| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ranin |
Posted - 16 Sep 2006 : 05:03:29
A sudden thought occured to me. (By the way...hi! )
Half-orcs and half ogres I know exist in the Realms, because of some interaction with isolated humans and orcs in their encampments, which makes sense.
Also, ogres often travel and mingle with the goblinoids and probably speak eachother's language. However, (forgive me if this seems to be a *dumb* question to the real experts of Realmslore) why have I not heard of a mixed ogre-orc peoples, or hobgoblin-orc or hobgoblin-ogre?
|
| 24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 17 Jul 2010 : 15:15:15
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The trout you caught for dinner for instance - if it spoke to you, would you still cook it and have it for supper?
Of course I wouldn't eat it, I hate seafood. Now if it was an elk... |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 17 Jul 2010 : 03:48:00
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Has nothing to do with Elves, it is RW-related, and if anyone knew me, and the many folks I am related to, they would realize I am probably the furthest thing from.
{sigh}
Doesn't matter - folks just look for ways of hurting other folks - its the way of mean people.
The general rule of thumb for me, way back when, was that if you could speak to it, it was a person (with exceptions - some folks are unable to speak for medical reasons). That rule would apply even in science fiction (broadening the 'speaking' definition to 'communicate'). Fantasy, on the other hand, has this whole 'gray area', which is why we have an artificial category called 'beasts' that falls in-between animals and people in the D&D game. Beasts are technically smarter animals, but still animals, and some of them can speak.
Is an Owlbear a person? Its fairly smart, but you can't talk to it. The WoW version - Furbolgs - even wear feathers and other trinkets, and live in huts. Yet you cannot speak to them, so they can't be 'people', right? What about a Leucrotta? They don't look anything like a person; they are quite clearly an animal - yet they can speak.
Magic muddies the waters even more, since it allows us to speak to just about anything, including rocks and dead stuff. Hell, sentient swords and other weapons are part of folklore.
And this is where it gets scarey - would you eat something you can talk to? Bear in mind that in D&D, you can talk to almost anything. The trout you caught for dinner for instance - if it spoke to you, would you still cook it and have it for supper?
Thats part of the point Ed has always tried to make in regards to the Realms - Earth morality is completely out-of-place in a fantasy environment.
*Emphasis Mine*
It is not scary at all, it's very simple. Trout is tasty. Eat it, even ask it for a recipe! Owlbear is stringy and tough. Don't eat it
That's a tough call, MT |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 17 Jul 2010 : 03:15:45
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Has nothing to do with Elves, it is RW-related, and if anyone knew me, and the many folks I am related to, they would realize I am probably the furthest thing from.
{sigh}
Doesn't matter - folks just look for ways of hurting other folks - its the way of mean people.
The general rule of thumb for me, way back when, was that if you could speak to it, it was a person (with exceptions - some folks are unable to speak for medical reasons). That rule would apply even in science fiction (broadening the 'speaking' definition to 'communicate'). Fantasy, on the other hand, has this whole 'gray area', which is why we have an artificial category called 'beasts' that falls in-between animals and people in the D&D game. Beasts are technically smarter animals, but still animals, and some of them can speak.
Is an Owlbear a person? Its fairly smart, but you can't talk to it. The WoW version - Furbolgs - even wear feathers and other trinkets, and live in huts. Yet you cannot speak to them, so they can't be 'people', right? What about a Leucrotta? They don't look anything like a person; they are quite clearly an animal - yet they can speak.
Magic muddies the waters even more, since it allows us to speak to just about anything, including rocks and dead stuff. Hell, sentient swords and other weapons are part of folklore.
And this is where it gets scarey - would you eat something you can talk to? Bear in mind that in D&D, you can talk to almost anything. The trout you caught for dinner for instance - if it spoke to you, would you still cook it and have it for supper?
Thats part of the point Ed has always tried to make in regards to the Realms - Earth morality is completely out-of-place in a fantasy environment.
*Emphasis Mine*
It is not scary at all, it's very simple. Trout is tasty. Eat it, even ask it for a recipe! Owlbear is stringy and tough. Don't eat it |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 17 Jul 2010 : 02:39:21
I would even posit that the morality of one area of Earth is completely out of touch with morality of another region...so how much more silly is it to compare our own sense of morality on what happens in a fantasy world?
I've had people tell me that it would be wrong for a Paladin to kill captured goblins...to which I replied "Having prayed mightily for their souls beforehand, the Paladin would indeed be, within his own moral views, doing the Goblins a favor by preventing them from further staining their souls with future deeds of evil. In HIS view he is both praying for their redemption and then sending them to the heavens where they might be judged without chance of his prayers for their souls being wasted. Who are YOU, a real person, to say that he was in the wrong?" |
| Markustay |
Posted - 16 Jul 2010 : 21:42:00
Has nothing to do with Elves, it is RW-related, and if anyone knew me, and the many folks I am related to, they would realize I am probably the furthest thing from.
{sigh}
Doesn't matter - folks just look for ways of hurting other folks - its the way of mean people.
The general rule of thumb for me, way back when, was that if you could speak to it, it was a person (with exceptions - some folks are unable to speak for medical reasons). That rule would apply even in science fiction (broadening the 'speaking' definition to 'communicate'). Fantasy, on the other hand, has this whole 'gray area', which is why we have an artificial category called 'beasts' that falls in-between animals and people in the D&D game. Beasts are technically smarter animals, but still animals, and some of them can speak.
Is an Owlbear a person? Its fairly smart, but you can't talk to it. The WoW version - Furbolgs - even wear feathers and other trinkets, and live in huts. Yet you cannot speak to them, so they can't be 'people', right? What about a Leucrotta? They don't look anything like a person; they are quite clearly an animal - yet they can speak.
Magic muddies the waters even more, since it allows us to speak to just about anything, including rocks and dead stuff. Hell, sentient swords and other weapons are part of folklore.
And this is where it gets scarey - would you eat something you can talk to? Bear in mind that in D&D, you can talk to almost anything. The trout you caught for dinner for instance - if it spoke to you, would you still cook it and have it for supper?
Thats part of the point Ed has always tried to make in regards to the Realms - Earth morality is completely out-of-place in a fantasy environment. |
| Kyrene |
Posted - 16 Jul 2010 : 09:12:17
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Because I've recently been accused of being a racist, so I have to walk on eggs around here.
Why, just because you (rightly) don't like elves?   Some people take 'PC' just that little too far at times.  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 16 Jul 2010 : 05:09:57
Because I've recently been accused of being a racist, so I have to walk on eggs around here.
And no sentient creature should be considered 'an animal', regardless of the correctness of that scientifically. Its not very 'PC'. |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 16 Jul 2010 : 04:35:40
If humans are animals, albeit clever oned, then why not call goblinoids animals? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 15 Jul 2010 : 19:55:38
There is a Scro in-source, and I just read about him within the past week - let me see if i can find him again.
I vaguely recall something about the Zhents, but that may not be right. Time to go digging....
Edit: Damn I'm good. 
The Blood Axe Smashers sidebar, Ruins of Zhentil Keep, pg.43
Edit2: And as a comment on the original thread topic, I have always considered Hob-Goblins (quite literally, 'High Goblins') as the Goblin-Orc crossbreed. I have read of such cross-breeds numerous times in-source, and yet a separate, distant sub-species is never, ever defined (AFAIK).
Ergo, I postulate, just like certain animals (and I am NOT calling Goblins animals!), the unique genetic hybrid turns-out superior to its parentage, if not in intelligence, then at least in size and strength (I would also argue Hobgoblins are smarter then either as well, but not all that noticeably so).
Thousands and thousands of years of cross-breeding has created a separate race of such creatures. I also hypothesize that there were probably 'breeding programs' in the distant past, most likely by Goblin Empires (Orcs don't appear to have ever established a very high level of culture, unlike Goblins, who apparentlty have in the ancient past). I could definitely see some of those more clever goblins - Blues come to mind - running such race-improving programs (the Xvart is probably another of their creations). Orcs, on the other hand, don't seem to really care who they 'rut' with. There is also the Dekanter Goblins, who may have been changed/augmented by Netherease magic, but could also be one of those cross-breeding attempts (with what, I don't know - Ogres?)
I would go further and say many of such experiments were utter failures (the Bakemono of the east could be an Urd/Goblin variant), and that even their few successes proved to be counter-productive in the long run. Hobgoblins, unlike many other humanoids, will almost always attempt to enslave goblins, which is why goblins prefer not to ally with them (pg.15, The Stonelands and the Goblin Marches, Elminster's Ecologies).
Anyhow, the reason why I put so much thought into these things is because I really grew annoyed at the constant need to provide monster-entries for every single variant in 3e. If two creatures even smiled at each other, we'd see their progeny in MM #37. I would rather find existing groups to 'place blame' on. Now, I'm not saying that a Goblin/Orc crossbreed is going to look and act exactly like a hobgoblin - those were most-likely created by years of selective breeding and thousands of years of evolution. However, if a DM wanted some quick stats for one of those cross-breeds, the Hobgoblins fit nicely. There is no reason to create new monsters, unless completely unlike anything that has gone before, with the shear number of creatures available to us in all five editions (including OD&D), in every D&D setting.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 15 Jul 2010 : 17:17:58
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
Are the Scro mentioned in a FR source?
I'm familiar with Spelljammer, and altough SJ is FR canon, is there any Realmslore pertaining to Scro?
Not much. There was a scro featured [briefly] in one of the stories among the Realms of ..... anthologies, but I can't recall which at the moment.
|
| Brace Cormaeril |
Posted - 15 Jul 2010 : 17:09:55
Are the Scro mentioned in a FR source?
I'm familiar with Spelljammer, and altough SJ is FR canon, is there any Realmslore pertaining to Scro? |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 20 Sep 2006 : 18:50:02
Shield of Innocence was an orog as far as I can remember, of the 2ed. elite ogre/orc mix. |
| Kalin Agrivar |
Posted - 20 Sep 2006 : 15:15:16
quote:
Originally posted by ShadowJack
I thought HE was an orc?... Shield of Innocence, or something like that...
yeah, that was his name  I loved that character...
I havn't read the book in a long time, but I think he was a 2E orog...I could be wrong |
| ShadowJack |
Posted - 20 Sep 2006 : 15:14:06
I thought HE was an orc?... Shield of Innocence, or something like that... |
| Kalin Agrivar |
Posted - 20 Sep 2006 : 13:41:32
There was an orog paladin in the War in Tethyr novel |
| ShadowJack |
Posted - 20 Sep 2006 : 13:04:23
Sages, Wasn't the adversary in Drew Karpyshyn's book, Temple Hill, an Orog? or do I need another cup of coffee? I remembered him being an orog... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Sep 2006 : 02:55:09
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Aye... the monk class really wasn't appropriate.
I tend to view the Scro as violently militaristic, which was how they were described in SPELLJAMMER. That's hardly conductive to the mindset of a monk.
Ah, but what is the sound of a sword undrawn? Think on this, grasshopper.   |
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 Sep 2006 : 02:44:32
Aye... the monk class really wasn't appropriate.
I tend to view the Scro as violently militaristic, which was how they were described in SPELLJAMMER. That's hardly conductive to the mindset of a monk.
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 19 Sep 2006 : 02:00:08
I agree on the update of Scro in Dragon. I also didn't really agree with monk as a favored class for them just because they are lawful and diciplined. Fighter makes perfect sense, even if it isn't very exotic, though Marshall from the Miniatures Handbook would definately be a class that I could see a Scro taking levels in. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Sep 2006 : 01:54:20
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Kind of like the old Spelljammer Scro . . .
I really liked the scro... They were updated to 3E, recently (Dragon 339), but the article disappointed me by not mentioning Almighty Dukgash. As I said elsewhere, that's kinda like doing a write-up on the githyanki without mentioning Gith... |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 19 Sep 2006 : 01:47:09
Kind of like the old Spelljammer Scro . . . |
| warlockco |
Posted - 19 Sep 2006 : 01:39:41
quote:
Originally posted by maransreth
Mixed ogre-orcs are orogs or ogrillons.
They have seen use in Salvatore's Cleric Quintet series, but apart from that are not very popular.
I have not heard of hobogoblin/ogre/orc mixes before.
Note - With orogs, according to Races of Faerun, they are just Underdark orcs. My interpretation of orog as orc/ogre offspring stems from 2e.
Orogs are no longer Ogre-Orc hybrids, they are "Super" Orcs now. |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 18 Sep 2006 : 22:45:44
I worked up the ogrillon in the unofficial Bestiary of the Realms II on Eric Boyd's website here: http://www.ericlboyd.com/dnd/monsters.html |
| maransreth |
Posted - 16 Sep 2006 : 05:06:53
Mixed ogre-orcs are orogs or ogrillons.
They have seen use in Salvatore's Cleric Quintet series, but apart from that are not very popular.
I have not heard of hobogoblin/ogre/orc mixes before.
Note - With orogs, according to Races of Faerun, they are just Underdark orcs. My interpretation of orog as orc/ogre offspring stems from 2e. |
|
|
