Just your friendly neighborhood raven knock, knock, knocking on your chamber door to let you know I got up off my rear-end and posted two old, unfinished gaming systems on my site: The Pegasus Gaming Engine and Orcs

Pegasus is fairly old, written about three years ago, and well before I'd ever encountered GNS or any of its variants, and it shows. I still like some of the ideas in it, however, particularly with task resolution and skills (and note the "there are no set attributes, you make them up as necessary for your game" bit...no, I'd never seen a game do this before when I'd written it).

Orcs is newer. I started it before I heard about John creating "Orkworld", then abandoned it after I started reading his creation journals on GO and finding a couple other games published around the same time dealing with Orcs.

I picked it back up in the last year, which also shows, since it is heavily influenced by discussions and philosophies from the Forge. It's also more comedic...and a completely unfinished mishmash of ideas, most half-finished (some from when the game was still about being orcish HEROES, a niche filled by "Orkworld", and filled better than I did (salute`, Mr. Wick!))...but, as I said, I decided to make it an almost-comedic game about orcish canon-fodder instead.

Check them out, and if you have any comments, post away!

You know, I really wouldn't MIND some feedback :smile:
[do I have to beg?]

Well, I will be honest and say that Pegasus looks like every other generic system I've ever seen. :smile:

Take care.

Peace,
Bret

On 2001-12-05 01:04, Bret wrote:
I like the way you treated the orcs, which is basically the same way I've regarded them for sometime when I've played orc characters in games - primarily seeing combat and battle as something honorable. Very Klingonish, but still fun. :smile:

Luckily, orcs breed like rabbits... is what I say..

Good stuff - though, some of your html formatting could be a bit more friendlier.

More comments later...

--Nathan

On 2001-12-05 14:27, Mike Holmes wrote:
This is also how Earthdawn handles Orks. I wonder why the impetus exists to go off in this direction with orcs, which started as a D&D disposable villain (the term orc comes from the elvish for goblin in Middle Earth).

Excellent point Brett.

But this is what I find to be a cop-out. OK, that's going too far. Orkworld, Orcs, EarthDawn; these are all earnest in their attempt to make a detailed and interesting portrayal of a culture. What I'd like to see, however, is something that tried to rationalize an interesting culture out of what the more common perception of orcs is. That is, start with orcs being genetically and/or culturally inclined towards brutalism (moreso than humans, I'm looking for a non-human culture, here), and create material that would make the culture make sense internally.

Or, even more interesting, do the same with elves or dwarves. What I see in these other games are attempts to make allegories from these creatures so that you can have human stories with them. I'm more interested in the "What if?" factor of what non-human races might be like that having them just be analogues for certain types of humans or human cultures.

But that's just me; might make for a limited audience. :smile:

Mike

What I'd like to see, however, is something that tried to rationalize an interesting culture out of what the more common perception of orcs is. That is, start with orcs being genetically and/or culturally inclined towards brutalism (moreso than humans, I'm looking for a non-human culture, here), and create material that would make the culture make sense internally.

Mike Holmes wrote:

What I'd like to see, however, is something that tried to rationalize an interesting culture out of what the more common perception of orcs is. That is, start with orcs being genetically and/or culturally inclined towards brutalism (moreso than humans, I'm looking for a non-human culture, here), and create material that would make the culture make sense internally.

On 2001-12-06 19:17, Le Joueur wrote:
Heck, I’d just like to see them do that once with Klingons.

At the risk of continuing the thread-hijack . . . Here's a quote from Ryan Dancy about Orcs in D&D. Make of it what you will:

Here's why saying "orcs are all chaotic evil" is a good idea.

If the monster's alignments are determined by their own personal belief systems, actions, upbringing and culture, then it would be an evil act to slay, out of hand and without attempts to parlay, a monster. Because that particular monster, unlike all the other members of its race might be the "good and kindly" one.

It also brings in issues of ethics regarding children and noncombatants. Do you kill the orc babies? You do if they always without exception period grow up to be Orcs (sadistic, evil creatures). You probably don't if you could send them back to your home village and have them raised under better circumstances to be productive members of civilization.

In the D&D cosmology, some creatures are evil because the gods want them that way. Not because they're misunderstood, or uneducated or come from barbarous uncivil tribal backgrounds. Gruumsh, the One-Eyed, on the day of creation, stirred a little bit of evil into the soul of each and every Orc ever to be born, so that they would satisfy some diefic and fiendish plan.

Thus, it is "OK" for the characters to slay orcs on site, kill the orc babies and noncombatants, put their villages to the torch, and salt the earth when the embers cool.

Gordon

Well, I will be honest and say that Pegasus looks like every other generic system I've ever seen. :wink:

I like the way you treated the orcs, which is basically the same way I've regarded them for sometime when I've played orc characters in games - primarily seeing combat and battle as something honorable. Very Klingonish, but still fun. :smile:

This is also how Earthdawn handles Orks. I wonder why the impetus exists to go off in this direction with orcs, which started as a D&D disposable villain.

OrkWorld is wonderfully consistent. As is Earthdawn, and your Orcs (well, yours is only consistent in that it is too short to have inconsistencies).

What I would like to see is the same sort of consistency applied to orcs as the violent, brutal, craven, and honorless monsters that they are in most games. As somebody pointed out, there is an AD&D book that tries to acomplish this, something I was unaware of, and cannot speak to as to it's effectiveness. But that's what I want. A description of how such a society works on a day-to-day basis, their psychology, etc. No product that I've seen so far does justice to the subject of orcs (mostly because its easier to leave them as unexplainably violent and a good target for PC violence).

It seems to me that the whole "honorable" orc concepts are just an attempt to make them seem misunderstood by other races, and that changes their natures considerably. It makes them more like humans with an attitude. This is a fine interperetation for those who want that, but I'd like to see a less "revisionist" version. Something that looks more at the "alien-ness" or the creatures.

I'm particularly fond of how Traveller materials handle discussions of alien races. A more violent race (say the Vargr) than humans is described in objective terms meant to give an impression of the race that allows their better use as PCs or NPCs in play. They are not left as disposable villains, nor is their predeliction for violence rationalized away as a misundrstanding. It is simply explained in terms of their psychology, cultures, physiognomy, etc.

Mike

That is, start with orcs being genetically and/or culturally inclined towards brutalism (moreso than humans, I'm looking for a non-human culture, here), and create material that would make the culture make sense internally.

Yeah, the Kafer were cool, one of the best opportunities for First Contact RPG published to date. The problems arose in the relative species understanding of one another: Kafer computers had to be huge things with steel bars because the Kafer had a tendency to hit things that did not give them the result they wanted - to make them smarter. And they'd do the same thing to human prisoners, which tended to drive them into shock, which made them uncomunicative, which made the Kafer think they were stupid and needed to be hit again...

If this is what you are trying to getting at, I see where you are coming from Mike. This would make a cool alternative psychology to play against rather than the simple Evil approach. Although it has to be said, given the prevalence of the concept of "barbarian" among "civilised" states - that pretty much any fur-wearing club-wielders are routinely seen as fair game, with no recognition of mutual humanity. In a sense, D&D orcs are perfectly accurate in this regard, although this also appears to have been construed as Stupid, which Tolkiens orcs were not, IIRC (healing magic etc).

However, thats also why they have been banished from my games. I am uncomfortable with propagating such a view of biologically-determinate psychology (despite being a materialist). I see too much 20th Century racism in D&D's "races" of humanoids: pale smart peaceful elves as the antithesis of dark stupid violent orcs. All a bit too close to the bone, in my case anyway. My fantasy worlds have nothing but humans, and various human cultures. Its more interesting that way anyway, I think.

On 2001-12-13 11:47, contracycle wrote:
Yeah, the Kafer were cool,

If this is what you are trying to getting at, I see where you are coming from Mike. This would make a cool alternative psychology to play against rather than the simple Evil approach.

Although it has to be said, given the prevalence of the concept of "barbarian" among "civilised" states - that pretty much any fur-wearing club-wielders are routinely seen as fair game, with no recognition of mutual humanity. In a sense, D&D orcs are perfectly accurate in this regard, although this also appears to have been construed as Stupid, which Tolkiens orcs were not, IIRC (healing magic etc).

However, thats also why they have been banished from my games. I am uncomfortable with propagating such a view of biologically-determinate psychology (despite being a materialist). I see too much 20th Century racism in D&D's "races" of humanoids: pale smart peaceful elves as the antithesis of dark stupid violent orcs. All a bit too close to the bone, in my case anyway. My fantasy worlds have nothing but humans, and various human cultures. Its more interesting that way anyway, I think.

What I would like to see is the same sort of consistency applied to orcs as the violent, brutal, craven, and honorless monsters that they are in most games.

(well, yours is only consistent in that it is too short to have inconsistencies).

But that's what I want. A description of how such a society works on a day-to-day basis, their psychology, etc.

but I'd like to see a less "revisionist" version. Something that looks more at the "alien-ness" or the creatures.

You make a good point, I've hijacked your thread. You've made what you wanted, and it looks pretty fun. I was just going on about something else.

My Apollogies. At least you know that you are not alone in the honorable orc thing.

Mike

Before I start: thanks to all the folks who said nice things about ORKWORLD. You rule.

Now, on to other business...

On 2001-12-07 17:22, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
At the risk of continuing the thread-hijack . . . Here's a quote from Ryan Dancy about Orcs in D&D...

Here's why saying "orcs are all chaotic evil" is a good idea.

If the monster's alignments are determined by their own personal belief systems, actions, upbringing and culture, then it would be an evil act to slay, out of hand and without attempts to parlay, a monster.

It also brings in issues of ethics regarding children and noncombatants. Do you kill the orc babies? You do if they always without exception period grow up to be Orcs (sadistic, evil creatures). You probably don't if you could send them back to your home village and have them raised under better circumstances to be productive members of civilization.

In the D&D cosmology, some creatures are evil because the gods want them that way.

Not because they're misunderstood, or uneducated or come from barbarous uncivil tribal backgrounds.

Gruumsh, the One-Eyed

on the day of creation, stirred a little bit of evil into the soul of each and every Orc ever to be born, so that they would satisfy some diefic and fiendish plan.

Thus, it is "OK" for the characters to slay orcs on site, kill the orc babies and noncombatants, put their villages to the torch, and salt the earth when the embers cool.

John,

I dunno, man.

(I had more here, and others did respond to it, but I have decided that the whole thing is off-topic and should take my comments off of this thread, leaving my on-topic comments which are sorely lacking. I'd just delete my post were that an option)

In any case, this is completely off-topic and kind of a pointless conversation. Some people use them as cannon fodder, some people prefer to think of them as a true race. There is no way to stop either.


Anyway, back to the topic.

Raven,

The games look good. Unfortunately, I can't really give them a thorough read-through. (I had surgery yesterday and can't seem to concentrate on anything. Life is sad when "certain sites" can no longer hold my interest, if you know what I mean)

Unfortunately, even if I could concentrate I don't believe either would interest me very much. Nothing wrong with your games per se. It's all me.

I had personally been working with games that don't use numbers at all, not in the typical way, anyway. Silly, I know, but that's where I am so I'm not going to be very helpful to you on that point.

But in either case I want to encourage you to pursue them. Maybe that's besides the point to you as you've mentioned that they're old and you've probably moved on to something else.

Oh well

[ This Message was edited by: pblock on 2001-12-19 12:27 ]

John Wick wrote:

Gordon C. Landis wrote:

Here's why saying "orcs are all chaotic evil" is a good idea.

Ryan's statement: I am about to explain why the genodice of a race that doesn't look like me is justified in D&D.

I just couldn't let this one slip by without a comment:

"We're never shown why the empire is so bad, really, aside from the fact the dudes in charge of it follow the Dark Side of the Force."

I'd say that blowing up an ENTIRE PLANET just to make a point IS evil.

... and the stormtroopers killed Lukes family, violated Leia's diplomatic immunity yadda yadda.

I don't buy the stock badguy argument; the problem with RPG is that it is NOT linear media and we are obliged to extrapolate the probable from the known. If we have a shitty, shallow explanation for a phenomenon in our games, it will show.

I'm also not happy with the "human bias" argument; this implies that really, all the products in the chain are just the "human" supplement showing human prejudices, like say a clanbook or similar. This doesn't wash - especially for a core rules set, it should not be perspective-specific.

Are not orcs really the barbarian ante portas? They're there because its in the imperial heroic tradition to wade through hordes of spear-carrying sub-humans.

Hey, it occurred to me that you might be able to a do a arther different interpretation based on Neanderthals. There is some evidence for ritual burial and, more speculatively, whistle-based language. If so this implies a smarter group than we are inclined to think, and the whistle language might be exploited to make them mysterious: no-one can talk to them. We simply don't have the buccal arrangements to make their sounds, nor they ours. This gives you a potential, even likely, enemy if for no reason more than the inability to talk to one another.

contracycle wrote:

I'm also not happy with the "human bias" argument; this implies that really, all the products in the chain are just the "human" supplement showing human prejudices, like say a clanbook or similar. This doesn't wash - especially for a core rules set, it should not be perspective-specific.

I don't buy the stock badguy argument; the problem with [an] RPG is that it is NOT linear media and we are obliged to extrapolate the probable from the known. If we have a shitty, shallow explanation for a phenomenon in our games, it will show.

Folks, folks, sorry to intrude, but you've all gone and hijacked the thread. I also don't (personally) think this is a particularly constructive discussion.

Either your game world has concrete concepts of good and evil, and certain races are and certain races aren't, or it doesn't. End of story.

Discussions of universal morality, of good and evil, and of moral relativism -- excepting as they relate to "the truths" of our game worlds -- are not for this forum and should be left where they belong: philosophy and religious discussion groups.

Let's be more constructive: first, move this to another thread; second, let's talk about the value of utilizing one form of morality-expression as opposed to another in a game.
That is, what are games with defined morality good for? What are games with relative morality good for?

Non-relative morality usually relies on an afterlife to punish the wicked and reward the good. If everything is relative then the fact that a certian group around 1940's in Germany treated *their own* fairly well might not get them branded 'evil' regardless of what else they did (and almost no one wants that). So absolute cultural relativity is pretty much out.

Even with AD&D's discrete alignements, it was more just an outlook than a real morality. Is the Slytherin house in Harry Potter *evil?* It sure seems that way but the books icon of good (Harry himself) was almost put in there. Now maybe it was because he could, with provocation 'go evil' but the subtext of the book was that the house's loose ethics was merely a quicker path to power. Maybe if he had been inducted in to the 'evil' house he would have made them good.

So I don't think fixed moralites without a concpet of an afterlife are useful (except in the case of the Paladin where deviations lose you powers--or if you use an Xp punishment--which I've never seen actually done). And if the afterlife question was answered (as it is in AD&D--you can go there) then what's the point? Who would want to go to the 796th level of the Abyss for ever even if it meant you got to be Duke for 30 years? No one.

-Marco

So I don't think fixed moralites without a concpet of an afterlife are useful (except in the case of the Paladin

Hmmm ... okay ... good points--however, consider this:

1. The commandments are *pretty much* spelled out as the alignments--you go to your god if you follow the alignment. Now granted, we aren't talking the 10 commandments written out on a stone tablet but with huge organizations backing each cause and each alignment having its own language (WTF!?) I think the standard of behavior is pretty clear (I mean, were all those Lawful Good NPC's just *winging* it?). The game wasn't about *questions* of good and evil, it was more about which army you fought for.

2. The final-fate table is an interesting idea--although I think my own moral code would probably override whatever someone put in the game book.

Anyway, I've never really seen the point that "what's in the game book" is going to be what's important to the GM and players.

-Marco

Boys, new thread, please. Thanks.

OK, the "which army" point is well made. But lets say, this is what makes the alignements inexplicable; they are bones of contention which are invisible. Look at the range of phenomenon associated with "goodness" or "purity" - eating or not eating certain foods, wearing or not wearing certain clothes under certain circumstances. What gets lost in the abstraction of "good" and "evil" is this kind of cultural detail. Where people start pointing fingers and declaring each other good or bad is often related to what the specific material practices are. Even if one does not want to buy into the moral relativism idea, and instead want to assert a fixed moral standard, then I think a lot of the trappings, commandments, that sort of stuff need to accompany it (to some extent this belongs on the Magic thread too, since religion and magic are essentially the same thing). Without this sort of signposting, Good and Evil are merely system attributes imposed ex cathedra by the designer or GM; and thats difficult to internalise and still suspend belief, IMO.


"Now immaculate conception in sterilised laboratories
How the vanity goes on
Or in the message of the preacher with his morals and obsessions
The wars that we wage upon ourselves
Purity is a virtue, purity is an angel
Purity is for madmen to make fools of us all
So forgive yourself my friend, all this will soon be over
What happened here tonight is nothing at all"

- New Model Army, Purity

Didn't you hear the man!? He said NEW THREAD!

:wink:

Yeah--I agree with that. The alignment system is complete bereft of any cultural trappings ... maybe you're supposed to supply your own (after the PC's get finished killing their way through Dieties and Demigods they can supply *their* own). But yeah--the societal weight of alignments in AD&D is feather-light.

-Marco
...
Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
--MATTHEW ARNOLD, Dover Beach