“WotC`s Rich Baker posted the table of contents for Races of Faerun (slated
for March 2003) on the Realms-L list (scooper: Jason)”
quoted from http://www.enworld.org/
Im keen on that last one. As I mentioned in the deep past, I rather reverse the order played out above. Orog is my standard, and orc is a runtish sub-species used as slaves. But, I am very interested in seeing what the official Orog material looks like. So far Ive just been using
orcs with 3 levels of warrior. I have visions of a tougher orog than the
one on the BR card, but I am eager to see what they do with it.
Two of the PrC`s look intriguing.
-Battlerager
-Orc Warlord
The first for reasons of Rjurik interest, the second for its adaptability
for orogs. With the Bloodskull Barony a perpetual source of potential
combat, such things wet my appitite.
If someone gets this book, do let inquiring minds know what`s convertable to
BR.
----- Original Message -----
From: “Sir Justine” <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 7:15 AM
> Hummm… I understand it right? Did Forgotten “borrowed” the
> orogs from Birthright? It appears everything can be found in Faerun!
I`m not sure how unique they were to BR. Orogs were a tougher version of
orc, in the same way hobgoblins were tougher goblins, and flind were tougher
gnolls. With the 3e idea of just adding character levels to monsters, there
is less need for tougher versions of familiar monsters (note I have been
satisfactorily using orcs with 3 warrior levels for orogs). In the case of
goblins, one of the things they did was to change the favored class, so that
goblins prefer advancing as rogues and hobgoblins as warriors or fighters.
I assume that whenever orogs (or flinds) are added back in it will not be as
general monsters, that being made unneccesary by character levels, but as
special alternate versions in specific settings, or as the suppliments for
those who like oodles of monsters.
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Sir Justine wrote:
> Hummm… I understand it right? Did Forgotten “borrowed” the orogs
> from Birthright? It appears everything can be found in Faerun!
What? No. Orogs have been a staple of D&D monster lists since long
before BR, and I think its a travesty that they werent included in the
3e Monster Manual.
They were given a prominent place in BR to differentiate the setting from
others, like FR and Grayhawk, in which the orc is the primary evil
humanoid race.
Personally, I prefer a more Tolkienesque genetics, so all the humanoids
(goblin, hobgoblin, orc, bugbear, orog, ogre) are pretty much one species.
----- Original Message -----
From: “daniel mcsorley” <mcsorley@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 9:52 AM
> Personally, I prefer a more Tolkienesque genetics, so all the humanoids
> (goblin, hobgoblin, orc, bugbear, orog, ogre) are pretty much one species.
As they are in traditional folklore. The original authors of D&D monsterdom
consciously sought to consider each permutation a seperate monster as a
source of variety. So kobalds (German for goblin) are not goblins in
Brectur, but a seperate monster type. So, when they made medua and gorgon
two seperate monsters, I rather think they were following their design
philosophy, and not acting out of ignorance.
----- Original Message -----
From: “Raesene Andu” <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 10:39 AM
> There is nothing to say that they are not. Perhaps centuries of
> enslavement by the elves stunted the growth of the goblins
I rather think that hobgoblins and goblins are one species. Being rather
cruel, they deny the runts and reward the larger young. So that only the
hobgoblins have grown to full size and strength. The goblins, smaller and
weaker to begin with, turn more towards stealth and cunning to avoid getting
lost entirely in the search for rewards in goblin society.
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> > Personally, I prefer a more Tolkienesque genetics, so all the humanoids
> > (goblin, hobgoblin, orc, bugbear, orog, ogre) are pretty much one species.
>
> As they are in traditional folklore. The original authors of D&D monsterdom
> consciously sought to consider each permutation a seperate monster as a
> source of variety. So kobalds (German for goblin) are not goblins in
> Brectur, but a seperate monster type. So, when they made medua and gorgon
> two seperate monsters, I rather think they were following their design
> philosophy, and not acting out of ignorance.
I didnt really accuse them of ignorance, just that I didnt like it. You
can do just as well by statting out the orc species using levels, and
giving them names based on minor variations. A goblin would be a commoner
orc, with 1d6 hp. A hobgoblin might be a warrior, etc. Give them levels,
make their favored class variable like humans, and you can get pretty much
what they have now. Ogres might be far enough off the common stock to get
their own species writeup.
Speaking of orogs… shouldn`t they be included as a list of possible
character races in a 3e version of BR? Goblins were also excluded from the
list in the Rulebook.
Gary:
> Speaking of orogs… shouldn`t they be included as a list of
> possible character races in a 3e version of BR? Goblins were
> also excluded from the list in the Rulebook.
Hear hear!
I think that all the humanoid monster races should be included as
potential playing material for BR - gnolls, orogs, and goblins of every
shape and size.
These creatures are at least as playable as Sidhe or Vos characters
–
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
----- Original Message -----
From: “John Machin” <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 2:31 AM
> I think that all the humanoid monster races should be included as
> potential playing material for BR - gnolls, orogs, and goblins of every
> shape and size.
That seems to be whats behind Races of Faerun. Id like to see complete
work-ups of these. For example, right now, I`m allowing Weapon
Specialization to be a feat that any Orog can take with a BAB of +4 or
better. I do this in part to reflect that the card tells us that 6 HD
chiefs do +4 damage rather than the standard +2 damage (which is now a
reflection of their 15 Str). Rather than giving them super strength, the
martial character of their culture with its state of “perpetual war” make
this access sensible to me. I am sure a thorough-going approach will yield
all kinds of decisions about what is appropraite and inappropriate for
orogs.
> Speaking of orogs… shouldn`t they be included as a list of
possible character races in a 3e version of BR? Goblins were
also excluded from the list in the Rulebook.
Hear hear!
I think that all the humanoid monster races should be included as
potential playing material for BR - gnolls, orogs, and goblins of every
shape and size.
These creatures are at least as playable as Sidhe or Vos characters
[/b]
Actually I woudn’t worry much with this because if you follow the rules in the DMG you can use any monster as a pc race. Sure, the designers normally do a better work on a race originally made for pcs, like what Kenneth is doing.
[b]Orginally posted by Daniel
What? No. Orogs have been a staple of D&D monster lists since long
before BR, and I think its a travesty that they werent included in the
3e Monster Manual.
They were given a prominent place in BR to differentiate the setting from
others, like FR and Grayhawk, in which the orc is the primary evil
humanoid race.
Personally, I prefer a more Tolkienesque genetics, so all the humanoids
(goblin, hobgoblin, orc, bugbear, orog, ogre) are pretty much one species.
[/b]
Hmm, it’s just that the first time I saw orogs was on Birthright…
I agree that goblins and hob and bug should be the same race, the same way there are dogs of different size. But, at least IMC the orogs are a different race. IMC orogs live in the underground and are the ancestral enemies of the dwarves, and goblins live more on (dark) forets and are enemies of elfs. About other classical humanoid, the ogre, I’m not decided if he should be a kind of degenerate giant or a big cousin of orogs (as they live on mountains and are too enemies of the dwarfs) or even of the goblins.
Allowing orogs to take weapon specialization at +4 BAB instead of 4 fighter levels will make orog barbarians far stronger, to the detriment of their fighters - not quite sure if that’s a desirable goal; weapon specialization generally represent a roughly 20-30% boost in damage output, and has always been one of the main selling points of fighters, or taking fighter levels.
Note for Sir Justine - if you have 2e MM, check page 282, under the Orc entry - orogs are noted as a subspecies there; they were also in the original Monstrous Compendium, as well as likely some 1e products (my memory doesn’t go that far back).
So kobalds (German for goblin) are not goblins in Brectur, but a seperate monster type. [/b]
Err… no! Kobold isn’t goblin in German (O.K., you will find it in a dictionary, but they don’t know, what goblins are) and also not the AD&D version of Kobold. With the original “German” Kobold is meant the Leprechaun (this Irish guy with the gold pot).
[b]Originally posted by Trithemius
These creatures are at least as playable as Sidhe or Vos characters [/b]
A sidhe is always playable (I play nearly every time someone with at least a bit sidhelien blood in his veins) but with those vos you’re right. Perhaps I would prefer to play an orog or bugbear instead of a vos!
By the way, in the Kalamar Campaign it is possible to play goblins or hobgoblins as a PC race (without ECL), why not playing them here…
[b]Originally posted by Mark_Aurel
weapon specialization generally represent a roughly 20-30% boost in damage output, and has always been one of the main selling points of fighters, or taking fighter levels.[/b]
If you’re high-level enough, the specialization will only be a 5-10% boost for damage (magical weapons, girdle of giant strength etc.), but allowing it to an orog in such a low level will make him over dimensionally strong, that’s right. And most characters ONLY take levels as a fighter to get this specialization, for nothing else (O.K., if they are regents, then perhaps for the law holding excess too).
Looking at the folklore of early Europeans, the goblin
is also a little household trickster who might frighten
children but was mostly an annoyance to adults.
Brownies, faries, goblins, bogeymen, leprechauns,
gremlins, and the rest are only regional varriations on
a theme: “the mischievious little people who are bent on
making me search for my keys every day.” As travel
expanded and peoples folklore traditions began to encounter one another, the different names became associated with special characteristics. At root, theyre all just a generalized semi-magical little
people who cause mischief.
Kenneth Gauck kgauck@mchsi.com
> Ariadne wrote:
> Err… no! Kobold isn`t goblin in German (O.K., you will find it in a
dictionary, but they don`t know, what goblins are) and also not the AD&D version
> of Kobold. With the original “German” Kobold is meant the Leprechaun (this Irish
> guy with the gold pot).
----- Original Message -----
From: “Mark_Aurel” <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 3:15 AM
> Allowing orogs to take weapon specialization at +4 BAB
> instead of 4 fighter levels will make orog barbarians far
> stronger, to the detriment of their fighters - not quite sure
> if that`s a desirable goal; weapon specialization generally
represent a roughly 20-30% boost in damage output, and
has always been one of the main selling points of fighters,
or taking fighter levels.
Im not sure its a desirable goal either, but given the choice between a way to represent orog NPCs and the orog PC write-up comming in the future
(either the FR or the BR), I have found it works. Part of this is because I
have made nearly all orogs warriors with the remainder being adepts. My
long term goal isnt to find a permenent solution in this way, its to abandon my temp fix in favor of an official 3e orog between now and next spring. Im trying to match the familiar orog of BR rules, rather than do a
complete conversion. Weapon Specialization gives high HD orogs the +2 to
damage the orog card leads me to expect with the fewest wacky side effects.
As DM, even if I chose to make barbarian orogs (which I`m not inclined to
do) I could always choose not to give any NPC any specific feat. PC orogs
will have to wait until I see an orog PC write-up I feel good about.
Germany has a totally different myth-history than for example Ireland or Spain. You can not compare them by throwing all together in the term “Europe myth”.
In fact there is no figure like a goblin in german myth - so Goblin translated would be just Goblin. What a Kobold means, Ariadne pointed out.
Brownies, leprechauns are unknown, but could be compared to german KObolds or “Heinzelmänchen”.
Looking at the folklore of early Europeans, the goblin is also a little household trickster who might frighten children but was mostly an annoyance to adults.[/b]
Oh yes, J.K. Rowling has reawakened it with a little bit difference as a “house-elf” (see “Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban”). Actually this is mostly the Irish folklore, where this believe is alive until today.
Otherwise Brownies, goblins, bogeymen are mostly unknown and the “elf” is confused with a pixie (thanks goodness they made a film of Tolkien’s “Lord of the rings”, so most know a true elf today). Oh, and if you ask a German after a gremlin, you will get the answer: “Oh, these little hairy monsters with the large ears of the film…”
> Azrai wrote:
>
> Germany has a totally different myth-history than for
> example Ireland or Spain. You can not compare them by
> throwing all together in the term “Europe myth”.
Germans and Celts have a common origin and their stories
can, and have been examined for their common themes and
elements. One of these is the role of these little
mischevious people. We could go further, a la Campbell,
and just group all human myths together as well. It is
one thing to observe that each different groups have
different elements in their folklore, but that is not
then same thing as saying that they are totally
different. Syncreticism in folklore and comparative
mythology is not only possible, it can be useful.
> Ariadne wrote:
> Otherwise Brownies, goblins, bogeymen are mostly
> unknown and the “elf” is confused with a pixie (thanks
> goodness they made a film of Tolkien`s “Lord of
> the rings”, so most know a true elf today). Oh, and if
> you ask a German after a gremlin, you will get the
> answer: “Oh, these little hairy monsters with the
> large ears of the film…”
This is because rather than translating these creatures,
within a culture we known them by one name. These are
all the many names of one kind of creature. Its like
arguinig that puerta, Tür, porte, door, and the name of
this object in every language represents a different
object.
