of goblins and orcs..

[ashtonw]

Nothing wrong with a race of evil, brutish, inexplicably hideous humanoids that also happen to be dark skinned and tribal. Nooope.

[Calmar]

Nothing wrong with a race of evil, brutish, inexplicably hideous humanoids that also happen to be dark skinned and tribal. Nooope.

 

World War I is over for 96 years and WW2 has ended seven decades ago and there is peace now - the anti-German and anti-Japanese hostility in fiction must end!

[ashtonw]

Yeah cause everything I just said stopped having gross connations seventy years ago. Good point.

[Calmar]

Actually, "dark skinned and tribal" (or green-skinned) are the aspects of to-days depiction of Orcs that I quite dislike. I like my Orc to be inhuman and militaristic, a foil to whatever culture's perspective we share in the narrative; not a racist depiction of another culture. But I maintain that it should be avoided to interpret everything in fantasy with the goal to discern some racist undertone, lest we have worlds where every conflict is blurred diluted by a filter of misguided need of harmony. Everything can be misinterpreted into being racist or offensive.

 

 

You can achieve satisfying orcishness with pale skin.

[Gfted1]

^I dunno, that pic looks like they are mocking people with Progeria. I wont stand for that!!!

[Macrae]

I just can't believe how people can turn any subject around and call it racist....it's just such an intellectually weak and and ridiculous argument..

 

People are too influenced by big media groups and what politicians are ordering them to think... xD

Often those who order us not to be "racist" are the most actual racist people themselves...

 

Those who know know..

[Elerond]

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).

[anameforobsidian]

Eh, I never got racist overtones from orcs.  Strong xenophobic bull**** does come from orcs, but that's not the same as racist.  Goblins on the other hand (especially in WoW and MtG rather than Tolkien and earlier D&D), are short, big-nosed, money-grubbing, scientifically adept, and ruthlessly amoral.  Which certainly doesn't sound like any racist caricature that I can think of....

Edited August 7, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[NWN_babaYaga]

Goblinoids are just cool. I love them because the whole "race" of them is very diverse except they are all pure evil and they love or have to eat FLESH. Yes they do eat humans and elfs and i think they love elf woman the most. A virgin elf woman would make the best share for a slaver and I always imagine very mean and brutal goblinods when i write an adventure. I also think it´s uncool to make exceptions for them like a "good" orc or so. They are created in my imagination like saruman did them in the movie. I love that creepy idea that there is no single thing of "good" emotion in them except hate, war and FLESH since their first look into the cave or dungeon they were created. Everything around them is filled with evil. And yet they can be damn funny...if you like dark humour ... :D

 

And yes Goblinoids are racists. But at least they eat what they slay!

 

I never understood the half orc thing from D&D and i think it sucks. A halforc... ??? imagine how that comes together if they are created...

Edited August 7, 2014 by NWN_babaYaga

[SKull]

Love Dwarves but they are never made the way I would like to see them.Extreme strength with +4 points towards that score(living deep inside of rock tends to requiere great strength) coupled with a large negative also and that is very slow movement.So in open area combat they kinda suck as enemies can kite them from afar but get them into closed tight spaces and those little buggars grow and grow and you will feel just how tough they really are.

 

Which gets me to a question I have for POE.I have this thing in RPG's that ruins the game for me whenever it happens and that is magical items that improve attributes.You go all out in making parties with strong fighters and then you find a ring that grants your weakling the same strength.Why even bother then is the feeling I get and then I start metagaming and starting fighters with low strength and high dex and then giving them the belt of cosmo strength.In my recent playthru of BG2enhancedI found Viconia and love the fact that she can not use so many weapons.It added flavor to her but then I found a belt of stone giant strenth and voila.Sorry just my pet peeve with RPG's and magical items that balance out all the characters.

 

Dwarves traditionally have bonus to constitution/endurance/saving throws and resistance to cold. If you want them to be extra strong as well you`d have to lose some of this I think, and I`m not sure if this makes a lot of sense. Meanwhile orcs/half orcs, ogres/half ogres had a strength bonus, elves and hobbits/gnomes etc traditionally have one for dexterity.

 

I agree re the gauntlets of hill giant strength items though, and especially when the drops are fixed like they were in BG. You knew that you needed to get to the ogre on the bridge asap to get those gauntlets so you could give it to your intentionally feeble fighter. I do think hard to find potions and other consumables, increasing str/dex/con/int whatever, are a decent idea which gives you an option to enhance the characters slightly as you go. Just not a single item taking you from 6 to 18/00.

[SKull]

 

 

 

Any semblance of creativity or respectability. Discussion over. Full stop.

 

Orcs, goblins and halflings can stay in their putrid, stagnant little plot in Tolkien-ripoff history. Obsidian can do better and they are doing better.

 

 

I might agree with this were elves and dwarves not present in the setting. The fact that they are renders the point absurd.

 

Taking a stand against Tolkien would be well and good, but including elves as an obligatory part of high fantasy robs that stand of any credibility. Do you think elves rob the setting of any creativity or respectability? If the answer is "no", then you are excercising an entirely arbitrary judgment of what is good Tolkien and what is bad Tolkien. Which is fine, but entirely subjective. Claiming an objective disparity between the "credibility" of elves and that of orcs is ridiculous.

 

 

Orcs and Goblins are two great examples of elements that virtually always encourage lazy, derivative and just plain bad writing.  Obsidian is putting together a world where culture(and the budding nationalism appropriate to the renaissance era) are the defining features of people much more so than simply race.  If they brought in Orcs(which I don't believe they ever will) they'd just be the same old Mongol/Hun/Tartar knockoffs they always are. People you can immediately identify as the "bad guys" and slaughter without the slightest thought or intellectual excercise and who don't require any investment in building their culture, language or way of life before the player gets to hack away at them.

 

They've already managed to avoid silliness like having their nativist elves live in treehouses or in nomadic clans, and their dwarves pull on a much more interesting angle as explorers, seafarers and fronteirsmen(which itself is informed by the real history of Vikings as intelligent explorers and traders and not just axe-wielding berserk raiders) rather than the incredibly well-trodden, boring "mountain dwelling smiths with Scottish accents and Babylonian arcitecture" .

 

They're got a good thing going.

 

 

The problem the way I see it is lack of detail from Tolkien, who was the one who popularized orcs in the first place. Even though I read LotR several times before the movies came out I always had a hard time visualizing some things, and orcs were among them. Excepting the quite detailed description of Griznakh when he carries off Merry and Pippin, there was almost a complete lack of a physical description of orcs.

Griznakh was described as short, squat and with black skin as well as fangs and claws. He also had long, hairy, sinewy and terrifyingly strong arms. But since it was mentioned that he had some of these characteristics we can assume that other orcs did not, or at least less so.

The orc chieftain in Moria was described as "huge" and "almost man high". So we know that orcs were smaller than humans. We also know that they were evil, chaotic, violent and that they descended from corrupted elves. They also had their own language, several dialects and built ugly but functional buildings. Some of these thing could be said of post WWII architects and politicians though, so it`s not so much to go on really:)  But that`s it. The rest is up to creative people to fill out in interesting ways. Yet it almost never happens.

When I read the book I always pictured them as more reptile-like than they were later presented in WoW/Wathammer and in Peter Jackson`s movies. In fact, these are the two reigning versions of orcs today. Either American Indians meet The Incredible Hulk or poor personal hygiene, skin conditions, deformities and bad teeth. Jackson`s orcs also have the worst tailors in the Universe. This was probably because I had played quite a lot of Dragonlance tabletop RPGs in the 80s, where the bad guys were draconians, spawned from the eggs of good dragons. So when reading Tolkien I just lost the wings on those and kept the rest. So as a result I have never liked either of the popular orc versions developed since. Just trying to find a picture anywhere on the net of an orc looking anything like the way Griznakh was described is basically impossible. They all have huge bulging arms so the sinewy arms are out. Almost all of them have green skin, so the black skin is out. They usually have regular hands, so the claws are out. And none of them usually have hairy arms so that`s out.

 

There`s an almost total lack of creativity when it comes to developing orcs any further than Blizzard and Jackson have done. Usually new games/movies just copy one of these interpretations uncritically, as if it`s the only way to do it. And the same goes for elves and dwarves really. I`m glad Obsidian seems to want to steer clear of things unless they can put their own stamp on it. I`m not sure which I loathe the most; hippie elves, Scottish dwarves or barbarian orcs. It`s all terribly generic and it has been for years.

 

Lose the wings and this was basically how I pictured orcs for a decade, before Warcraft and Warhammer.

Edited August 7, 2014 by SKull

[SKull]

 

 

Do we really need goblins and orcs? I don't remember any in BG1 and BG2. 

 

Irenicus dungeon is filled with goblins

 

Weren't those kobolds? 

 

OK, I don't remember any goblins and orcs in BG1 and I didn't miss them.

 

Half orc was a playable race in BG wasn`t it?

[anameforobsidian]

Here is a picture of some dead ones.  I was wrong about the workshop, which was Duergar:

Here's some living ones:

Edited August 7, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[ashtonw]

Actually, "dark skinned and tribal" (or green-skinned) are the aspects of to-days depiction of Orcs that I quite dislike. I like my Orc to be inhuman and militaristic, a foil to whatever culture's perspective we share in the narrative; not a racist depiction of another culture. But I maintain that it should be avoided to interpret everything in fantasy with the goal to discern some racist undertone, lest we have worlds where every conflict is blurred diluted by a filter of misguided need of harmony. Everything can be misinterpreted into being racist or offensive.

 

I agree with you part way but "Everything can be misinterpreted as offensive" sounds to me a lot like "People say something I like is racist and I disagree and for some reason I'm the one that gets to decide."

[Lephys]

But... we are the ones who get to decide. What we mean or don't mean is what makes something racist or not.

 

Take all these slang words that keep cropping up. Just because someone somewhere decides it's funny to call someone they hate "oreo" (for example) because they're of mixed ethnicity, that doesn't mean that now I'm not allowed to speak that word because the word is racist. Can it be used in a racist fashion? Sure. But it doesn't exist in a state of racist-ness.

 

Similarities do not equal inherent parallels. Simple as that.

[ashtonw]

please replace the word oreo with the n word in your dumb analogy and tell me if it still works

[Bryy]

 

I was wondering what would you lose by adding them at least at character creation?

 

Equally, what would we gain?

 

They are at this point pretty much as "classic" as dwarves and elves in fantasy settings

I don't think "classic" is the right word. "Derivative" maybe.

 

 

It's a bit late to start adding races. The lore is already written and the beta is just around the corner.

Shoehorning in major stuff at the last minute just makes for a sloppy experience.

 

Also: the game's races were pretty much locked from day one. You're asking them to go back and make new animations, models, textures, dialogue, and conversations.

[Lephys]

please replace the word oreo with the n word in your dumb analogy and tell me if it still works

First of all, I've looked everywhere, and I can't seem to find a dumb analogy.

 

Secondly, it doesn't work if you use that word, because that's all that word is. You might as well say "replace the word 'oreo' with 'mother-effer' and see if it still works," because that makes as much sense.

 

You can append a derogatory meaning to almost anything you choose, and yet the thing to which you append it remains free of that meaning for anyone else, still.

 

Insist that's false all you want, but it isn't. Nor does it mean that extra/more-specific stuff that I didn't say is true (such as "nothing is actually racist, ever, no matter what"), so I don't really even see the point in your argument. If you've nothing significant to add, I'll just save my figurative breath, I think.

[Calmar]

please replace the word oreo with the n word in your dumb analogy and tell me if it still works

 

Basically, it does work. The cucial difference is that one word is charged with strong negative connotations while the other isn't. A word by itself is just a sound that is given a meaning by human use. Every word could be used as insult (as it might happen with mobbing).

When, for instance, we go back to the olden-timey example of World War I propaganda posted earlier, we find that "hun" is used as a hostile and derogatory term to refer to Germans. It is not difficult to envisage that it could evoke strong emotional reactions a century ago. To-day, however, it is again just a word that doesn't cause even the slightest stir.

[ashtonw]

Wow someone is really touchy about their crappy analogies.

 

 

 

But... we are the ones who get to decide. What we mean or don't mean is what makes something racist or not.

 

Maybe you didn't mean "I can say and behave any way I want and I get to decide if it's racist or not" but that's how this sounds.

[Namutree]

WOW. Just took a gander at this thread. Things have moved on to some serious subject matter. I'll throw in my opinion:

 

Tolken Orcs aren't racist. They were inspired by the German army. Unless the German army is a race; it isn't racist. Any correlation between dark skinned people and the orcs is merely happenstance. If for some dumb reason the Germans had worn bright pink uniforms instead of dark green and grey expect that the orcs would have been bright pink.

 

Tolken did not have dark skinned people in mind when he made his version of the orcs.

[Stun]

Lose the wings and this was basically how I pictured orcs for a decade, before Warcraft and Warhammer.

Wouldn't that be a Kobold? Look at the pointed head and the scales. I have never heard of any game system that has portrayed Orcs with reptilian features.

 

 

Half orc was a playable race in BG wasn`t it?

If you're talking about the original BG, then no. Half Orcs were introduced as a playable race in BG2. Edited August 7, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Maybe you didn't mean "I can say and behave any way I want and I get to decide if it's racist or not" but that's how this sounds.

My apologies. How about this?:

 

Someone deciding that something's racist is not what makes it racist. The only way to be racist is to be racist, not to just accidentally say the right magic word.

 

Or... what someone means is far more important than what they say.

 

Wow someone is really touchy about their crappy analogies.

Think what you will of my analogy. It served the purpose for which it was designed. It is a snowflake; just fine the way it is.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Lephys

[Elerond]

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

[Namutree]

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

Interesting. I had heard from a lot of sources that the German army was his main inspiration, but I guess there could be others. I may check those links out.

 

We should always just consult with you, Elrond. You are after all, an actual resident of middle-earth.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Namutree