Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Direct DFTalk transcript quote about orcs, i.e. WoG:

I don't know if any of you have played Armok I, because we had a number of stock creatures, and I don't remember if orcs were one of them or if we called them goblins; I really don't remember. To me those terms are basically interchangeable; one is more Tolkien and one is much older.
[Interviewer] More general? [/Interviewer]
Yeah. Goblin is an old old word, and orc I think is an invention of Tolkien. So we just went with goblin for that reason, and because we didn't want to cleave ... even though the game obviously is related to Tolkien heavily we didn't want to cleave ourselves too closely with it in terms of terminology because we're always going to moving away from that stuff just because we're adding more and more things. I don't think of orcs as something that needs to be added with goblins; goblins can be thought of as orcs to the extent that that comparison makes sense.

(...I just happened to listen to this again, recently, so fresh in my mind to search for.)

And according to wikipedia, orc was just the elfish word for goblins in Middle Earth. In LoTR chapters which are from the hobbit's point of view, the word "goblin" is used even for Uruk-hai. So the terms are interchangeable both according to Toady Word-of-God and Tolkien Word-of-God. So from what specific authority are they separate? From Gary Gygax Word-of-God. i.e. they're only separate races if you adhere to the D&D Monstrous Compendium as your canon source.

[pisskop]

D&D is, in all fairness, the basis for most pop knowledge about the fantasy genre

[Evans]

you say canon, but i dont think you know what that means

Evans said "canon" but means "generic". Evans is arguing that if anything is generic enough, it needs to go in. "Canon" only makes sense in terms of a single franchise. If it's not in the franchise, it is by definition not canon, no matter how many other franchises use it. Evans also argues that because MDF has more stuff than DF, then that validates throwing literally everything we can think of plus the kitchen sink into DF. But "needs more stuff" => "add all the generic stuff" doesn't logically follow.

Umm... hello?
I never said "it needs to go in".
I said I support adding most accepted elements of fantasy genre into DF if it fits ("if it fits" perhaps should be written in capitals for you).

Should I write it again to you with proper accents and using bold tags, so that it would be more obvious?

Also, wtf is wrong with you guys and the word "canon"?
By dictionary definition it doesn't concern a single franchise or whatever.
Maybe where I came from this means something different, but I am not willing to argue about linguistic nuances.

And when I said "folklore" it was clear. Tolkien concocted the notion of "orc" for his novels. Therefore it's a literary reference. "Folklore" is, very simply, "lore" of "folks": myths that spread word of mouth, rather than something one author wrote in a book. This distinction actually strengthens the inclusion of one of the very few modern creatures that DF has: the Gremlin. Gremlins come from modern folklore (lore made up by regular folks) rather than any specific literary source, like orcs and halflings.

No. You were not clear. Not even close to being clear.
I asked you direct questions - which folklore you had in mind? Mayan? Slavic? Russian? Japanese? Arabic?
Folk Lore as in wisdom of the folks vary greatly between regions. You just can't say "use global folklore" because this is an absurd.
There is no such thing as world-wide "folklore" to base DF upon, unless of course you limit that to current american folklore (which is based on original immigrant countries a lot) and for example ignore vastly different native american folklore (from all americas).

So instead of trying to smartly insult me and insist I proposed things I didn't , answer the question.
WHICH FOLKLORE?

While we're adding in literary references how about we add Superman and Batman? Why not? They'd add more variety and make the game distinct from other fantasy games. And they're just as traditional as orcs and halflings But I guess the counter-argument to superheroes is that they're "not canon". But "non canon" to what exactly? Not-canon to someone else's limited idea of what DF is "supposed" to be.

A canon literature, where I live, is understood as a collection of works, writings or otherwise influential "objects" in a field of art or otherwise that have been accept as a "standard guideline" to this field.
For example a round wheel would be a wheel that fits a canon. It would be 'canon' wheel.

A canon fantasy literature would include, but not be limited to Tolkien, Pratchett.  It would rather include Lewis, Howard, maybe Lovercraft even. Cook and his 'Black Company' would also fit.
The list would go on, because many books do fit fantasy genre rather well, despite not being similar on the first glance

This is fantasy genre. Batman and superman are modern superheroes, and would be closer to sci-fi, that is somewhat different entirely.

Now, if some of you smart guys would explain to me what is your highly educated definition of word "canon" so that my way of using it caused so much commotion, I would be grateful?

[Reelya]

WHICH FOLKLORE?

Well the thing is, all the existing examples of non-original creatures in DF are drawn from "folklore" from a number of cultures. Exactly zero of them are literary references to other people's work. Orcs and Halflings fall into the "literary references" basket, hence they don't fit the existing theme of DF.

The problem with the idea of adding Orcs itself is that they add literally no new gameplay possibilities that aren't already covered by goblins. "Bigger Goblins" is a shit idea as far as making the game better. Why not add some race with new characteristics not already covered by existing races?

[Evans]

I have checked a dictionary meaning of the word 'canon' out of pure curiosity.
it would seem that there are at least 20 different definitions.
For the future of this conversation let me retract my use of this word and replace it with "popular, commonly accepted elements of fantasy genre".

WHICH FOLKLORE?

Well the thing is, all the existing examples of non-original creatures in DF are drawn from "folklore" from a number of cultures. Exactly zero of them are literary references to other people's work. Orcs and Halflings fall into the "literary references" basket, hence they don't fit the existing theme of DF.

Folklore varies from village to village.
In one village here, there is a story of a creature called Reelya. It is a skinless, 8 legged turtle, and it squirns and fidgets.
Folks there think of Reelya as a good omen for harvest and tend to leave a bowl of milk before doors for it.
But folks in another village think that while Reelya does make crops grow bigger, it also piss into the milk buckets.
So they weave twigs into wards and place them on barn doors and make sure all the milk is kept in closed pots before they go to sleep.

This is how folklore works. A tale about one creature here would be different from the tale about this creature there.

If we dig deep enough, most of the creatures in fantasy genre were drawn from folklore. And original dwarves and elves were very different from modern depictions.


I am not entirely sure if you are entirely sure what you are saying.
An existing theme of DF is a patchwork of ideas taken from different cultures and thrown into DF because why not.
I don't see the reason as to why limit the world which has animal people next to unicorns next to goblins next to necromancers next to dragons next to trolls in it, really.
Most of it isn't "folklore" but a mainstream fantasy genre.

The problem with the idea of adding Orcs itself is that they add literally no new gameplay possibilities that aren't already covered by goblins. "Bigger Goblins" is a shit idea as far as making the game better. Why not add some race with new characteristics not already covered by existing races?

I don't support orcs, because they are orcs. I don't support the idea of adding the orcs at all - I am simply not against it.
Any new race would be welcome, regardless of it being orcs, nagas, halflings, underwater lizard-spider-scorpion men etc.

I am just not opposed to the 'orcs' because of them not fitting the theme, not being part of the folklore, that part of fantasy genre etc etc.

And btw:
There already is bat man in Dwarf Fortress 

[Bumber]

No. You were not clear. Not even close to being clear.
I asked you direct questions - which folklore you had in mind? Mayan? Slavic? Russian? Japanese? Arabic?
Folk Lore as in wisdom of the folks vary greatly between regions. You just can't say "use global folklore" because this is an absurd.
There is no such thing as world-wide "folklore" to base DF upon, unless of course you limit that to current american folklore (which is based on original immigrant countries a lot) and for example ignore vastly different native american folklore (from all americas).

So instead of trying to smartly insult me and insist I proposed things I didn't , answer the question.
WHICH FOLKLORE?

I inferred his stance to be: "Doesn't matter where; no anachronisms (except gremlins) or races authored by an individual."

Orcs were never "orcs" before the 1900s. DF is set around the 1400s, lore wise. Tolkien coined the term to mean "evil spirit or bogey", after the Roman god Orcus. Traditional/folklore orcs, therefore, must be "bogeymen". They aren't muscled, tall, war-like humanoids. Those are Tolkien's Orcs™.

[Evans]

Neither were elves and dwarves. Just the actual names existed longer, but current depiction is vastly different

We all love wikipedia now, don't we:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(mythology)

Sooo. Our dweorgs aren't turning into stone in broad sunlight, are they?

[Dirst]

No. You were not clear. Not even close to being clear.
I asked you direct questions - which folklore you had in mind? Mayan? Slavic? Russian? Japanese? Arabic?
Folk Lore as in wisdom of the folks vary greatly between regions. You just can't say "use global folklore" because this is an absurd.
There is no such thing as world-wide "folklore" to base DF upon, unless of course you limit that to current american folklore (which is based on original immigrant countries a lot) and for example ignore vastly different native american folklore (from all americas).

So instead of trying to smartly insult me and insist I proposed things I didn't , answer the question.
WHICH FOLKLORE?

I inferred his stance to be: "Doesn't matter where; no anachronisms (except gremlins) or races authored by an individual."

Orcs were never "orcs" before the 1900s. DF is set around the 1400s, lore wise. Tolkien coined the term to mean "evil spirit or bogey", after the Roman god Orcus. Traditional/folklore orcs, therefore, must be "bogeymen". They aren't muscled, tall, war-like humanoids. Those are Tolkien's Orcs™.

A lot of the terms now considered generic fantasy were pretty slippery back then.  Dwarf, kobold, goblin, elf, troll and orc each had a variety of depictions with an uncomfortably large region of overlap.  My understanding is that medieval orcs tended to be sea creatures and/or what we'd today call ogres. (And dwarfs were not necessarily small.)

I also distinctly remember reading a myth about The Orc being a sea monster, but can't find a reference since it's drowned in web searches by generic fantasy stuff.

[FantasticDorf]

WHICH FOLKLORE?

Well the thing is, all the existing examples of non-original creatures in DF are drawn from "folklore" from a number of cultures. Exactly zero of them are literary references to other people's work. Orcs and Halflings fall into the "literary references" basket, hence they don't fit the existing theme of DF.

The problem with the idea of adding Orcs itself is that they add literally no new gameplay possibilities that aren't already covered by goblins. "Bigger Goblins" is a shit idea as far as making the game better. Why not add some race with new characteristics not already covered by existing races?

Now now, there is no such thing as a explicitly bad idea, but moreso a misguided one. Orcs have already been done in modifications like masterwork to be different (different racial casts, warrior culture etc) in distinction to goblins which are uniform and demon driven. I do agree that if there was any reason for orcs to be it'd have to explicit or mechanically different, such as otherworldly portal invaders (which is also a orc trope) to justify a hostile race coming through that could be stopped by destroying them (could take a long time) or the portal itself.

Its also worth mentioning that DF is its own fantasy context genre as to say the 'Zach and Tarn'verse' of artistic mediums, as every good fantasy universe draws upon the broad ideas and expands it in general reference to established themes (orc and or monsterous antagonists etc, humanoid protagonists) if you require some reference the hard literature relevant to DF and its development can be found in the threetoes story segment of the bay12 DF site

In my own mind, goblins become effectively more monsterous and larger with muscle mass as they train, and already there are distinctions in height between goblins as it is, and are professional warriors despite diminutive stature, some large enough to wield double handed swords. In the end against orcs, the goblins would mechanically win eventually and just steam-roll them into their own ranks by conquering or annihilating the like-minded creatures.

[Starver]

I also distinctly remember reading a myth about The Orc being a sea monster, but can't find a reference since it's drowned in web searches by generic fantasy stuff.

Are you thinking of the orca? (Derived from Orcus, also, it seems.)

[Bumber]

Neither were elves and dwarves. Just the actual names existed longer, but current depiction is vastly different

We all love wikipedia now, don't we:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(mythology)

Sooo. Our dweorgs aren't turning into stone in broad sunlight, are they?

They just slow down and vomit everywhere instead. Maybe the planned deeper dwarves could.

Elves seem pretty much the same, with promiscuity replaced with cannibalism. (IIRC, because the trait was going to go to them or goblins, and players already hated elves.) Elves are much like dryads with their trees.

[bluwolfie]

I personally support the addition of Orcs, I think it fits and would be an interesting addition.

you say canon, but i dont think you know what that means.

you are explicitly suggesting they become canon

I feel insulted and I refuse to delve deeper into this discussion.

So instead of trying to smartly insult me and insist I proposed things I didn't , answer the question.
WHICH FOLKLORE?

To be fair, you seem quite easily insulted.

[Evans]

To be fair, you seem quite easily insulted.

To be fair, I don't see the point in taking it personal.
Over the course of this topic we explained linguistic differences, and my use of capital letter was to underline the important question asked.

So to be fair, I think there is nothing to discuss further. Stay positive.

[Werdna]

That should not however be an excuse for a vanilla lack of content
...
On a side note, the first time I played DF was in adventure mode back in 2008.

May I point out the irony of playing a game for 8 years and criticizing its lack of content? 

[Dirst]

That should not however be an excuse for a vanilla lack of content
...
On a side note, the first time I played DF was in adventure mode back in 2008.

May I point out the irony of playing a game for 8 years and criticizing its lack of content? 

You can't forge the playtime into weapons and it's not attracted to a lodestone.  Don't see anything irony about it at all