So there is an article up on WoTC talking about why Gnomes and Half-Orcs were not included in the original 4e PHB, but are now featured in the PHB2 coming out soon.
I am not going to cover the article in detail, but there was one part that, I think, brings up one of the (seemingly) focuses of 4e that drives me to distraction.
In discussing the Half-Orc, the author (James Wyatt) had this to say (The Bill mentioned is Bill Slavicsek):
"Half-Orcs present a problem, as only copious amounts of hand waving can make this race exist without some nod toward the dark tendencies that led to their creation. We have introduced a number of races that replace the better aspects of the half-orc, including tieflings and dragonborn. It's time to let the half-orc fade from the game. (Later in the edition if a better story comes along, we can reexamine this decision.)"Now, Bill did make some good points in that short paragraph. Tieflings fill the same sort of walk-the-edge, bad-guy psychographic niche that half-orcs have in the past, and dragonborn fill a similar tough brute role. Forcing players to confront the issues surrounding what could get a human and an orc to produce a half-orc child has never been a fun part of the game.
The whole idea that the Half-Orc was bypassed simply to avoid talking about the 'dark tendencies that lead to their creation' seems pretty weak. It seems to exemplify the idea that 4e is a happier, friendlier D&D.
Gone are the racial penalties, because we don't want PCs to feel...penalized? Gone are the half-orcs, because we don't want to have to discuss the fact that someone, at some point, may have done something bad? (And what about Half-Elfs? Somehow Half-Orcs have to based on the concept of rape, yet it is assumed Half-Elfs are the product of a consensual coupling?)
Really, given the way 4e currently works, can you really have a flawed character? I know, you can roleplay personality quirks, flaws to your hearts content. But nothing replaces a hafling rogue with only 5 strength, who steals everything, but can carry nothing. Or a Fighter with 7 Wisdom who is constantly falling for other peoples schemes.
Well I don't have the DDI any chance you might post the whole thing? If you can legally that is.
I am not sure on the legality of posting an editorial...can someone from Paizo weigh in on this?
I think it would be safe to assume that if an article requires you to subscribe to read it, then it is probably not allowed to publish it for non-subscribers.
There were a few more hinted at issues with the half-orc, not including their original creation.
I believe I read the comment that after their creation, they eventually began to "breed true", i.e. half-orcs beseech half-orcs.
Sadly, once this happens, you no longer have a half-orc, you now have an official new race.
Esentually, if you do not continue the idea that whatever created them, continues to do so..dark magic, rape, etc..the whole lot of half-orcs will eventually breed themselves out of known exsistance.
So there is an article up on WoTC talking about why Gnomes and Half-Orcs were not included in the original 4e PHB, but are now featured in the PHB2 coming out soon.
I am not going to cover the article in detail, but there was one part that, I think, brings up one of the (seemingly) focuses of 4e that drives me to distraction.
In discussing the Half-Orc, the author (James Wyatt) had this to say (The Bill mentioned is Bill Slavicsek):
"Half-Orcs present a problem, as only copious amounts of hand waving can make this race exist without some nod toward the dark tendencies that led to their creation. We have introduced a number of races that replace the better aspects of the half-orc, including tieflings and dragonborn. It's time to let the half-orc fade from the game. (Later in the edition if a better story comes along, we can reexamine this decision.)"Now, Bill did make some good points in that short paragraph. Tieflings fill the same sort of walk-the-edge, bad-guy psychographic niche that half-orcs have in the past, and dragonborn fill a similar tough brute role. Forcing players to confront the issues surrounding what could get a human and an orc to produce a half-orc child has never been a fun part of the game.
The whole idea that the Half-Orc was bypassed simply to avoid talking about the 'dark tendencies that lead to their creation' seems pretty weak. It seems to exemplify the idea that 4e is a happier, friendlier D&D.
Gone are the racial penalties, because we don't want PCs to feel...penalized? Gone are the half-orcs, because we don't want to have to discuss the fact that someone, at some point, may have done something bad? (And what about Half-Elfs? Somehow Half-Orcs have to based on the concept of rape, yet it is assumed Half-Elfs are the product of a consensual coupling?)
Really, given the way 4e currently works, can you really have a flawed character? I know, you can roleplay personality quirks, flaws to your hearts content. But nothing replaces a...
Did you read the article? The editor made it very clear that he DISAGREED with Bill's take on half-orcs. At the same time, however, they are clearly caught between a rock and a hard place: if they provide a half-orc write-up with the traditional understanding of half-orcs, they can't provide a decent ecology without addressing the issue of rape which would put some strain on the idea of D&D as a potentially family-friendly thing. On the other hand, if they don't include half-orcs a lot of people get very upset about Wizards releasing an "incomplete" game (ignoring for the moment how ridiculous that particular argument is). The solution, then, is to re-imagine half-orcs' origins or, in the spirit of 4th Edition, provide a number of possible origin stories for them without pinning it down to one or another. I think it's a pretty elegant solution - it lets the individual DM decide how/if he wants to address the topic without feeling like they're somehow going against canon.
Of course you can have a flawed character. You can role-play whatever flaws or quirks you feel like you need to in order to be interesting (PROTIP: despite what a lot of hard-boiled role-playing enthusiasts might tell you, flaws are very rarely the most interesting part of a person you are required to interact with). But you're not going to be deprived of the ability to contribute meaningfully unless you really make a special effort to suck at something.
The real "weakness" that is possible in 4th Edition, and that you need to work to avoid, is a lack of teamwork.
Re. the OP, I do agree to some extent. The rest of the article dwells on how they tried to create a reason for half-orcs. But it seems they are overly complicating the issue. If two races exist near each other, there is bound to be some interbreeding whether from arranged marriages, romance, or rape. It happens - I'm not sure why it's such a sticky issue other than the fact that they are probably trying to get more of the young adult crowd. Hmmm, when I was a "young adult" it never seemed to be an issue.
However, there is such a thing as a flawed character in 4e - the current gnome I'm playing makes that perfectly apparent. Low on Charisma, he keeps blurting out the wrong things to people that gets the rest of the party in trouble.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I think it would be safe to assume that if an article requires you to subscribe to read it, then it is probably not allowed to publish it for non-subscribers.
Reposting anything more than minor excerpts from *any* copyrighted content without permission, whether freely available or not, is potentially trouble.
I just wanted to point out that 3e/3.5e was already going away from the "flawed" statistics character as you rerolled if you didn't have atleast one stat over 14 or something like that. Techically you could still roll crappy if your DM uses the rolling for stats method and therefore end up with a bad ability score so it doesn't really change.
WotC in this case wanted to make the game family-oriented and introducing children or parents to "rape scenarios" involved in the typically older half-orc background isn't exactly a good idea. On the other hand it could easily have been adapted to a frontier setting where the human barbarians favored strength and intermingled with the orcs resulting in half-orcs.
As to the entire half-orcs are a core race and stuff... half-orcs were NOT core in 2e. The creators did what they felt would make decent starting races for the launch of 4e and went with it. I personally never liked half-orcs as a core race so I am not concerned about it. If they are making it into PHB 2 then so be it and those that claim the absents of half-orcs will now have them.
I did read the article, and the fact that James disagreed with Bill had nothing to do with the issue I was trying to discuss.
I was using the quote as a starting off point to discuss the idea of having to sanitize 4e to make it family-friendly. By sanitize, I mean both the exclusion of backstories/ecologies whose content seems too dark/controversial and the idea that having a PC with a penalty of some sort automatically means the person playing him will not get as much enjoyment out of playing.
Maybe the next errata will change the Deafened condition to "You are not deafened, but everyone else can now hear better" :)
I guess I just feel like this was an unnecessary step.
If you are not enjoying your PC, talk to your DM. If they can't help you figure out a way to get more enjoyment out of the game, perhaps the DM (or game) is not for you.
If you are concerned with making the content more family-friendly, I don't see how the traditional Half-Orc backstory would stand out any more than other potentially disturbing aspects of the game.
|
What if half-orcs weren't spawned by rape, but rather by 9 bag fugly humans who couldn't get a date among their own kind? And Orcs who were too "soft" to find a real orc mate?
And do you really think that half-elves could have been born in any kind of great numbers without elf-human/human-elf assault?
And how are we supposed to believe Tieflings didn't originate from non-family-friendly practices?
If you are concerned with making the content more family-friendly, I don't see how the traditional Half-Orc backstory would stand out any more than other potentially disturbing aspects of the game.
I can see how it would. I mean if your 12 year old wants to introduce you to the game he has to go over all the races you can play. That probably means bringing up the concept of rape within the first 10 minutes of your introduction to D&D - similar issue for the parent that has an 8 year old and a 10 year old they want to finally start gaming with. You just might find that your wife just gave herself wiplash doing a double take if the concept of rape comes up, though this scenario is less problematic because Dad presumably is smart enough to skip the Half-Orc option with this particular audience.
Almost every other potentially disturbing aspect of the game is essentially story dependent - the DM can simply not introduce inappropriate themes into the story if the audience is not really ready for it. Hence an adventure about a tracking down a Succubus that seduces her victims and then murders them might make a really good adventure but its probably not the one I'd use when introducing my parents to the game if I was a younger teenager or, especially, a pre-teen or my children to the game if they are fairly young.
And do you really think that half-elves could have been born in any kind of great numbers without elf-human/human-elf assault?
Yes.
If you think about it elves, in general epitomize femininity, elven females particularly so. Hence form a female elves perspective human males are quintessential examples of masculinity. So, while its perfectly possible to conceive of an eleven male being attracted to a human female the more likely scenarios are human males attracted to elven females while eleven females are, in turn, attracted to human males. From her perspective their are a heck of a lot of muscular tall dark and handsome humans around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are concerned with making the content more family-friendly, I don't see how the traditional Half-Orc backstory would stand out any more than other potentially disturbing aspects of the game.
Your 8 year-old son wants to play. He thinks half-orcs are cool, but wants to know how they became half-orcs. Do you:
A) Explain to him that many of them are the product of rape, and cringe at the unavoidable, "What's rape, daddy?"
B) Silently thank WotC for providing an intentionally ambiguous set of origin stories, and explain to your son that, when the world was young, the two gods Corellon and Gruumsh fought an epic battle. Gruumsh was injured, and a portion of his essence fell to the world and transformed a group of humans into half-orcs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are concerned with making the content more family-friendly, I don't see how the traditional Half-Orc backstory would stand out any more than other potentially disturbing aspects of the game.Your 8 year-old son wants to play. He thinks half-orcs are cool, but wants to know how they became half-orcs. Do you:
A) Explain to him that many of them are the product of rape, and cringe at the unavoidable, "What's rape, daddy?"
B) Silently thank WotC for providing an intentionally ambiguous set of origin stories, and explain to your son that, when the world was young, the two gods Corellon and Gruumsh fought an epic battle. Gruumsh was injured, and a portion of his essence fell to the world and transformed a group of humans into half-orcs.
Or
C) how a human and orc fell in love. If anything I think this would be the better answer cause it also teaches the kid to not judge people by how they look.
I think it would be safe to assume that if an article requires you to subscribe to read it, then it is probably not allowed to publish it for non-subscribers.Reposting anything more than minor excerpts from *any* copyrighted content without permission, whether freely available or not, is potentially trouble.
Right. Sorry if I implied otherwise.
|
I can see how it would. I mean if your 12 year old wants to introduce you to the game he has to go over all the races you can play.
If you are concerned with making the content more family-friendly, I don't see how the traditional Half-Orc backstory would stand out any more than other potentially disturbing aspects of the game.
Three boys. Been playing D&D with them since ... forever.
Not once, and let me repeat that for effect, not once have they ever asked about "where half orcs come from."
The rape issue, the "omg my poor kids" issue, and just about every other issue outside of "we just don't like half orcs, so nyah!" is what you and I put in there. The game, in its long, sordid past, allow(s)(ed) demons, witchcraft, evil, assassins, murder, etc etc etc. All the classic baddies except bad Thai and taxes (I never played Birthright) and we've all survived, and I would be hard-pressed to find out where anyone was damaged because of it, even James Dallas Egbert, III. Even if the question ever does come up, the power to handle it is entirely in MY hands.
Why? Because our DMs have been able (mostly) to gauge the game group and tailor the game to the group. If I want my orc/human interaction to be more along the lines of "Dances with Wolves" as opposed to "Rob Roy" then that's my call. We beat this dead horse like it's even a matter of concern, when quite frankly, it's truly a non-issue.
Larry pegged this one right on the head.
Unfortunately I think half-orcs should die a fiery death and remain on the sidelines as a "Monster" race as they were in 2e but unfortunately I am not getting my way and will probably have to put up with a half-orc at some point because it is in the PHB2 as a race.
Unfortunately I think half-orcs should die a fiery death and remain on the sidelines as a "Monster" race as they were in 2e but unfortunately I am not getting my way and will probably have to put up with a half-orc at some point because it is in the PHB2 as a race.
If they removed every racial option that some group wanted destroyed, then the game would have no races left.
Aren't both half-elves and half-orcs based on Tolkien?
Half-elves; such as Aragorn and Elrond. No forceful unions there.
Half-orcs; Uruk-hai. Large, strong orcs developed by Saruman to be able to work in daylight. I think they were referred to as a crossbreed which I always thought of as more wizardly tampering than a product of rape. I always thought Orcs were 'breed' in vats so half-orcs were also 'breed' in vats. Did Tolkien even have female orcs? Anyways, the forceful union issue could easily have been avoided.
But I also don't see half-orcs as a necessity in D&D. I see them as campaign specific. It is just that so many of us see the default D&D world as Tolkien-based. Someone once said that all modern fantasy writers are 'just moving furniture around in Tolkiens' attic'. (Count this quote as VERY paraphrased)
So, while its perfectly possible to conceive of an eleven male being attracted to a human female the more likely scenarios are human males attracted to elven females while eleven females are, in turn, attracted to human males. From her perspective their are a heck of a lot of muscular tall dark and handsome humans around.
Actually, I have no problem imagining a lot of elven males being attracted to human females. Where elf women have slim contours, human females have curves. By the same analogy of human males looking more masculine to elves, that'd make human women look more vibrantly female.
It's like meeting a species whose females consist largely of fertility goddesses.
Grant you, plenty of elves probably think human women are chubby, but probably the same percentage think human males are hairy brutes.
If you are concerned with making the content more family-friendly, I don't see how the traditional Half-Orc backstory would stand out any more than other potentially disturbing aspects of the game.Your 8 year-old son wants to play. He thinks half-orcs are cool, but wants to know how they became half-orcs. Do you:
A) Explain to him that many of them are the product of rape, and cringe at the unavoidable, "What's rape, daddy?"
B) Silently thank WotC for providing an intentionally ambiguous set of origin stories, and explain to your son that, when the world was young, the two gods Corellon and Gruumsh fought an epic battle. Gruumsh was injured, and a portion of his essence fell to the world and transformed a group of humans into half-orcs.
Or they could say, 'well, their are a lot of ways, but most often they are children from families which have orc and human parent. These kinds of familys form as a result of close interaction between communities of orcs and humans in harsh enviroments and provide benifits to both communities.' To which i expect my children by the age of eight to say, 'but daddy, if they are seperate species, how do they produce viable young?' If a child it to young to know the very basics where babies come from, they are probably to young to be playing a game about happily commiting genocidal massicres against other cultures, or as most gamers know it, killing things and taking their stuff.
|
IMO all half races should be removed. Each race should be considered a separate species and just as cats can't breed with dogs can't breed with cows and so on orcs shouldn't be able to breed with humans shouldn't be able to breed with elves and so on. The few species that can inter breed always have sterile offspring and can't start a new species. Only magic should be able to create a half-orc or half-elf or a half dwarf but the creations would not be able to procreate so there would never be half-races only hybrid characters.
If half-Orcs are all (supposedly) a product of rape, then how the hell do you think most Tieflings are born???
Why are they a better fit to the game? 4E is a game of contradictions and bad explanations.
...Tieflings were originally the result of human nobles making pacts with evil worldly entities and their bloodlines being tainted/cursed. On the same note their great empire was eventually wiped away probably as a result of divine retribution for their evil worldly pacts or the fact that they bucked up to the Dragonborn Empire.
...Tieflings were originally the result of human nobles making pacts with evil worldly entities and their bloodlines being tainted/cursed. On the same note their great empire was eventually wiped away probably as a result of divine retribution for their evil worldly pacts or the fact that they bucked up to the Dragonborn Empire.
ONLY in fourth edition, eh......in second edition (where the race debuted, in the original Planescape boxed set) they were the diluted bloodline of fiend/non-fiend mating (not close enough to the initial "coupling" to be half-fiends), and as you might imagine, this came as a result of illusion magic or sexual violence (hard to imagine too many demons other than succubi/incubi going the ol' subtlety route). I recall that it was both implicitly and explicitly stated for several tiefling characters throughout the Planescape line that their origins were less than consensual... ....
And for the record (in case the thought comes up as it has in a roundabout way on EN World), I don't think any of the people who object to the morally squeamish attitude that WOTC seems to be evincing are "pro-rape"! For crying out loud, that's just ludicrous (I've worked with victims of abuse/rape, in the days before I became a teacher, and I'm well aware of how devastating and long-lasting the consequences can be)...but many of us certainly include "mature" material in our games, and just as we sometimes have to "up" the darkness of the material given to us by publishers, I think it only fair that some players should find ways to remove what they deem objectionable (which is perfectly cool....if I was playing with youths/my children, I sure wouldn't want too much Book of Vile Darkness stuff sneaking in), as it is always easier to remove than to add in from whole cloth.
So, since that was so bloody longwinded ;-) I'll sum up: The evil pact stuff is an invention of fourth edition, and the original material certainly implied less than savoury origins for many tieflings (again, unless I'm misremembering).
Cheers, (and if I'm remembering things incorrectly, I hope that someone will leap in to correct me)
Colin
Looking at the 3.5 write-up for the Half-Orc makes the idea that they dropped them from the original 4e PHB even odder:
"In the wild frontiers, tribes of human and orc barbarians live in
uneasy balance, fighting in times of war and trading in times of peace.
The half-orcs who are born in the frontier may live with either human or orc parents, but they are nevertheless exposed to both cultures."
Nowhere does it cover/mention/deal with the supposed 'dark origins' of the Half-Orc race.
Honestly, if it is that much of an issue, then I would tend to agree with the poster above who mentioned the idea of removing all 'Half' races. Any moral issues around discussing the origins of the Half-Orc should also exist for the Half-Elves.
All I am trying to say is that using this as an excuse to leave Half-Orcs out of the initial PHB seems kind of weak. If they had said they just didn't like them, or that they simply felt there was no need for them, etc. I would have no issue with it. I just have an issue with changes made somehow appeal to the general public (Greedo shooting first, changing the guns to flashlights in E.T., etc.)
Everyone knows that Han shot first and they are just in denial. We also all know that Wizards PR department gets the epic fail and definitely failed their bluff checks with their veiled disguised excuses for not wanting things in the new edition but not wanting to overly "anger" the fans of said things.
Unfortunately I think half-orcs should die a fiery death and remain on the sidelines as a "Monster" race as they were in 2e but unfortunately I am not getting my way and will probably have to put up with a half-orc at some point because it is in the PHB2 as a race.If they removed every racial option that some group wanted destroyed, then the game would have no races left.
Half orcs are generally (99% of the time) the product of rape. Lets be honest if happens in the human world too.
One of my present characters is a half elf and product of rape(evil human female fighter capured an elf-you can fill in the gaps..Ooohh Errr).
At the end of the day half races are an avenue for an interesting background. A lot of half orcs hate their orc parent but it'd be an interesting meeting when they meet their orc parent!!
I don't think the less popular races like Half orcs and gnomes should've been in the PHB but should have been offered in the MM. Sadly the half orc isn't as far as i've seen. It's a shame because Half-Orcs and Half Elves have been in the fantasy genre for a long,long time( as stated Elrond, Uruk-Hai however Uruk-Hai were a union between human savage tribesman and Orcs- the nature of this 'Union' is unknown(yikes)).
I've got my options for half orc so I'm sorted personally.
So, since that was so bloody longwinded ;-) I'll sum up: The evil pact stuff is an invention of fourth edition, and the original material certainly implied less than savoury origins for many tieflings...
I don't think WotC really cares about whats in previous editions in this regard. They are desperately trying to woo a much younger audience into the current edition. Its not really relevant what was true or not true of older editions for this.
In any case if we are looking for strong consistency in their behaviour in this regard I don't think we'll find it. They are being pulled in multiple directions hence what the goal of a decision is on a Friday night might not be the same as it is Monday morning.
Their basic problem is that they have a general longer term goal of making D&D family friendly and bringing in lots of new blood into the hobby. Fantasy is huge these days but D&D has been shrinking, its had some great rallies but when all the numbers are added up its highest garnering periods are all in the past. I recall Eric posting that Dungeon's best years where in the early or mid 90's - despite the fact that the magazines were absolutely steller under Paizo's banner. In other words Paizo grew the readership but not up to the point where it was during its heyday.
So WotC (and by extension Hasbro) are stuck with a problem that even when they have, in the past, put out a steller product (3rd edition) they've never been able to do more then bring back into the fold some lapsed gamers or stolen some market share from other RPGs. There are many individual exceptions to this statement, there were people that never played who started for the first time in 3rd - but on a macro scale this has been their problem. So we get a family friendly edition because, from Hasbro's perspective, owning a property thats going to do nothing but decline from what is, for them, already pretty insignificant numbers cash wise, is no good. Might as well just save themselves all the effort and keep the IP for computer games where its actually worth something that might make their share holders take notice.
However thats all fine and dandy as an overriding goal - the problem is that right here right now their customer base is generally older adults who are perfectly willing to handle more adult themes - and they'll potentially pay for them. Worse yet its been shown that the really dark stuff actually sells very well - even if it does cause a backlash in small town America. So on the days when they are worrying about their immediate revenue it starts to make a whole lot of sense to show case some buff demons sacrificing near naked and very nubile female elves - but on the days when they remember that they are aiming to recruit armies of 12 year olds into the ranks of D&D players they spend a lot more time concentrating on the fact that they want to be a family friendly game.
|
|
C) how a human and orc fell in love. If anything I think this would be the better answer cause it also teaches the kid to not judge people by how they look.
That would make a very cool romeo-juliaesque story. And for the resulting Half Orc Player more chances of PC development than Drizzt ever had.
But I think, and this makes me sad, that in our society we can not imagine that a beautiful creature can love an ugly creature. Even the Beats from Beauty and the Beast turns into a handsome prince in the end.
So, since that was so bloody longwinded ;-) I'll sum up: The evil pact stuff is an invention of fourth edition, and the original material certainly implied less than savoury origins for many tieflings...I don't think WotC really cares about whats in previous editions in this regard. They are desperately trying to woo a much younger audience into the current edition. Its not really relevant what was true or not true of older editions for this.
In any case if we are looking for strong consistency in their behaviour in this regard I don't think we'll find it. They are being pulled in multiple directions hence what the goal of a decision is on a Friday night might not be the same as it is Monday morning.
Their basic problem is that they have a general longer term goal of making D&D family friendly and bringing in lots of new blood into the hobby. Fantasy is huge these days but D&D has been shrinking, its had some great rallies but when all the numbers are added up its highest garnering periods are all in the past. I recall Eric posting that Dungeon's best years where in the early or mid 90's - despite the fact that the magazines were absolutely steller under Paizo's banner. In other words Paizo grew the readership but not up to the point where it was during its heyday.
So WotC (and by extension Hasbro) are stuck with a problem that even when they have, in the past, put out a steller product (3rd edition) they've never been able to do more then bring back into the fold some lapsed gamers or stolen some market share from other RPGs. There are many individual exceptions to this statement, there were people that never played who started for the first time in 3rd - but on a macro scale this has been their problem. So we get a family friendly edition because, from Hasbro's perspective, owning a property thats going to do nothing but decline from what is, for them, already pretty insignificant numbers cash wise, is no good. Might as well just save themselves all the effort...
I'd also like to point out that this is a good thing. These 12 year-olds, as much as we might like to scoff at them, are the future of this hobby. Without them, it dies. And I think if we're honest with ourselves, we weren't that much different from them at that age.
But I think, and this makes me sad, that in our society we can not imagine that a beautiful creature can love an ugly creature. Even the Beats from Beauty and the Beast turns into a handsome prince in the end.
We still have Schreck anyway...
But seriously, this "children overprotection" is pretty insane. I wonder if those 10-year olds are sent to their rooms when the evening news run on tv. No fantasy RPG gritty background can beat that! When I was growing up, tv news were a ritual and I never got sheltered from any info or the questions I could pose.On a similar vein, it is quite ironic how a game which deals with violence (and not only heroic violence, but things like death cuts, flesh warping and guilds of assassins) may get so fidgety about an item of campaign background which usually is just that, background (as opposed to many grisly and gory effects in your average Out of the Grave entry).
The answer seems to be that the "unfriendly" item in "sexual violence" is, obviously, not "violence", but "sexual". But I still fail to see how a kid fit to be exposed to the concept of a guild or cult which murders for money or pleasure (check Zehir, which is pretty 4e "core") is not fit to assume that some races or creatures are born because of forced or violent reproduction, a form of "evil" which, of course, needs no details beyond background, and which is not so different from other forms of evil which the game does not hide in the closet (demonic pacts, mercenary murder, invasion wars, executions, etc).
Of course, D&D assumes a level of violence, which, especially in the "hero-friendly" 4e is implied to be justified in an old-style "fight the good fight" context. But characters with troubled pasts (demonic bloodline, ex-cultists, recycled criminals, etc) are a reality of the game (and even encouraged at times in notes for creating "memorable characters").
Singling out a form of "dark background" (a good challenge for profiling an interesting hero) seems to be yet another case of hypocrisy around basic sexual education, the same one which let kids watch pretty grisly and violent movies throughout the 20th century while any form of insinuation of sexuality (not to speak of its portrayal) immediately became PG-whatever.
I used to feel quite ashamed of the Judges' Guild "Prostitute Tables", but going in the opposite direction is not any less ridiculous.
|
|
C) how a human and orc fell in love. If anything I think this would be the better answer cause it also teaches the kid to not judge people by how they look.That would make a very cool romeo-juliaesque story. And for the resulting Half Orc Player more chances of PC development than Drizzt ever had.
But I think, and this makes me sad, that in our society we can not imagine that a beautiful creature can love an ugly creature. Even the Beats from Beauty and the Beast turns into a handsome prince in the end.
I don't disagree my only point was that would have been just as easy of a answer to publish if they wanted it to a family friendly. Though really this is the type of answer the DM should answer for their own games anyways.
|
|
But I think, and this makes me sad, that in our society we can not imagine that a beautiful creature can love an ugly creature. Even the Beats from Beauty and the Beast turns into a handsome prince in the end.We still have Schreck anyway...
But seriously, this "children overprotection" is pretty insane. I wonder if those 10-year olds are sent to their rooms when the evening news run on tv. No fantasy RPG gritty background can beat that! When I was growing up, tv news were a ritual and I never got sheltered from any info or the questions I could pose.On a similar vein, it is quite ironic how a game which deals with violence (and not only heroic violence, but things like death cuts, flesh warping and guilds of assassins) may get so fidgety about an item of campaign background which usually is just that, background (as opposed to many grisly and gory effects in your average Out of the Grave entry).
The answer seems to be that the "unfriendly" item in "sexual violence" is, obviously, not "violence", but "sexual". But I still fail to see how a kid fit to be exposed to the concept of a guild or cult which murders for money or pleasure (check Zehir, which is pretty 4e "core") is not fit to assume that some races or creatures are born because of forced or violent reproduction, a form of "evil" which, of course, needs no details beyond background, and which is not so different from other forms of evil which the game does not hide in the closet (demonic pacts, mercenary murder, invasion wars, executions, etc).
Of course, D&D assumes a level of violence, which, especially in the "hero-friendly" 4e is implied to be justified in an old-style "fight the good fight" context. But characters with troubled pasts (demonic bloodline, ex-cultists, recycled criminals, etc) are a reality of the game (and even encouraged at times in notes for creating "memorable characters").
Singling out a form of "dark background" (a good challenge for profiling an interesting hero) seems to...
Well, sexual violence is not just another form of background and pretending that it is is disingenuous. I suspect most 12-year-old male kids would be quite relaxed about it, actually, but whether that goes for their mothers, or their older sisters, or whoever is debatable. There may well be women who are less than comfortable with a particular character race emerging from rape, and (lest we forget) women are a demographic that WotC is interested in too. In fact, it could be seen as a bit creepy, sitting in a basement with a bunch of male gamers talking about interspecies rape - kind of off-putting, no?
Also, it is not down to a self-selecting jury of male gamers to determine what parents should consider appropriate for their kids to know about. By leaving the subject out, then the parent-gamer can decide if he (or she) wants the rape thing in or not, rather than having it foisted on them (and maybe preventing him or her actually buying the supplement). Let's stop trying the see this as a moral/societal issue and see it for what it really is - a commercial decision to avoid controversy and maximise the appeal of the game and the PHB2. Which is, in my view, perfectly reasonable.
Also, it is not down to a self-selecting jury of male gamers to determine what parents should consider appropriate for their kids to know about. By leaving the subject out, then the parent-gamer can decide if he (or she) wants the rape thing in or not, rather than having it foisted on them (and maybe preventing him or her actually buying the supplement). Let's stop trying the see this as a moral/societal issue and see it for what it really is - a commercial decision to avoid controversy and maximise the appeal of the game and the PHB2. Which is, in my view, perfectly reasonable.
When you mention 'leaving the subject out', are you refering to the Half-Orc altogether, or the idea that the race was most likely born out of a rape between a orc and a human?
Really, if they are concerned about having their children exposed to the topic of sexual violence, both the Half-Orc and Half-Elf should stir the same concerns with parents. If the parents are unfamiliar with traditional fantasy conventions, then why would a Half-Orc character cause any more concern than a Half-Elf?
My issue is that this implied origin is one that seems to not actually be mentioned in D&D, and is most likely based upon a somewhat shared background of popular fantasy stories. (I really only cam into D&D at teh time it converted to 3.5, so forgive me if earlier version spelled out this background more explicitly.)
|
|
When you mention 'leaving the subject out', are you refering to the Half-Orc altogether, or the idea that the race was most likely born out of a rape between a orc and a human?
The origins of the half-orc, not the half-orc themselves.
Really, if they are concerned about having their children exposed to the topic of sexual violence, both the Half-Orc and Half-Elf should stir the same concerns with parents. If the parents are unfamiliar with traditional fantasy conventions, then why would a Half-Orc character cause any more concern than a Half-Elf?
In Tolkien (where they both come from) the half-orc emerges from breeding experiments by Saruman rather than rape (they aren't the uruk-hai, interestingly enough, but there is some guy in Bree who is a bit swarthy who - in the end - turns out to be a half-orc). Half-elves (Elrond and Elros, the only two I think) arose through a human and an elf falling in love.
Getting back to the half-orc, in the literature it was a spy, not a rampaging barbarian. The latter came later with the D&D imagining of the race. So given that the D&D half-orc is a fairly unique creation in its own right, I think they are probably entitled to do what they want with it.
My issue is that this implied origin is one that seems to not actually be mentioned in D&D, and is most likely based upon a somewhat shared background of popular fantasy stories. (I really only cam into D&D at teh time it converted to 3.5, so forgive me if earlier version spelled out this background more explicitly.)
See above. More broadly, I don't see what is so cool about rape. I mean, I know it happens - in fact that is probably the problem. Yes, the game entrenches and celebrates violence, but of an unrealistic kind - fireballs springing from the fingertips, greatswords and whatnot. Very few of us know victims of that sort of violence - it is remote and cartoony, sort of safe.
Rape, on the other hand, is not like that. I know someone close to me who was raped. While the statistics might be a bit dubious, it is common enough in real life to not be remote like the examples above. I can cope with it, but I don't really need it in the game for verisimilitude - I don't play the game for that, but for escapism. If WotC take the decision to remove a subject like that from the basic version of the game, I say fair enough. If you want it back, that is a decision for you, which is also fair enough.
See above. More broadly, I don't see what is so cool about rape. I mean, I know it happens - in fact that is probably the problem.
I agree with the sentiment and to be honest I personally agree with dumping the half orc from the PHB, I just think it's an interesting race option for adult players and they could have dropped it into the Monstrous Manual.
I'd say for kids it's more a 'Warf' character from STARTREKK, Big, gruff and agressive. Not too bright. From that end I doubt if any kids would even consider the method of their creation but I do agree it doesn't need to be written in the main book and easily left for parents to decide.After all I'd prefer to encourage kids gaming through D&D than not.
|
|
And do you really think that half-elves could have been born in any kind of great numbers without elf-human/human-elf assault?Yes.
If you think about it elves, in general epitomize femininity, elven females particularly so. Hence form a female elves perspective human males are quintessential examples of masculinity. So, while its perfectly possible to conceive of an eleven male being attracted to a human female the more likely scenarios are human males attracted to elven females while eleven females are, in turn, attracted to human males. From her perspective their are a heck of a lot of muscular tall dark and handsome humans around.
Jeremy,
By that logic, they ought to be even more attracted to Orcs, Bugbears, Trolls, Ogres, etc.No. Elven females would be programmed by genetics and sociatal concepts of "normalicy" to be attracted to elven males.
It's like saying female humans would be attracted to gorillas because they are so much more masculine than us.
I'm not buying it.
Reckless
The thing is, I agree that they don't need to deal with the idea of rape in talking about Half-Orcs. I have 2 young children and if they take an interest in D&D in the future, it is definately not the origin I would bring up.
My (main) issue was that they left out the Half-Orc and used the reasoning of not wanting to deal with their 'dark origins'....even though the sourcebooks never actually laid claim to these origins.
I have no particular love for the half-orc as a PC. I never really understood why a straight up orc couldn't be allowed instead, and I think that was why I was drawn to Eberron when it came out. I liked the fact that you could play a race like Orc, Bug-Bear, etc. without having to alter the setting too much.
|
|
The thing is, I agree that they don't need to deal with the idea of rape in talking about Half-Orcs. I have 2 young children and if they take an interest in D&D in the future, it is definately not the origin I would bring up.
My (main) issue was that they left out the Half-Orc and used the reasoning of not wanting to deal with their 'dark origins'....even though the sourcebooks never actually laid claim to these origins.
I have no particular love for the half-orc as a PC. I never really understood why a straight up orc couldn't be allowed instead, and I think that was why I was drawn to Eberron when it came out. I liked the fact that you could play a race like Orc, Bug-Bear, etc. without having to alter the setting too much.
The half-orc thing comes about from Tolkien, I suspect. I've always had a bit of a soft spot for them, but agree that a straight orc probably makes more sense biologically. As for the dark origins - well, from the brief perusal above, that seems to be more "Bill's" problem than anyone else's. I quite like the alternative mechanic of humans getting drenched in Gruumsh's blood - the barrier to me was anyone wanting to get jiggy with a chick with giant muscles and tusks like a warthog.
|
|
In Races of Destiny, there was an orkish/half-orcesque race called the Sharakim. They became half-orcs because of a curse bestowed on them for eating a sacred stag. Before that, according to their legends, they were human. In light of the fact that tieflings are no longer the decendents of a outsider/human pairing but decendents of humans who made dark pacts with infernal outsiders for greater power, why not use the Sharakim legends for the new half-orc?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
David,
I think that's the crux of the issue. There are lots of ways to make Half-orcs, G rated, Shakrim gives us a race of 'Beasts' from Beauty and the Beast. PG rated, Human and orc tribes living side by side, and the R-rated version. Orcs attack villiage, etc etc.
WotC didn't. They appear to have taken the cop-out of 'they're icky, so we've held back on them. Lets go with cool demon people and dragon people instead!'
For me, I jsut find it funny that the poster child for half elves was the product of rape, but they didn't banish the half elf.
Aubrey. Ever watched the US American Gladiators remake? Helga may not have tusks, but she does have a following.
See above. More broadly, I don't see what is so cool about rape. I mean, I know it happens - in fact that is probably the problem. Yes, the game entrenches and celebrates violence, but of an unrealistic kind - fireballs springing from the fingertips, greatswords and whatnot. Very few of us know victims of that sort of violence - it is remote and cartoony, sort of safe.
Perhaps in our somehow-safe North-America / Europe paradigm. Perhaps no greatswords, but a local warlord moving into town and wreaking havoc and murder on a village is a reality to contend with; getting a village in Irak levelled by a (at times mistaken) air raid is pretty firebally, actually.
Anyway, the "clean" demons and devils of 2000s standards were the big issue in the 70s-80s game with the BADD insanity and the accusations on "Satan worship".
Increasing prudishness in exposing minors to sexual issues (or mere allusions) is the trademark of the last couple decades.
And, BTW, I do not see how it is necessarily a "male gamer" concept. If a background is treated with maturity, respect and enough vagueness (let's admit it, we do not want to know what a Warlock pact actually entails, we just keep it background and that's it) is clearly apt for any gender and definitely for the age bracket of the game (10 onwards, isn't it).
As pointed out, I remember reading Dragons of Autumn Twilight at 9 or 10 (most of my classmates did too) and I saw no problem, demeaning or distortion with an iconic half-breed fantasy character product of rape. It was a solid character background which players could take or not; just censoring that aspect of fantasy cliches is, again, more a sign of present Western ideology (in its paradoxes) than anything else.
The half-orc thing comes about from Tolkien, I suspect. I've always had a bit of a soft spot for them, but agree that a straight orc probably makes more sense biologically. As for the dark origins - well, from the brief perusal above, that seems to be more "Bill's" problem than anyone else's. I quite like the alternative mechanic of humans getting drenched in Gruumsh's blood - the barrier to me was anyone wanting to get jiggy with a chick with giant muscles and tusks like a warthog.
Some of us have "weird" tastes. I've seen more than a few images of female half-orcs (and I do mean ones that look orcish, not just girls with a green filter on them) and at least a few female orcs I've been attracted to.
My attraction to burly women aside, D&D orcs have long had a traditional thing... an unnatural fecundity that allowed them to breed with almost anything. In past editions, half-orc-half-humans, orogs(half orc, half ogres,) half-orc-goblins, etc. were commonly known to exist because that was just a weird quality of orcs.. a sort of aggressive genetic code that allowed them to pass on their genetics no matter what. Even if a small band of orcs were trapped in isolation without enough to sustain their numbers, as long as a sufficient population of something humanoid and mammalian was around, blood lines could continue. Ironically, one might say (that kind of) orcs have the most to gain from positive interactions with other species of all the fantasy races because any of the other races could benifit their gene pool.
Assuming orcs are weird that way and it works for them is no harder for me to believe, than, say, that a xenomorph (from the Alien movies.) can steal the genetics of creatures from entirely other planets. It's actually kind of a cool concept for a fantasy race.
|
|
IMO all half races should be removed. Each race should be considered a separate species and just as cats can't breed with dogs can't breed with cows and so on orcs shouldn't be able to breed with humans shouldn't be able to breed with elves and so on. The few species that can inter breed always have sterile offspring and can't start a new species. Only magic should be able to create a half-orc or half-elf or a half dwarf but the creations would not be able to procreate so there would never be half-races only hybrid characters.
Magic! Magic can create Chimera, why can't it create a half-elf? a half-dragon?
In a low magic world, cool, but in a standard D&D world, no...lame.