evil men vs. Evil Men

[Glorelendil]

Not implausible or far fetched at all, but still only one of the plausible interpretations.

[zedturtle]

Not implausible or far fetched at all, but still only one of the plausible interpretations.

Was that in response to my theories about the Dunlendings or something else? (just asking for clarity)

[Glorelendil]

Not implausible or far fetched at all, but still only one of the plausible interpretations.

Was that in response to my theories about the Dunlendings or something else? (just asking for clarity)

Tolwen's assertion that his explanation is not implausible or far fetched.

[Tolwen]

Maybe. Or maybe he presented them as a 'necessary evil', one that had to be done in order to counter the great evils that Rohan had perpetrated on the Dunlendings. Also, remember the rumours that Rohan traded with Mordor.

Argh. I had prepared a longer reply and then I got logged off and all was lost... OK, here's the short version. I'll prepare a longer later the day

Exactly. This is what I meant with "manipulated". We know from first-hand sources that Saruman was a master manipulator of wills and minds. He was able to dupe the Lord of the Nazgûl and make the White Council believe things he himself knew were not true. The Dunlendings with their long history of hatred/grief were in all likelihood no match for his skills in manipulation and persuasion.

Compare also the Dunlendings themselves: After the battle was obviously lost, they surrendered and asked for mercy - which was granted by Erkenbrand (see above). In contrast to that, at the Morannon the troops of the Easterlings (who were probably deep into Sauron's ideology/religion for centuries) fought to the bitter end, even after all the orcs and creatures of the Shadow fled the battlefield in every direction and the West got the upper hand.
For the Dunlendings this is quite good evidence that they were not genuinely evil and corrupted, but were - as Gamling said - deluded by Saruman and manipulated for his purposes.

Cheers
Tolwen

[Falenthal]

That means that the Dunleding culture can be included as a playable one in the Adventurer's Companion or, at least, in the Riders of Rohan supplement, right?

I'd like to see rules for shamanism...

[shipwreck]

That means that the Dunleding culture can be included as a playable one in the Adventurer's Companion or, at least, in the Riders of Rohan supplement, right?

I'd like to see rules for shamanism...

Wait until we have something for Bree-men. Since they were probably of Dunlending stock it's an easy conversion

[Tolwen]

That means that the Dunleding culture can be included as a playable one in the Adventurer's Companion or, at least, in the Riders of Rohan supplement, right?

They could be. And it is also true that they are related to the Bree-men, thus allowing for some similarities.

We have to keep in mind though, that Tolkien describes the Dunlanders as quite xenophobic and without much contact to outsiders. Speaking from a gaming perspective, this might be a challenge, as such a culture is probably not that easily willing to accept members of its community venturing forth and accepting them back later on. Exceptions prove the rule as always, but IMO "adventurers" from these people are likely to be (become) outsiders among their clans etc. when they leave to mingle with other people.
Interestingly in the First Age the Haladin - people belonging to the same ethnic group as the later Bree-men and Dunlanders (and Oathbreakers) - are also a people quite apart. Though counted among the Edain, they do not participate in the great battles as a full force (small volunteer groups nonwithstanding) and keep apart not only from the Eldar but also the other Edain. While the Folk of Bëor and Hador intermingle and intermarry quite often and are characterized by a similar language (which later evolves into Adûnaic) the Haladin remain apart. This seems to be a common trait among all these people that they prefer to stay alone and limit contacts with other people. An inconsiderate and poor treatment of such people like the Númenóreans did in the Second Age is even more likely to drive them into the arms of those opposed to these guys...
Later on (i.e. after the War of the Ring), relations with the Dunlanders might improve due to more reconciliatory policies of both Rohan and the Reunited Kingdom, but in the Third Age, the trenches between these people generally are still very deep.

Concerning interpretations, it is of course always good to have competing views and interpretations, as this drives development and the understanding of the topic in question.
It should be obvious that for the best results, such interpretations need to follow a certain methodology. In the case of discussions like these the primary (and authorative) sources are of course Tolkien's texts (either published in his lifetime or by the posthumous ones edited by his son). Using quotes and passages in these texts, setting them into the proper context, comparing that to applicable real-world models (like Tolkien himself did as well) then leads to good arguments built on them. This then anyone can use to make a well-informed decision which one is the most plausible and likely in the given context.
That's the way knowledge is generated in the academic discourse and very applicable to Tolkien's secondary world as well (given his background and methods in creating his world).

Cheers
Tolwen

[Glorelendil]

[
We have to keep in mind though, that Tolkien describes the Dunlanders as quite xenophobic and without much contact to outsiders.

Sort of like Dwarves. And Wood Elves. And Hobbits, for that matter, although xenophobia might not be the reason.

That said, the point you make about "trenches" is applicable. Dwarves may be relatively xenophobic, but at least they're on the right "side".

[Tolwen]

[
That said, the point you make about "trenches" is applicable. Dwarves may be relatively xenophobic, but at least they're on the right "side".

The Dunlanders are an interesting case. Not genuinely "evil" in the sense of Evil Men (in uppercase), but also no friends of the people that are generally portrayed as the "good ones" like the Dúnedain or Rohirrim. For the latter their "goodness" probably is mostly the result of their alliance with the Númenóreans - and thus good press in the histories - rather than genuine "goodness". A close look at the Appendices is very highlighting in this respect.

But of course, in this secondary world with an "incarnate" Evil, the shortcomings of the Dúnedain and Rohirrim (which are primarily the result of human error and weaknesses) pale against the really evil things.

Cheers
Tolwen

[Falenthal]

I can imagine a group of Dunledings not willing to accept Saruman's ideas. Of course, that would probably mean that they had a strong leader that could withstand the White Wizard's persuasive words. Such a group would probably have to move north or west, into southern Eregion maybe. That could be a source for dunleding adventurers, settled in old elven territory. They wouldn't be for the rohirrim or the gondorians, only not quite convinced by Saruman. They might think of him that he's just another great man (like the Numenoreans were) wanting to use them for his own goals (which is true, of course).