ORCS or Half-Orcs?

[Wormwood]

But if the baseline is Eberron or WoW level of fantasticness, then us gritty players/DMs will probably start looking for a system that more closely reflects that.

I suspect 'gritty' GMs can hand-wave away Klingon Orcs just as they've been hand-waving away axiomatic corrosive burst weapons.

 

[Epic Meepo]

The LotR stuff at least gives you a solid, somewhat gritty baseline, and you can "fantastic it up" into Forgotten Realms or Eberron if you want. But if the baseline is Eberron or WoW level of fantasticness, then us gritty players/DMs will probably start looking for a system that more closely reflects that.

A high-fantasy baseline is much better than a gritty baseline. It's really easy to turn high-fantasy into gritty by dropping things from the rules (i.e. everyone is human, no spells with visual manifestations). On the other hand, turning a gritty baseline into high-fantasy is as difficult as designing a high-fantasy game from scratch (i.e. here's 50 pages of house-rules for standard high-fantasy races, classes, and spells not supported in the default rules).

 

[S'mon]

I suspect 'gritty' GMs can hand-wave away Klingon Orcs just as they've been hand-waving away axiomatic corrosive burst weapons.

I dunno, if the default flavour is too intrusive I may just stick with C&C.

 

[RangerWickett]

Ooh, orcs as the new 'normally bad guys' PC race. It'll be so cool and stylish to play an orc. I think I'll make an orc ranger with . . . *sigh* no, I won't make the joke.

There just need to be rules for half-orc/half-elves. Can half-elf be a template?

 

[Wormwood]

I dunno, if the default flavour is too intrusive I may just stick with C&C.

Well that's kinda the point.

3e D&D's flavor is sufficiently distinct from C&Cs that there is an audience for both.

4e seems to be continuing this trend.

 

[Wormwood]

Can half-elf be a template?

I prefer the idea of 'elf blood' and 'orc blood' feats myself.

edit: the more I think about it, all races could simply be a feat.

 

[frankthedm]

Wasn't 1E teh edition that said that 1/2 orcs were almost always the product of rape?

They never said it directly IIRC. They did not need to say it. One does not need a history book to know human raiders raped and carried off the losing side, why would wicked humanoids with a reputation for being fecund be any more pleasant?

 

[Irda Ranger]

The thing is nowdays you have two orc archtypes. The newer one is a savage but more or less of noble orc (Morrowind etc.). The older versions is Tolkien's kannibalistic, brutal and hateful demons in mortal flesh. The former makes fine PCs and fill the savage type hole in PC race types, the latter is not really suitable even for an evil party.

So the questions is, which ones your orcs are.

Yeah, your personal conception of what Ocs "are" will heavily influence your ability to accept them as a PC race.

In my campaigns Orcs have always been the Tolkien variety: corrupted flesh, or mortal demons. There were plenty of primitive human tribes (or Kagonesti-like elves) that served as good sources of the "noble savage" character.

My question for the 4E designers is: if Orcs are noble savages now, what the "baseline humanoid badguy savage"? That's an archetype that's fairly important to a lot of campaign worlds. Hobgoblins are too organized; goblins too weak; bugbears too strong; etc. etc. If Orcs are PC, there's now a hole in the humanoid lineup. Is there a proposed fill-in too?

I hope so, and it better be good.

Admittedly, what I'll probably do (if Orcs are in fact PC's), is rename them and adapt them into a Dragonlance-like Minotaur race. "Orcs" are already established as the corrupted mortals IMC, and so they will remain.

 

[Irda Ranger]

A high-fantasy baseline is much better than a gritty baseline. It's really easy to turn high-fantasy into gritty by dropping things from the rules (i.e. everyone is human, no spells with visual manifestations). On the other hand, turning a gritty baseline into high-fantasy is as difficult as designing a high-fantasy game from scratch (i.e. here's 50 pages of house-rules for standard high-fantasy races, classes, and spells not supported in the default rules).

Hmmm. Just as a quick counter-point, my DM has found it easier to tack Elements of Magic on top of Iron Heroes, rather than pare D&D 3.5 down to "fantasy level" we are trying to achieve. We've got a pretty good "LotR-level" of fantasy going (there was only one magical sword found in 8 levels of play, it was destroyed in a Gandalf-on-Saruman level arcane battle a couple of sessions ago), which I think would be flat-out impossible using D&D.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

My question for the 4E designers is: if Orcs are noble savages now, what the "baseline humanoid badguy savage"? That's an archetype that's fairly important to a lot of campaign worlds. Hobgoblins are too organized; goblins too weak; bugbears too strong; etc. etc. If Orcs are PC, there's now a hole in the humanoid lineup. Is there a proposed fill-in too?

Hopefully they'll get over the 'these are good races' and 'these are bad races' paradigm for regular humanoids and emphasize that the rampaging barbarians might be ANY race at all, even those traditionally thought of as good. In fact the points of light setting concept seems tailor made to do this by emphasizing the barbarian/civilized divide instead of the elf/orc divide.