Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Voting is open
These days yes not every forest has spirits, but the world was more filled with fey in the woods four thousand years ago when chaos has less power and less chance to poison the deep woods.
If that's the case and the writers want us to feel the tragedy of such an act, then a simple rewording could convery that fact. "The Dwarfs cut down entire virgin forests full of spirits and slaughtered them all". Instead the wording is incredibly ambigous to the point that I can't be sure that spirits were even involved.

You can make all sorts of arguments to make it sound more reasonable and equate the atrocities with each other, but the book does a very bad job at conveying it with what's written.
 
If that's the case and the writers want us to feel the tragedy of such an act, then a simple rewording could convery that fact. "The Dwarfs cut down entire virgin forests full of spirits and slaughtered them all". Instead the wording is incredibly ambigous to the point that I can't be sure that spirits were even involved.

You can make all sorts of arguments to make it sound more reasonable and equate the atrocities with each other, but the book does a very bad job at conveying it with what's written.

Well the writers probably don't want to do that, they have a bit of a dwarf bias from what I see, though what they do to the High Elves pales to their treatment of the Asrai.

Whenever I read some of the really stupid-evil nonsense attributed to the wood elves, like staking peasants outside of caves for daemons to eat I have the urge to roll by eyes and go 'we get it GW hippies lead by queen bad, don't strain yourself with all that objectivity.'
 
Last edited:
Well the writers probably don't want to do that, they have a bit of a dwarf bias from what I see, though what they do to the High Elves pales to their treatment of the Asrai.

Whenever I read some of the really stupid-evil nonsense attributed to the wood elves, like staking peasants outside of caves for daemons to eat I have the urge to roll by eyes and go 'we get it GW hippies lead by queen bad, don't strain yourself with all that objectivity.'
That dwarf bias doesn't seem to extend to making them reasonable, as they keep reiterating how ridiculous their grudge system is. Boney seriously toned it down to create a more reasonable society and more relatable characters.
 
That dwarf bias doesn't seem to extend to making them reasonable, as they keep reiterating how ridiculous their grudge system is. Boney seriously toned it down to create a more reasonable society and more relatable characters.

Oh yeah dwarfs in the Army Books get painted as insane often, but they still come off more lightly than the wood elves because it is a pitiable form of insane
 
I would remind you all that the Dwarfs have systematized the transformation of sapient beings into weapons and armor of war.

Or have we forgotten how many of their perfidious runes require Dragon blood? How they have turned the Shard Dragons into janissaries through their runic collars? And I'm certain there's more I'm forgetting to mention since this is just off the top of my head.

Those whose axes are fed by the blood of drakes have no right to complain when their beards are taken.
 
Whenever I read some of the really stupid-evil nonsense attributed to the wood elves, like staking peasants outside of caves for daemons to eat I have the urge to roll by eyes and go 'we get it GW hippies lead by queen bad, don't strain yourself with all that objectivity.'
Also, I want to make a point. I am very aware of how mysoginistic GW can tend to be, I've mentioned the distasteful myths that are constantly attributed to the Elven pantheon and I'm sure there's plenty of stuff we can point to, but in this case at least I'm not so sure that "led by queen" is an important factor here.

The reason I say this is that Ariel isn't actually that bad, especially before she was transformed by Dark Magic. The guy who's leading Wild Hunts and ripping humans apart for sport is Orion, and yes Ariel doesn't really stop him, but he's the guy who loves hunting down and torturing humans to prevent them from "desecrating the forest".
I would remind you all that the Dwarfs have systematized the transformation of sapient beings into weapons and armor of war.

Or have we forgotten how many of their perfidious runes require Dragon blood? How they have turned the Shard Dragons into janissaries through their runic collars? And I'm certain there's more I'm forgetting to mention since this is just off the top of my head.

Those whose axes are fed by the blood of drakes have no right to complain when their beards are taken.
Should Mathilde be humiliated and tortured for using a Dragonbone Staff? What about the robes of drake scale she's wearing? Should she be killed for wearing that?
 
Should Mathilde be humiliated and tortured for using a Dragonbone Staff? What about the robes of drake scale she's wearing? Should she be killed for wearing that?
Oh no. But she wouldn't have much room to complain if she stumbled on somebody who made a sword out of human bone or something since she's already started it, in much the same way the Dwarfs have no room to complain about people using their beards as cloaks considering they're running around using bits and bobs of Ulthuan's and others dragons as armor and weapons. Either using parts from sapient beings to make stuff is cool or it's not, but the Dwarfs want to have it both ways.
 
If 8th Edition is trying to make me feel like both committed atrocities of equal horrificness, then they failed to make me feel that way. Maybe I don't care about the environment enough, but poisoning the water supply and feigning surrender seems worse to me than cutting down trees and completely destroying fortifications.
Given how dependent elves (at least Wood Elf precursors) are on forests the approximately equivalent war crime would be destroying crops/food sources. That basically rounds it out too, with attacking civilian populations, destroying crops/farmland, false surrenders, and chemical weapons all represented on one side or another.
 
Those whose axes are fed by the blood of drakes have no right to complain when their beards are taken.
Reminder that the harming of envoys is generally a severe breach of diplomatic etiquette. We all know you love to harp on that, but consider in a similar circumstance if an envoy with religious garb got theirs taken off by their supposed host. Seriously, there is room to consider more things leading up to the war, with the beard thing just being like the shots in Sarejavo.

Oh no. But she wouldn't have much room to complain if she stumbled on somebody who made a sword out of human bone or something since she's already started it, in much the same way the Dwarfs have no room to complain about people using their beards as cloaks considering they're running around using bits and bobs of Ulthuan's and others dragons as armor and weapons. Either using parts from sapient beings to make stuff is cool or it's not, but the Dwarfs want to have it both ways.
Let's not start an atrocity measuring contest. All dwarven participants in the war are now long dead, let's not lump their descendants into this. And I am apt to believe elves might have done more than just shaving and beard cloaks, the war was to big for only that to happen.
 
Oh no. But she wouldn't have much room to complain if she stumbled on somebody who made a sword out of human bone or something since she's already started it, in much the same way the Dwarfs have no room to complain about people using their beards as cloaks considering they're running around using bits and bobs of Ulthuan's and others dragons as armor and weapons. Either using parts from sapient beings to make stuff is cool or it's not, but the Dwarfs want to have it both ways.

Yeah basically, if that staff is fine then the Cloak of Beards is too... man it would be hilarious to hear someone make this argument to a dwarf in character. :V
 
Oh no. But she wouldn't have much room to complain if she stumbled on somebody who made a sword out of human bone or something since she's already started it, in much the same way the Dwarfs have no room to complain about people using their beards as cloaks considering they're running around using bits and bobs of Ulthuan's and others dragons as armor and weapons. Either using parts from sapient beings to make stuff is cool or it's not, but the Dwarfs want to have it both ways.
I checked to confirm if Dwarfs have used the corpses of Ulthuani Dragons as materials, and I've come up blank. The closest thing I've found is them weaponising melted down Silver Helms, which are pieces of equipment.

The Dwarfs do use materials from dragons, but it just so happens that none of these dragons are Ulthuani and therefore aren't a part of their polity. If Elves are getting mad at Dwarfs for killing non Ulthuan dragons that are attacking their holds and using their corpses as materials, it'd be like them getting mad that the Dwarfs are killing Druchii that are attacking them. Not every dragon is from Ulthuan, and the Dwarfs have yet to make an Ulthuani Dragon artifcat.

It should also be mentioned that Elves still add to the Cloak of Beards today, which is a different scenario than it being something from a bygone era.
 
How they have turned the Shard Dragons into janissaries through their runic collars?
Slight nitpick, but I'm pretty sure Shard Dragons, despite the name, are not sapient. Certainly, I couldn't find any mention of such being the case. And I'm dubious of the notion, given that in every encounter described, by any race that has delved underground and had one burst into their tunnels, they start ripping and tearing into anything living in sight, and only ever withdraw when their stomachs are too full to keep eating.
 
I checked to confirm if Dwarfs have used the corpses of Ulthuani Dragons as materials, and I've come up blank. The closest thing I've found is them weaponising melted down Silver Helms, which are pieces of equipment.

The Dwarfs do use materials from dragons, but it just so happens that none of these dragons are Ulthuani and therefore aren't a part of their polity. If Elves are getting mad at Dwarfs for killing non Ulthuan dragons that are attacking their holds and using their corpses as materials, it'd be like them getting mad that the Dwarfs are killing Druchii that are attacking them. Not every dragon is from Ulthuan, and the Dwarfs have yet to make an Ulthuani Dragon artifcat.

It should also be mentioned that Elves still add to the Cloak of Beards today, which is a different scenario than it being something from a bygone era.

As far as I know all dragons are just as sapient so using their bones is morally equivalent even if it is not a political tit for tat.

That said everyone involved in this is bar like a handful of elves is dead so there isn't much point to decide who has the high score for atrocities during the Golden Age or the War that followed it.
 
I checked to confirm if Dwarfs have used the corpses of Ulthuani Dragons as materials, and I've come up blank. The closest thing I've found is them weaponising melted down Silver Helms, which are pieces of equipment.

The Dwarfs do use materials from dragons, but it just so happens that none of these dragons are Ulthuani and therefore aren't a part of their polity. If Elves are getting mad at Dwarfs for killing non Ulthuan dragons that are attacking their holds and using their corpses as materials, it'd be like them getting mad that the Dwarfs are killing Druchii that are attacking them. Not every dragon is from Ulthuan, and the Dwarfs have yet to make an Ulthuani Dragon artifcat.

It should also be mentioned that Elves still add to the Cloak of Beards today, which is a different scenario than it being something from a bygone era.
I straight up do not believe that during the many centuries long War of the Beard that the Dwarfs never killed the dragons of Ulthuan, nor that the Runelords having gained such a prize did not use it to craft something. In much the same way, I don't believe that the Dwarfs of the Gray Mountains (particularly, though not only, Karak Norn who are noted to fight the Wood Elves often) have never killed a Forest Dragon, and I super don't believe that in the desperate and denegrated Age of Woes they would let such a potent resource go to waste if at all possible.

(I feel like I might be coming off as a bit spicier than I intended, so for the record I am not trying to be aggro)
 
I straight up do not believe that during the many centuries long War of the Beard that the Dwarfs never killed the dragons of Ulthuan, nor that the Runelords having gained such a prize did not use it to craft something. In much the same way, I don't believe that the Dwarfs of the Gray Mountains (particularly, though not only, Karak Norn who are noted to fight the Wood Elves often) have never killed a Forest Dragon, and I super don't believe that in the desperate and denegrated Age of Woes they would let such a potent resource go to waste if at all possible.

(I feel like I might be coming off as a bit spicier than I intended, so for the record I am not trying to be aggro)
In this situation, all you're saying is suppositions and assumptions about what they could or could not have done with no supporting evidence, vs the very real and visible cloak of beards being added to in the modern day which is constantly brought up as an example. I can also say that the Elves would certainly have committed multiple additional atrocities and not provide any evidence and I'd be just as correct.
 
I concur with Codex. Wars are never clean, and would prefer if the dwarfs were not black washed whilst the elves are whitewashed during the War of Vengance/the Beard. I see it as an atrocious tragedy and washing the participants either way cheapens that aspect.
 
Slight nitpick, but I'm pretty sure Shard Dragons, despite the name, are not sapient. Certainly, I couldn't find any mention of such being the case. And I'm dubious of the notion, given that in every encounter described, by any race that has delved underground and had one burst into their tunnels, they start ripping and tearing into anything living in sight, and only ever withdraw when their stomachs are too full to keep eating.
According to the Wiki, it's mentioned in the Monstrous Arcanum that they built Runic Collars to control them to use as weapons, which were then imitated by other wizards. Unfortunately I don't have it so I can't check myself, but I do recall this also being mentioned in Rhunrikki Strollar.
 
According to the Wiki, it's mentioned in the Monstrous Arcanum that they built Runic Collars to control them to use as weapons, which were then imitated by other wizards. Unfortunately I don't have it so I can't check myself, but I do recall this also being mentioned in Rhunrikki Strollar.
Its in there. Can't recall the page number of the top of my head but its def in the book.
 
Also, something to consider; the entire reason why faking a surrender is a war crime is because the enemy will stop accepting surrenders and just kill everyone instead of risking being backstabbed again. The wording in the books implies that the elves did this multiple times over the course of the entire War of Vengeance. And the dwarfs kept accepting the surrenders regardless. Which implies either a pretty severe breakdown in communications so that the dwarfs never heard about the faked surrenders, or they were honour-bound to accept any offer of surrender from the elves, even after repeated abuse of this sacred trust.
 
According to the Wiki, it's mentioned in the Monstrous Arcanum that they built Runic Collars to control them to use as weapons, which were then imitated by other wizards. Unfortunately I don't have it so I can't check myself, but I do recall this also being mentioned in Rhunrikki Strollar.
Yes they did. Shard Dragons are also mentioned by Dwarfs to not be "True Dragons" and devolved, because they seem incapable of higher thought and all they do is kill and consume and attack and destroy without any negotiation or understanding. This might also be the reason they actually managed to control them with runic collars. Runic Collars aren't mind control devices for sapient beings, they're to tame vicious monsters with a lower intelligence, like Carnosaurs and the like (if they could get their hands on them).

Shard Dragons are closer to Wyverns than Dragons. One could argue endlessly on the morality of the subject regardless of sapience, but at least I don't think they're sapient like other dragons.

I should also mention that depending on what level of canonicity you're working with, there are Elves who attempted to mind control sapient dragons and succeeded. The Grey Lords. They found that while they could do it on weaker willed dragons, it was generally temporary and would result in the Dragon attacking and killing everyone after it ran out.

Honestly, I'm not sure how long I want to extend this subject. It seems like it's quite fraught.
 
According to the Wiki, it's mentioned in the Monstrous Arcanum that they built Runic Collars to control them to use as weapons, which were then imitated by other wizards. Unfortunately I don't have it so I can't check myself, but I do recall this also being mentioned in Rhunrikki Strollar.
Sure. What I'm questioning is what is supposed to be wrong or especially cruel about that? We've no indication that the Shard Dragons are anything but, well, wild animals. The runic collars gave the dwarfs a way to use ones caught in the wild as war beasts. As opposed to having to use the RL method of capturing multiple specimens, making them breed, and raising the domesticated offspring to follow commands. Something which has continued to this day in our world with dogs, whether for police or military purposes.

So, I'm not really seeing what moral fault or wrongdoing this is supposed to ascribe to the dwarfs, if the Shard Dragons are not sapient, and give no signs whatsoever of ever being such in their habits.
 
As far as I know all dragons are just as sapient so using their bones is morally equivalent even if it is not a political tit for tat.

That said everyone involved in this is bar like a handful of elves is dead so there isn't much point to decide who has the high score for atrocities during the Golden Age or the War that followed it.
We're not talking about moral equivalence though. Volkirium is basically saying that Dwarves should shut up and not complain about some of them getting shaved for the Cloak of Beards because they use the corpses of dragons for their artifacts, but those dragons aren't from Ulthuan. It's like saying "these Dwarfs shouldn't complain about being killed by the Asur because they kill Druchii". Even if it's morally equivalent, there's a good reason for the Dwarfs to be mad at those Ulthuani elves regardless of the moral equivalence.

Also, there's another part to this argument that's not being addressed. With Dragons, the Dwarfs are killing them and harvesting their corpses. But the beard shaving could be viewed as even worse than that. It might seem weird when you first hear it, but follow me:

First, the implication is that these Elves shave the Dwarf and keep them alive so they can be humiliated instead of killing them. That, to me, is far worse than killing them and shaving their corpse. It means the Dwarf has to live with a shaved beard which almost certainly causes them to take the Slayer Oath, which is basically a long and elaborate way to kill someone while humiliating them and making the rest of their life living hell. This sounds dramatic, and part of it is the fault of Dwarf culture, but the Elves who do this are fully aware that these are the consequences of their actions and they choose to do it.

The Dwarves who harvest the corpses of Dragons don't delight in the process of torturing the Dragons. There's no point. They typically harvest dragons squatting in their Holds or who attack their holds because Dragons tend to like mountains and gold, and so do Dwarves. They like the weapons they get but there's no reason to torture the dragon to get it.

The Elves who shave beards aren't doing this for the protection of their homeland, they're doing it for a vendenta, and that makes it much worse. There's no reason to continously shave beards to add to the cloak, but they still do it.

I understand that this is a very small minority who do this, but the whole thing started because Volkirium said they shouldn't complain about being shaved because they use dragon materials. That's missing the fact that the process of shaving is very different than harvesting a corpse.
 
Also, I want to make a point. I am very aware of how mysoginistic GW can tend to be, I've mentioned the distasteful myths that are constantly attributed to the Elven pantheon and I'm sure there's plenty of stuff we can point to, but in this case at least I'm not so sure that "led by queen" is an important factor here.
That brought to mind one of the weirdest bits I've ever read in a WH book, I think one of the Core books- the Everqueens have a ritual they conduct in Ind every ten years that pushes Morrslieb back. Somehow this involves having her period on a rock.
 
That brought to mind one of the weirdest bits I've ever read in a WH book, I think one of the Core books- the Everqueens have a ritual they conduct in Ind every ten years that pushes Morrslieb back. Somehow this involves having her period on a rock.
Having a ritual in Ind is fine. Let's all agree to drop the period thing, because that sounds grossly juvenile.
 
Voting is open
Back
Top