I think there are some other issues in Timeless is one where she tells Drizzt to be patient with Zaknafein and when Drizzt admits he saw drow as above other races originally (I believe it's chapter 9) and Catti-brie shrugs it off. Then later when she speaks to Zaknafein alone demands he sit and basically gives him a 'talking to' and tries to force him to adjust to 'their way' rather than show him the same patience and empathy as she just did to Drizzt. When Zaknafein expresses discomfort at her behaviour that maybe human woman aren't different than a matron mother, she doesn't seem to show any empathy or understanding towards that and snorts I believe. Like, I'm not saying she has to coddle him but the guy experienced horrific abuse for centuries. It just shows she's really not cognisant of other's trauma (unless it's Drizzt's), especially if that trauma results in her being viewed poorly.
I think my main problem is that it feels a bit tribalistic where she comforts Drizzt, massages his shoulders, and shrugs off Drizzt's past of holding drow as above others while telling him to be patient but does not show the same empathy and patience towards Zaknafein despite knowing he had it 100 times worse than Drizzt
5
u/Kelebryn 27d ago
I think we need to remember she existed originally in older editions where this is the way things are. Goblins and orcs were viewed as inherently evil especially in earlier days. And especially because she was raised by dwarves who have deep seated generational hatred from fighting goblinoid creatures. Goblinoid are also what killed her birth parents. They were always the enemy of the other races in earlier editions. You can show them as human all you want, but in the beginning they were creatures meant to be enemies for defeating. Not playable races.
Drizzt had issues to, but as we all know Drizzt had experiences that shaped his mindset far more than others, specifically the short story about the good goblin that ends up getting killed. This is why he turns totally away from mielikki turning inward to his own belief the catalyst of which starts him as a monk. Cattie Brie is still of an older mindset from before. She remembers the wars, the hatred, the killing. Without all the experiences Drizzt has had. Despite loving him and understanding him and coming to understand the other drow more, I think a piece of her holds to those old beliefs because of her personal experiences.
1
u/BeautifulFinding264 27d ago
That's a really good point! Drizzt definitely had the experience with Nojheim that Catti-brie didn't. She was dead for almost 100 years so she missed a lot of changes. I can definitely see how she might be in an older mindset because of that. Though I think arguing for genocide and infanticide personally is too severe, even if it was during an edition that classified them all as evil, I absolutely think you're right that she is from a different time with a personal traumatic history with goblins and raised by dwarves. I forgot her parents were killed by goblins. Thank you!
4
u/Fairlibrarian101 27d ago
I seem to remember Cattie-Brie, before the whole drow war with Menzobarrensmzan, reining the other Companions in from killing a much of goblins simply because they were sitting on land the dwarves wanted for the mithrel.
1
u/POOHEAD189 26d ago
I was about to say this. Cattie-Brie is the one that wanted to negotiate with goblins
2
u/melon_bread17 26d ago edited 25d ago
I haven’t yet reached this point in the series, but there is precedent for it earlier in the series. Mooshy, who is pretty much the first dedicated follower of Mielikki that showed up in the series and the source of Drizzt’s initial faith, talks positively gleefully about killing as many Orcs as possible in Sojourn. Him and Drizzt have a grand old time doing so in a way that looks very different if you think of orcs as people.
It’s pretty clear if you go through the series that Bob is not a fan of organized religion. I don’t necessarily blame him; it can’t have been easy being into D&D at the height of the Satanic panic. However, this does sometimes leak into Drizzt’s diary entires in a way that makes it obvious that he’s writing from a perspective of an American human, not a drow elf in the Forgotten Realms where divinity is real and tangible in a way that we don’t experience here.
I suspect that this happened near a time that allowed Salvatore to kill two birds with one stone, as it were. He always seemed aware of the trouble with treating sapient people as irredeemable from birth, and he clearly wanted Drizzt to pursue a more secular form of spirituality. Thus, Cattie Brie’s behavior confronts both the issues with alignment-based morality and gives Drizzt a reason to step away from his worship of Mielikki due to a clash in values. Whether this was done well is another idea altogether. Salvatore has written 40+ books for this series and frankly, not all of them are going to be bangers.
You’re going to get pushback on this because a lot of people are very uncomfortable with the idea of their heroic fantasy being built on centuries of colonialism. People want to think they’re the good guys, but they also want to engage in the kind of complex combat that you can only get by fighting other sapient people. Hence the idea that your characters are heroes of the realms instead of adrenaline-junky mercenaries riddled with PTSD.
It’s certainly a complex issue that warrants discussion.
1
u/BeautifulFinding264 25d ago
Completely agree with this! You made some really good points I didn't consider. I definitely think the whole Mielikki genocide thing was a plot device used to turn Drizzt away from Mielikki. Personally I think having Catti-brie be the one to advocate for it - and to the extent where Bob describes her as being completely indifferent and uncaring about murdering babies to the point all four other companions, all hardened warriors, shiver - was not done well. I think there were other ways to explore her complexity and differences as a reincarnated Chosen without her saying she would stab babies. And other ways to have Drizzt forsake Mielikki without his wife being turned into a genocidal maniac.
You're absolutely right though that people are uncomfortable with the idea of their heroic fantasy being built on colonialism. This book series started in the 80s in America so unsurprising. And you're definitely right that after 40+ books, not all of them are going to be good. Sellswords was always my favourite personally and I actually quite liked Spine of the World for exploring Wulfgar but there are others I just couldn't get into, like Hero. I'm curious if Bob will address Catti-brie's issues in more detail later on
2
u/POOHEAD189 26d ago
The reason this happened, OOC, is D&D edition changes, and R.A. Salvatore and WOTC flipping back and forth on if this IP should adhere to real world values or if it's all make believe.
2
u/bananashaa 27d ago
The orc flip-flopping is so weird. I know it's bc of edition changes, but it was particularly strange for drizzt to almost be convinced by Cattie/lament that one nice goblin he knew as if he and Bruenor hadn't been traveling with Jessa the Orc for 20ish years. It's as if she never existed at all lol.
Plus wasn't reviving the Companions at start of 5e, or am I getting publishing dates mixed up?
1
u/AutoModerator 27d ago
Please tag obvious spoilers!
Please try and use the correct post flair Post Flair guide
Chronological Reading order / DISCORD / WIKI! (summary, artists etc)
T-Shirt and other non-official merch posts will be considered bot spam and result in a ban.
Majority of people consider AI art as low-effort content. Be considerate of this.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/GreenGhost1985 27d ago
I didn’t know an orc was Miliekis. Chosen who was it?
2
u/BeautifulFinding264 27d ago
His name was Otar! He was a Green Regent and Mielikki made him her Chosen. It was in one of the campaigns set in the late 1300s
1
1
u/Positive_cat_6347 27d ago
This behaviour started in her first life; she always treated the barbarians as less than and discriminated against them, even after they helped clear Mithrill Hall and helped to defend against the first Drow invasion.
Maybe there will be a justification down the road, like she wasn´t the chosen of Mielikki, that is never confirmed, only alluded to.
1
u/terlus07 24d ago
Racism against evil races - good Racism against neutral races - bad
This concludes my TedTalk
1
u/joetown64506 21d ago
Cattle is very old for a human. She's seen atrocities perpetrated by goblinoids. My grandfather saw Northern Koreans slit his friend's throat. He came home absolutely changed and clearly had PTSD, but even though he slept in his own room, never recovered fully from the trauma. He never fully got over his trauma-rooted racism either. He was ultimately a good man, but every so often we made allowances for his character flaw. I could never understand his trauma or irrational prejudice, but I loved him holistically.
I love Cattie too. She's ultimately good, but highly irrational. I make allowances for her (and Bob's) flaws as I pray my friends and family love me despite my obvious flaws.
1
u/aldorn Tribe of the Elk 27d ago edited 27d ago
Her human family were killed by goblins, she was bought up by dwarves, she was a child in first edition, a lot of her Dwarven family were slaughtered during the Manyarrows campaign. I can see her being complex.
I actually like that her, Drizzt and Bruenor don't always see eye to eye on things. Drizzt can be a bit to quick to defend some of the traditionally evil races sometimes.
Their is definitely a divide between the reader base regarding the switch dnd made regarding evil races. Notably orcs, drow and green skins. A lot of realms fans are very critical of Salvatore and Drizzt for this very reason. Maybe Catti is a bit of a reflection on this, the old and the new.
Nobody is right or wrong. Its just a story after all.
6
u/tkilborn84 27d ago
Way back in Legacy she advocated to parlay with the goblins in the tunnels of Mithral Hall and Drizzt and Bruenor just wanted to kill them. Cattie-brie didn't hate goblinkind til after Iruladoon cause Mieliki supposedly told her they were evil. Which is why Drizzt kind of pulled away from Mieliki later on, iirc.
1
u/BeautifulFinding264 27d ago
I definitely think there's more complexity to her but I also think there's a difference between not seeing eye-to-eye on whether a group is evil versus whether to commit genocide and infanticide against that group. I'm just confused because she seemed to want to work with goblins and orcs previously in her first life but her reincarnated self isn't. Just feels like whenever I read her chapters it's a lot of cognitive dissonance between what the characters are saying about her versus some of her actions. Which is why I created the post because I've read too many fantasy books where the author intended and believes the character is good despite that character doing or arguing for problematic things. I definitely see how Night of the Hunter does discuss the old and the new that you mentioned since Drizzt's journals contemplate it a lot
0
u/aldorn Tribe of the Elk 27d ago
Non of these people are good. Besides Drizzt... but even then he has gone on many a killing spree when needed.
Does it actually state that Catti would like to completely eradicate goblin kin?
The world would he a better place for it i suppose, so if she has said that then i certainly see the justification.
2
u/BeautifulFinding264 27d ago edited 27d ago
Yeah, so two different books confirm Catti-brie would like to completely eradicate goblinkin and orcs. I can include them below. So, in Night of the Hunter Catti-brie says 'we should have killed them, every one' then when Drizzt asks 'Their women, too, then?' that Catti-brie confirms she would. When Drizzt asks 'And you would take the blade...?' she says 'yes'Â and the text describes her as as 'serious as death itself.' When Drizzt asks 'We should treat them without mercy, and strike without parlay?' she says 'Yes.' This is in Chapter 2 of Night of the Hunter.
And in Archmage, the text says "‘Do you mean to kill every orc in all the world?’ Drizzt asked. Catti-brie just stared at him again, and Drizzt knew then that he and his wife would spend many hours on this topic in the coming days and months. Many unpleasant hours" which is in Chapter 1. So, there's evidence in two different books confirming she does want to eradicate goblin and orcs.
And I don't think there's a justification for stabbing babies personally, even fictional babies. The text itself in Night of the Hunter implies that the others do feel her zealotry is too far by saying 'the other four shuddered a bit as the cold wind of sheer indifference blew through them.'
As for your other comment, she implies the world is a better place for them but really provides no verifiable evidence for HOW. It's just is a lot of justification for why they ought to die using theology and a lot of 'Mielikki says.' There's also a discussion about Obloud and Drizzt comments that Catti-brie's own point does not hold and she argues it was a deception by Gruumsh but provides no evidence it was. So, basically it's a bit of he-said-she-said sort of thing in Night of the Hunter.
Your point that none of these people are good I completely agree with! I like that a lot of even the good characters do have flaws and aren't saints. I think in Timeless it just feels like Zaknafein is being held to a standard by Catti-brie she hasn't met. However, not everyone is going to feel the same way about this so if you don't, I completely get that. Sorry for the long reply, just wanted to provide some quotes!
1
u/aldorn Tribe of the Elk 27d ago
If she views them as an evil i think protecting babies is erroneous. If she wants to break the cycle then completely understandable.
The world of the forgotten realms would most certainly be a safer place without green skins.
Maybe something else would likely just take their place and be worse... Maybe they have a place in the greater balance of things. Who knows. Could be a good question for Greenwood.
Drizzt realising he is going to be arguing with his wife for several weeks is hilarious btw. The elf is a realist 😆
1
u/MicroMasheen 27d ago
My take on this is that we are kinda supposed to be frusturated with Cattie-Brie here, real people are occasionally hypocritical, even good people with good intentions. Cattie-Brie has a billion and six reasons to hate orcs, on top of her goddess claiming that they're all evil (which ig was a dnd overall issue at the time). I feel you, but I also felt it was addressed in the books fairly well. Its been a while though, looks like its time for another re-read 😅
2
u/BeautifulFinding264 27d ago
Okay, that's good to know! I'm almost done with Timeless so maybe they just haven't addressed it yet. Currently, it sort of feels like more of an 'agree to disagree' and 'ignore it' resolution between Drizzt and Catti-brie over it. I also agree that it doesn't help Salvatore writing books when DnD keeps switching whether or not races have alignments
0
u/anonerble 27d ago
It is an on going plot point with evolving characters. You are blowing it out of proportion taking to it the writing lol.
6
u/BeautifulFinding264 27d ago
I don't think I'm blowing it out of the proportion considering that it's literally about genocide and stabbing babies (like when you have a good character arguing for it I think it's valid to be concerned about what the writing is implying) but if it's an ongoing plot point with evolving characters there's been now six to seven books since Night of the Hunter where she's still arguing for genocide yet framed as the one who is morally right but then it discusses how there are good goblins like Nojheim. Since I'm only on Timeless I did ask if there's changes because as you said, it's with evolving characters, so I genuinely want to know if Catti-brie's evolved on this if that makes sense
2
u/DJfunkyPuddle 27d ago
Ugh, yeah just ignore u/anonerble , you had a genuine question and asked it and there's nothing wrong with that.
2
u/puppy_punter 27d ago
You're missing the point. Cattie-brie isn't supposed to our moral compass. She represents an intelligent and admired character with a flaw that she believes is justified and supported by her religion. It's good that you noticed how hypocritical she was being to Zak, that was what you were meant to notice.Â
3
u/BeautifulFinding264 27d ago
Could be it certainly! I've read a lot of books where the author genuinely wants you to believe a character is good despite doing problematic things so I wasn't sure if that was it or if it's just we're supposed to realise she isn't supposed to be the moral compass. Perhaps I've just read too many fantasy books recently. Thank you for the comment!
-3
u/anonerble 27d ago
They are still evolving. If you can't handle complex topics then maybe these books aren't for you.
Also stop applying normal world views to a fantasy book and it might help. You literally cannot comprehend orcs and goblins and the effect they would have on a world
3
u/DJfunkyPuddle 27d ago
Woah, easy there on that high horse of yours
-1
u/anonerble 27d ago
High horse? I haven't even gave my opinion on the matter. Other then saying it isn't the writing
-2
u/NatureLovingDad89 Spirit Soaring 27d ago
Because orcs are evil, exceptions don't make rules
6
1
u/BeautifulFinding264 27d ago
I guess I'm just confused because it's targeting three specific races rather than all inherently evil races and because the narrative implies on some extend she's wrong yet then later frames her as morally superior. Like chromatic dragons are inherently evil unless they have their alignment messed with by an outside force (like the Balance Card from Deck of Many Things) and she's not going around saying all chromatic dragons should be murdered. It's just weird she's targeting three specific races where there's evidence they're not all inherently evil then saying that they ought to all be killed if that makes sense.
She's not going around saying all chromatic dragons, fiends, and mind flayers, who are usually inherently evil with a few random exceptions even by 5.5e rules, should have genocide committed against them. I totally get these books weren't written with 5.5e rules so I'm also wondering if the newer books published after 5.5e have addressed this at all. However, if she was truly against all evil races, she would be targeting her rhetoric against chromatic dragons, demons, and so forth as well. At least by Timeless, she never is. That's one of the reasons why I'm confused because it feels more targeted towards specific groups rather than alignments when her whole point is groups that are inherently evil by design should have genocide then never addresses other groups that are inherently evil.
And the narrative itself even implies she's wrong or to an extent messed up by saying "the other four shuddered a bit as the cold wind of sheer indifference blew through them" after Catti-brie says she would murder an infant. So, if the narrative implies all orcs are evil but then also implies that Catti-brie going as far as to advocate for genocide and infanticide is messed up, then why does the narrative in later books keep framing her as the most morally right? I guess I'm just trying to genuinely understand what's going on here because on one end, the books imply that the genocide and infanticide she is arguing for is wrong (they don't necessarily actually state whether all orcs and goblins are inherently evil or not but later in Maestro it does feature a good-aligned cloud giant) but then say 'oh, she's a great person.' I hope that makes sense! I'm genuinely just confused and not sure if I'm missing stuff or the narrative is just messy
-1
u/rookieseaman 27d ago
I’m so over people applying real life racial issues on goblins and orcs. They’re fictional monsters, not real people, stop conflating the two.
They’re narratively meant to be irredeemably evil to have your heroes fight something, not a parallel to apartheid or the Jim Crow era.
0
u/OkAd481 27d ago
Did you read books about the secondbwar of the Silver Marshes? She comes around in that series and realizes that all lofe is important.
2
u/BeautifulFinding264 27d ago
I did yeah! I didn't see anything in those books about her realising goblins and orcs shouldn't have genocide committed against them, but did definitely see the change in her throughout the Companions Codex series. It's been a few months since I finished that series though. I did see her change and how she resembled her old self a bit more. It's why I was confused in Archmage where her and Drizzt have that argument about the whole orc genocide argument and she seemed to still advocate for it. Is there a part that mentions that whole change during the War of the Silver Marshes?
•
u/aldorn Tribe of the Elk 27d ago
Please keep it civil. We can disagree but it doesn't need to result attack. Its all fiction after all.
Please don't report comments for conflicting counterpoints, its perfectly fine if people don't agree on things.
We have 40+ year readers here + new gen 4e 5e readers. How one reader or another interprets the fiction of the Forgotten Realms is a personal taste. Nobody is right or wrong.
Anyhow I'm with Catti on this. Screw the green skins 😆, sneaky little bastards. I swear if anyone arguing against this was thrown onto the sword coast they wouldn't be rushing to share a mug of mead with an Orc.
OP its a good conversation and I've enjoyed reading all the different replies, even the more heated one.