D&D 4E 1/2 Orcs in 4E (Rich Baker scoop)

[Mad Mac]

I'm suprised this is even a controversy. Wizards is a Corporation. All things considered, if they can put together a pc race so that they don't imply rape, I don't think they have to take a vote to figure out if thats a good direction to go in.

I probably played more Half-Orcs than anything else in 3rd edition, but I've always wanted them to have a better backstory. And while Dragonborn will take over a big part of their niche, Half-Orcs still have the potential to carve out a place for themselves.

 

[Dire Bare]

I don't disagree, but it was WotC representatives that said it wouldn't be worth doing and their preference was for gamers to start clean with 4e.

No, they didn't say that. They stated there would be no "magic formula" to convert your 3e half-orc to a 4e half-orc, and that you should just "reconceptualize" your character using the new rules rather than "converting."

If no half-orc race is provided at all, then how do I play 4e with Grunk Toesplitter, my half-orc factotum? I can use existing (well, existing in June) 4e classes to replicate the feel of my 3e factotum class, but what about race? Give him human stats and color him green? That could be done, sure, but is somewhat lacking.

So, WotC isn't comfortable with the fantasy trope of the half-orc in the core game. But they know a lot of us gamers love us our half-orcs, so they're gonna give us what we want anyway, just not in the core books.

I just can't believe there are so many cranky gamers who are upset at this. I, for one, THANK WotC for going out of their way to provide us with the half-orc in Dragon Mag. And I'm totally cool with the half-orc not being in the core books.

 

[Wolfspider]

I thought they were nice-ifying orcs in 4e Forgotten Realms, making them more allies of humans and the rest. I'd think that this new portrayal would lead to a lot more opportunities for racial mixing than just rape.

 

[Wolfspider]

I, for one, THANK WotC for going out of their way to provide us with the half-orc in Dragon Mag.

They are providing us with service that they will expect payment for. They're not doing us any favors here.

 

[Azgulor]

No, they didn't say that. They stated there would be no "magic formula" to convert your 3e half-orc to a 4e half-orc, and that you should just "reconceptualize" your character using the new rules rather than "converting."

If no half-orc race is provided at all, then how do I play 4e with Grunk Toesplitter, my half-orc factotum? I can use existing (well, existing in June) 4e classes to replicate the feel of my 3e factotum class, but what about race? Give him human stats and color him green? That could be done, sure, but is somewhat lacking.

So, WotC isn't comfortable with the fantasy trope of the half-orc in the core game. But they know a lot of us gamers love us our half-orcs, so they're gonna give us what we want anyway, just not in the core books.

I just can't believe there are so many cranky gamers who are upset at this. I, for one, THANK WotC for going out of their way to provide us with the half-orc in Dragon Mag. And I'm totally cool with the half-orc not being in the core books.

Actually, I was referring to a statement made at the 4e announcement or in one of the early announcements that followed where they stated that conversions weren't recommended, not the half-orc blog.

[The remainder of this post is not directed at Dire Bare]
I understand that in these days of pre-4e, it's seemingly unpopular to have opinions that don't clearly fall into the pro- or anti- camps. Here's one last attempt to re-state the issue I had with the blog:

1. Half-orcs don't HAVE to be a product of rape. WotC dropped gnomes from the PHB and radically altered their appearance & in-game mythology (if the gnome in the recent cartoon "interview" is any indication). Clearly, they could have done the same with the half-orc. WotC is choosing not to come up with a more "pleasant" reason for the existence of the half-orc.

2. As with the gnome, if WotC doesn't want the half-orc in the PHB, it's ultimately their call. However, the cited reason of the "their unpleasant origin" rings hollow to me due to the inclusion of the tiefling.

3. Tieflings, deriving from some yet-to-be-fully-told infernal connotation is, at least to the more G- and PG-minded audience , an "unpleasant origin".

4. I believe both the tiefling's and the half-orc's "default origin" can be easily relegated to backstory and largely ignored/forgotten for gamers who wish to do so. However, if exploration of either origin is examined in-game in a dark, mature-themed game (ala Book of Vile Darkness) then both have the potential to be inflammatory. I never said they were at parity, as that would be dependent upon one's beliefs and/or personal experiences. I also never said that the tiefling had no place in D&D.

5. In true 4e-debate "objectivity" (a criticism that applies to both sides of the aisle), my tiefling comparison was dismissed by some who view diabolic/demonic influences/pacts as "fiction" that couldn't possibly be comparable to the "reality" of rape. Aside from potentially insulting millions of people of different faiths, there is a huge difference in having a character's origin stem from rape and including rape as a topic in-game. Tanis Half-Elven from DragonLance was a product of rape. It was part of the reason he found it difficult to gain acceptance in elven lands.

 

[Spatula]

You're mixing up Keith Baker with Rich Baker.

Whoops! Well, let Keith design the 4e half-orc, I say.

 

[Rechan]

1. Half-orcs don't HAVE to be a product of rape. WotC dropped gnomes from the PHB and radically altered their appearance & in-game mythology (if the gnome in the recent cartoon "interview" is any indication). Clearly, they could have done the same with the half-orc. WotC is choosing not to come up with a more "pleasant" reason for the existence of the half-orc.

Sigh.

Why do people keep insisting on this when the OP of this VERY THREAD quotes Rich Baker saying that they are trying to do this?

 

[Relique du Madde]

Here are my 2 cents:

If humans originated as a nomadic race of plains dwellers, then it is likely that many early human cultures were composed of barbarians who saw physical strength and stamina as being preferred traits. So, then why is it "inconceivable" that at least one tribe of humans who encountered orcs didn't have multiple members of the tribe believe that the orcs were physically superior to other human males/females and thus decided to take one as their mate?

At the same time, is it also inconceivable for the opposite to happen, for an orc male/female decides to take a human as a mate for similar reasons?

 

[Azgulor]

Sigh.

Why do people keep insisting on this when the OP of this VERY THREAD quotes Rich Baker saying that they are trying to do this?

Heavy Sigh. <See I can do it too. > I miss the days when you could post to EnWorld without having someone parse your response in an attempt to disparage your post.

1. The criticism is of the stated reason for excluding the half-orc from the PHB. Which you already knew.

2. Your attempted deflection has no bearing on the contradiction (as I see it) that the inclusion of the tiefling creates with regards to the exclusion of the half-orc. It also does not provide a counterpoint to the other items I listed in my post.

Later gator.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They are providing us with service that they will expect payment for. They're not doing us any favors here.

...a service that will not be available to all who might want it, for that matter.

Not everyone- even those with the ability to pay for it- will get access to Dragon online (for a variety of reasons).