Elerond

Later scenario is only one that I have succeed to find.

Your definitions for those words aren't what people generally define them to mean. Merriam-Webster uses following definitions Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals Racism: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race Oxford dictionaries uses following definitions Homophobia: An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people. Racism: The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior: Dictionary.com uses following definitions: Homophobia: unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. And intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Wikipedia.com uses following definitions: Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs. Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently. Anti-Defamation League - ADL uses following definitions: Homophobia is the hatred or fear of homosexuals - that is, lesbians and gay men - sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility. Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another. Wiktionary uses following definitions: Homophobia Fear, dislike or hatred of gays and lesbians. Racism: The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes. The belief that one race is superior to all others. Prejudice or discrimination based upon race. Origin of word homophobia Homophobia Society's rethinking of sexual orientation was crystallized in the term homophobia, which heterosexual psychologist George Weinberg coined in the late 1960s. Weinberg used homophobia to label heterosexuals' dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals as well as homosexuals' self loathing. The word first appeared in print in 1969 and was subsequently discussed at length in Weinberg's 1972 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual. Point of origin for racism is more difficult to determine, but Oxford English Dictionary first defined it as "[t]he theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race", and gives year 1936 as the first recorded use for it. Additionally, the OED records racism as a synonym of racialism: "belief in the superiority of a particular race".

Warhammer and Warhammer 40k both (WH40k more often than WH) have in places very interesting lore, even though it is very inconsistent and has often quite radical changes between editions, but at least there is always something fresh.

Games are form of media and I would say that it's just denying the truth if you say that media that we consume don't effect on how we view the world, which why it's quite important in my opinion that we look critically media that we consume and messages that it tell, because then there is actually chance that we have something to say in how media influences us and our world view.

Tolkien didn't have singular source for his version of orcs. In his letters he says that he get inspiration from poem Beowulf (which used Old English word orcneas that used for children of Cain, demons, evil spirit, bogey) for both name orc and what kind race they are. And his essay about Elvish languages he says that orc means evil spirit or bogey, and says that Old English word orcneas origins from Latin word Orcus - god of underworld. This of course don't mean that he didn't put some traits from German soldiers in them, even though he don't admit such thing in his explanations, because it's hard to not let your life experiences to influence you especially when they are something as dramatic as fighting in war. In one of his letter Tolkien describes orcs "...they are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes; in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types." Tolkien's writings also reveal that he hadn't locked down origin of orcs, as he had multiple different theories that changed from text/book to text/book. There is lots of papers written in this subject and racism as whole about LotR, that I would people that are interested read at least some Here two that don't need any subscription any service that provides academic papers. http://www.readperiodicals.com//201009/2224380021.html https://www.lib.washington.edu/subject/History/BI/honors251c/tol.pdf

There is always possibility that lion decides to adopt your antelope and protect antelope against attackers including its own master/companion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSJYIEk5n6o

In my understanding Bioware Austin is separate entity from those EA's entities that were Bioware before EA bought it. Bioware is now term that EA puts all its entities that do RPG-like games. Like for example Mythic become Bioware Mythic, although they dropped Bioware just before they closed it down in 2014. Bioware now consist from Bioware Canada, which consist from Bioware Edmonton (which is closest thing that comes to original Bioware) and Bioware Montreal (which was formed in 2009 to assist Bioware Edmonton, but now it is responsible of next Mass Effect game), Bioware Austin (they did Star Wars Old Republic, with some assistance Bioware Edmonton, and they will do this game which teasers you can find from OP) and Waystone Studio was moved under Bioware, their first game and game that they are currently developing is Dawngate. And there has been three other studios that have been part of Bioware under EA, but are now closed. Previously mentioned Mythic (they did among other things Warhammer Online, Ultimate Forever and Dungeon Keeper mobile), Bioware San Fransisco (which developed tittles Dragon Legends and Mirror Edge 2D, before its closure in 2013), Bioware Victory that then dropped Bioware from its name and become Victory Games until it was closed in 2013 (they were developing next Command & Conquer game).

This whole conversation is racist as is concept of fantasy races, because that whole point in fantasy races is to create people that are differentiated from each other and treated differently from each other solely on basis of their race. Which is why one should be quite careful that they don't slip real world racism in fantasy racism as symbolism is quite effective tool to spread any sort of messages (which is why that many countries forbid usage/public display of certain symbols/slogans/all symbolism of certain ideologies).

DA:I's combat looks to me, that it will be improvement over DAII's combat. As they have seemed to throw their ridiculous idea of waves of enemies in trash bin. They have made it possible to interact with environment ways that change how combat will go. Positioning your characters seems to matter, where in DAII it didn't really matter because of nature of enemy waves. It also seems that controlling long distance attacks especially AoE attack is much easier and less frustrating.

Is there any Information on if the game can be played exclusively in top down tactical view and gameplay footage where someone uses it for more than one attack? That is hard to say as they only show their gamepad interface in all the demos they have showed so far. But currently it looks that you can activate tactical view anytime you want, which will pause the game and when you unpause game return in third person view, at least in gamepad interface version of the game.

Dark Elf from world of Glorantha, don't you think that s/he has very classic elvish look That particular image is a Myconid from the D&D 2nd edtion monster manual isn't it? It maybe, I took it from RuneQuest/Glorantha fan page, but it don't look like dark/black elves in RuneQuest creature manual, which I don't have currently in my hands so that I could had scanned picture from there.

There is an idea. I've just finished describing the paramaters of this idea to you. There is a general idea of what an orc is *physically*. A D&D orc and an Elder Scrolls orc and a Warcraft orc and a Might & Magic orc all have physical differences, but they fall within that general idea of an orc. Whereas an aumaua or a qunari do not. There are paramaters. Those parameters just happen to be wider than Tolkien. Your argument in this post is a fallacy of the excluded middle. You only see the familiar cliche and the unfamiliar innovation. But something can be familiar and innovative at the same time. PoE is already doing this with elves and dwarves and you accept this as positive. I'm forced to once again conclude that you are arguing according to arbitrary double standards. Eora is not an "original or die" setting. Eora is not a "cliche" setting. It is a middle road that blends the familiar with the novel. I've been arguing in favour of an orc that is *neither* a cliche *nor* a "full revamp without any familiarity". I've argued a blend of innovation and familiarity. That you replied to me like this suggests that you are just skimming my posts without considering them, or that there is otherwise a very serious defficiency in our ability to communicate. This reply completely misses the point to which it is responding. You missed my points in both of your replies. So I think that you probably should ponder them bit more.

They did put their version of orcs in, they're called the Aaumua. Why should they be discounted just because the word "orc" isn't used? Aumaua aren't orcs any more than orlans are dwarves. Size is not the beginning and end of the subject. Obsidian's inclusion of elves and dwarves was an appeal to that which is familiar from the D&D world of the Infinity Engine games. Aumaua are not. They come with no such aesthetic familiarty. That's not criticism of the aumaua. I'm not "discounting" them because they are not orcs. I do however reject the notion that there is no room for orcs to exist alongside aumaua. There is such room, just as there is room for dwarves to exist alongside orlans. Orlans are substitution for halflings/hobbits

But if there isn't any specific idea behind orcs then I don't see why they should be added instead of race with original name. Only good reason, in my opinion, for inclusion of cliché races is familiarity, but if you fully revamp race so that there is only little or none familiarity left or race is such that there is non even at beginning then, in my opinion, it is better to go with new name because it at least adds originality in the setting.

Some people always bring those up, but usually they are also those people that don't actually care what other side's arguments are as they have already decided that they are right. But as idea behind modern marriage is union between partners that have equal rights, which means that marriage with inanimate objects or animals (other than human) would need many aspects from marriage (economical, inheritance, medical emergency, divorce, etc.) that it could work from point of law. Necrophilia also is problematic thing as people have bodily autonomy even after death (like for example they can forbid using their organs as transplants or their body in scientific studies), so allowance of necrophilia would also in most cases need removing bodily autonomy from bodies of death person and family's right what happens to bodies of their loved ones and probably some other factors. Incest is always problematic thing, even if you leave out genetic impoverishment, because of power dynamics and family structure that usually make such relationships so one sided that it often can undermine constitutional rights of other person. Age of consent is always hardest thing, as it is very society depending thing, especially when you take in consideration that there is lot things that society seen appropriate to limit with age restrictions. So questioning age of consent also put all those other age limits under question, as if person is mature enough handle one thing that was previously restricted, then why they aren't mature enough handle this another thing. Which means that age of consent discussion should be one of general development of maturity.

Yeah Elerond summarized it nicely, by the way Elerond you know a lot about polygamy..how many wives do you actually have ? Why do you presume that they are (only) wives? I researched subject little bit when helped with equal marriage civil bill campaign in here Finland, because allowance of polygamy marriage is thing that always rises on surface when one speaks about allowance of same-sex marriage, so I though it's probably better know at least little bit about subject. What is the specific opposition to polygamy? Is it because it would be a massive nuisance sorting out what rights who has in relation to who else? From legal standpoint it is quite difficult if we want to have equal rights for all parties. For example if anybody has right to marry multiple partners, we need to decide that do they need permission from their current spouse/s if they decide marry new partner and if we allow them to marry without permission then we need to decide what is relationship between new spouse/s and old spouse/s. And how right over legal decision in medical emergencies, how inheritance will be divided, what happens in divorce cases and etc.. Instead of individual right to marry multiple partners there could be option that marriage becomes union that can take additional members. Then we need to decide if it's all the members in marriage or majority of members that has to approve new person in the union. How divorce will work needs to be solved also in this case (divination of assets, do union as whole lapse, or is possible to drop only one member or divide union to multiple unions, how case is solved if there is no consensus which member/s should be removed from union who should stay in union, how parental rights go, etc.). Power dynamic also rises up often in conversation as in classical polygamous marriages one person usually has power over other members in union, which is against current world view and laws. Of course tradition, religion, morality, different from status quo can be also found in arguments against polygamy. But I would say that main argument against polygamy is in how much changes it would need in different laws to make it work with constitutional rights, create legal processes to handle divorces, inheritances, union splits, union creations, parental rights, child rights and etc. issues.

I didn't tried to deny that, but I wanted to know what his vision about orcs is, as there is much more variety in orcs in fantasy world than there are with elves and dwarfs, but still it usually safer say that they are Tolkien variety of them. I tried to get more specific information as it interest me as how other people see orcs and what traits they emphasize and what they leave out. This is interesting to me because other people have grown with different fantasy world than me which will make their priorities different of those of mine. My inquiries may have bit too unpolite undertone in them as read my message again, but my only goal was to get Sarog give more fleshed out idea of his vision of orcs, by pointing out that his current description don't give (for me) specific enough picture about them. And what comes to most notable traits of orcs I would argue that orcs are humanoids that are smaller than humans, with misshapen face and body, and they are quite weak and cowardly. And their skin color is dark bit grayish. Dark Elf from world of Glorantha, don't you think that s/he has very classic elvish look

If you don't see problem then I probably can't get you understand it. We haven't established that countries are racially diverse because of population movement, but that different ethnicities inside of races have probably developed because of population movement on regions with different climates. Eora's countries may have more members from one race than another, but major cultures that probably influence multiple countries are in my knowledge quite racially diverse and don't have single dominant race in them. People from same culture have high probability see member of other race and even country in more favorable light than member of other culture that is same race with them. Rauatai don't break anything to me as in my understanding it is only somewhat small country in the world, and it isn't only occurrence of aumaua, and it isn't mono race culture. If you would like example of PoE's lore that I am not keen on is fact that Aedyr Empire is formed in union of human kingdom Aedyr and elven kingdom Kulklin. Sad truth with PoE as is with everything else that isn't written by me is that they don't ever follow my visions exactly as I see them, but that don't mean that I would like to add more things that goes against my vision. Like new race that can be found only from one culture/country in the world. I used archetype because it includes also non visual traits that are generally associated with races (like long lived elves). Your description of orc isn't one that I would directly associate with orcs. D&D has seen quite lot different type of orc during years. Old orcs Newer orcs So D&D orc don't me any heavy associations with some specific look and D&D's portrayal of orcs usually generic enemies that need to be killed, although in some stories they have noble savage aspects in them, but nothing really interesting IHMO. In my opinion boreal dwarfs hit quite many check box from Tolkien's dwarfs. As they have quite similar hight and body type, they have high constitution, they live in harsh conditions. So there is quite much familiarity, which make differences (they aren't mountaineers, etc.) seem fresh and interesting.

Nothing in what I've said "closes" races off from one another. No idea how you'd get that from "racing being intermingled now". Deliberate misreading? Where do you imagine that races and ethnicities came from? Did elves in Country A spring fully formed out of the ground, completely independent from the elves in Country B who did the same, without the two having any shared history? I don't think Eora works the way you think it does. When I see Josh speak in interviews, I keep getting that the setting is built around a sense of history - that the world is cosmopolitan because civilizations have had time to interact and populations have been able to travel between them. The racially intermingled nature of the setting exists because people have moved around a lot during its history, not because conveniently-diverse populations came into being from country to country at the dawn of time and remained static. I'm not even trying to argue with you at this point, just understand your objections. I don't think you're articulating your point well, because I just see you taking a confusing stand on something that isn't even an issue. It isn't like Obsidian choosing to add orcs would somehow prevent them from doing the same thing with orcs that they've done with every other race and subraces. You're imposing aritificial restrictions on the limits of creativity. I discussesd this with Malekith. The subject of why there is value in using orcs rather than a brand new race. You're free to read what I've said. I've already put a lot of words into this thread, so you'll understand if I don't repeat myself unnecessarily. As I already said I think that ethnicities inside of races have formed because of the fact that some members of said races have moved to different locations in Eora and their new environments have caused physical changes in them. But I like idea that all the races have born created about same time and many in same areas gods withing them and leading them to form societies. And then some people from those societies have got bored or chased away and this people have formed new societies and so on until they have spread around the world of Eora. I personally like this concept because it's something that you don't often see in fantasy settings, where concept where every race has their own place of origin and history before they found other races is so dominant that I crave alternates. With your discussion with Malekith I can't form any real concept what you think orcs are like, only thing that I find is that you think that orcs have larger physique than humans, so your archetype for them is something from Warhammer/Warcraft? As Tolkien's orcs are smaller than human and even members of uruk-hai aren't that big and D&D orcs have traditionally been about human size. Or do you have some other setting where you draw your concept for orcs. And what other attributes you would put for them, green skin?, lower than average intelligence?, high might? , pig face or more wow/warhammer style face? tusks?. Like for example Tolkienist archetype for elves is tall, beautiful, graceful, pointy eared and long lived people and for dwarfs short, tough, strong, bearded people. With big and strong humanoid I would go with new original name for race, because in my opinion those are much better for setting than using cliché names if you don't use some cliché-esque archetype go with that name. But my problem is not with orcs or any other race that may be added in Eora but in the way how new race and cultures where you can find it will be introduced and explanation why that race isn't in Dyrwood area and do/do not Empires in PoE know that it/they exist, because I don't want to see single race cultures at least in any major roles in that world, especially one that have lived in isolation from every other race, as I like idea of all multi race cultures so much, that I don't want sacrifice it to anything. As it is concept that make me excited about generic fantasy like I was in my teenage years.

I don't get your fixation on this point. Are you suggesting that it isn't good enough for races to be intermingled now, but that they must always have been intermingled? All I'm saying is that you need a point of origin. That races were presumably divided into their own civilizations, but then interacted and intermingled to the point that it is no longer true. That seems to be the case with Eora already. Are you insisting that Aedyr thyrtans and Vailian thyrtans sprang fully formed from the earth completely independently of one another, without any common history? Unless that is your argument, there is no issue here. Read the thread more closely. Alternatives have been suggested. Besides, this is obviously just a subjective issue on your part. "Appaling" is a very strong word to use to describe such such vague, general cultural attributes as "praising physical prowess". If something like that were to be completely excluded from a world because you do not appreciate it, the result is a much less authentic and interesting world, because you've just disqualified something that is ubiquitous throughout many civilizations and most of human history. All you are doing is describing why you as an individual would not play an orc even if it were novel and well-written. You're not making any case at all for why orcs such as we've suggested would be bad for the setting or creatively unworthy. Which is fine, we all have our subjective preferences. We just can't expect those preferences to be treated like objective truth. I don't see need why races would have to have their own civilizations, as they all seem to be born in world about same time, they all are beings that have capacity to communicate with each other and there is living gods among them that are guiding them. So in my opinion it is much more logical and interesting if there has never been time when races had their own civilizations as they have always lived among other races. So I in other words I don't understand your fixation with singular point of origin for races that closes them off from other races in world for some reason. Appalling is just right word to describe singular ideology cultures that are hided behind supposedly clever new aesthetics. Because for me such things are killing blow towards suspension of disbelief. But tell me what is your archetype for orcs, that makes you want their inclusion?

To be fair I didn't really exactly understand what you meant in your posts. But to put what I wanted to say simply: orcs are different than others races in many aspects and haven't been exploited originally and intelligently until now in fantasy games, therefore there is plenty of space to do interesting things with them, and if I had the choice to play one at the beginning an orc would be one of the choices I (and others) would consider playing, because they are fan favorites, a lot of people like them. So now that I have seen how the Obsidian guys have fleshed out different cultures/races currently in the game I just can't help but wonder what they COULD have done with orcs in this game..."renaissance orcs"...even the sound of it excites me.. would have loved to see what they would have done with them.. But what is the archetype that interest you in the orcs or is it just the name orcs? Why there should be race named orcs in Eora instead of some more originally named race if you don't want them to follow any exciting archetype for them?

You keep coming back to this "race shouldn't be culture" thing, but it is a non-issue. The reason why race/ethnicity and culture are distinct in this setting is because it is fairly cosmopolitan. Civilization did not start as racially diverse, but grew to be diverse because of population movements. When dealing with any prospective race, unless you want them to magically spring out of the ground without a point of origin, you need to define a civilization from which they originate. Conceptually once you have run through this and established a "racial civilization" as a starting point, only then can you move to figure out how movements into and out of other countries would make sense. If it looks like we're equating orc race with orc culture, it is only because it is necessary to do so in the initial stages of conceptualization. Honestly though telling us that any ideas regarding orcs are automatically "appaling" and not telling us why isn't terribly good conversation. Preferences are subjective, and if your answer to something is always "no" because of ironclad aesthetic preferences rather than any tangible point with which we can engage, then you can't fault the subject or our suggestions for not being able to change your mind. It is issue for me, and thing that I would not like to see in world of Eora. If you have more than one race in fantasy setting, then I am tired to see explanation that all those races where born in different places, especially when there are gods walking among people. People from different cultures should in my opinion be separated by ethnicities inside of races that are formed over the course of time, because of environment where people have mostly lived. This is because of fact that for me it is more interesting to image cultures that are shaped on co-operation and co-existence of people that have different physiology especially when people with different physiologies can't reproduce between each other, which means that social dynamics between races are more asexual aspects than what we have used in our world. I find warmongering, mono-race and/or praising physical prowess cultures appalling, which most suggestions for orcs seems to be in their essence.

Yeah Elerond summarized it nicely, by the way Elerond you know a lot about polygamy..how many wives do you actually have ? Why do you presume that they are (only) wives? I researched subject little bit when helped with equal marriage civil bill campaign in here Finland, because allowance of polygamy marriage is thing that always rises on surface when one speaks about allowance of same-sex marriage, so I though it's probably better know at least little bit about subject. In South Africa our constitution allows same sex marriages but we call it civil unions, but its basically the exact same thing. Its one of the things I am very proud of as a South African because we have lots of other social issues we need to deal with In Finland do you guys allow same sex marriages? Currently in Finland it is possible for same-sex couples to register themselves to be in civil union, such unions don't have all the same rights (some economical things, changing sure name to your spouse's needs separate application [which isn't free], adoption rights as couple, etc.) as civil marriages, which is why there was campaign for civil bill that would make all civil unions to be same in eyes of law. Bill is currently in Finnish Parliament, which will vote about bill in September.

Yeah Elerond summarized it nicely, by the way Elerond you know a lot about polygamy..how many wives do you actually have ? Why do you presume that they are (only) wives? I researched subject little bit when helped with equal marriage civil bill campaign in here Finland, because allowance of polygamy marriage is thing that always rises on surface when one speaks about allowance of same-sex marriage, so I though it's probably better know at least little bit about subject.