Fantasy Reproduction

[Susano]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

Oh' date=' another visual I wanted to toss out there: usually orcs move around a lot (especially if an ogre emerges, ask me about that another time), so they only have one chamber in their temporary base. However, if orcs spend an extended period of time at a location, or multiple tribes visit the same spot... multiple chambers will be built in proximity. Over time, this chambers can become connected with tunnels. Sometimes created by earth movements, water flow, or even creatures trying to escape, it creates an intricate network of spawning chambers connected by tunnels. Who knows what could be lurking down in such an extensive spawning network?[/quote']

 

Politicians?

[Manic Typist]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

Ok, I'm repping you when I get the chance.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

I got 'im.

 

That thought was simple and Pure Evil.

[Lucius]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

The mage could result in anything you wanted. A orc that was immune to magic. Can you imagine if he became a chieftan?

 

A particularly powerful shaman. Especially if the wizard survived the chamber.

 

If there were a large number of bodies in the chamber, or a couple of big bodies, I could easily see something of an ogre, with magical abilities.

 

Perhaps some sort of golem that is similar to the chamber? It can walk and fight and slowly changes those around it... A true horror.

 

Or anything else you want to come out.

 

 

Oh, another visual I wanted to toss out there: usually orcs move around a lot (especially if an ogre emerges, ask me about that another time), so they only have one chamber in their temporary base. However, if orcs spend an extended period of time at a location, or multiple tribes visit the same spot... multiple chambers will be built in proximity. Over time, this chambers can become connected with tunnels. Sometimes created by earth movements, water flow, or even creatures trying to escape, it creates an intricate network of spawning chambers connected by tunnels. Who knows what could be lurking down in such an extensive spawning network?

 

L MFF! Ow! Hey!

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Getting run over by a palindromedary before he can say anything to insult the profession of our gracious host, Mr. Long.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

In the last fantasy setting I did with Elves and Orcs (both of which I no longer use)' date=' the name I had for a half-elf/half-orc was 'human'.[/quote']

 

You know, if you view "evolution" in your fantasy worlds in moral terms rather than biological ones, it makes perfect sense. It could also serve the explain the absence of elves and orcs in the modern world in a campaign where they existed in the past; they melded into the human race.

 

The thing that makes humans so fascinating is that they lack the sort of "internal guidance systems" of other fantasy races. A human is not born good or evil, and throughout his life never becomes entirely one or the other. His parents could be absolute saints, yet he could turn out to be a monster of Hitlerian proportions -- and vice versa. At least if he is sane and reasonable, he does not see the world in black-and-white, absolute terms but appreciates the "shades of gray". This means that he is a free agent. He is capable of making moral decisions, which is something that a traditional Orc (or Elf, for that matter) cannot do because so much of their thinking IS hard-wired into them.

[Susano]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

He is capable of making moral decisions' date=' which is something that a traditional Orc (or Elf, for that matter) cannot do because so much of their thinking IS hard-wired into them.[/quote']

 

"Traditional" in what way? Per D&D tradition?

[Manic Typist]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

And Tolkien, to an extent.

 

Although some of the actions of elves could easily be considered evil... I don't recall an account of a good orc.

 

Maybe he was filled with arrows before anybody could get to know him?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

Tolkien is a good reference to my point. A Tolkien Orc was certainly intelligent and capable, but he had certain characteristics built into him that restricted his ability to make moral decisions. This reflects the fact that he was created by an external influence for a specific purpose, rather than simply being born and then choosing his own path.

 

But Susano raises a good point -- there are innumerable fantasy cosmologies involving Orcs in which they ARE free agents the way humans are in the real world. Of course, this begs the question of why those cosmologies use Orcs and not something else entirely.

[arcady]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

The below is a bit off topic and I'm trying to pull it back on...

 

I have always had 'trouble' with depictions of Orcs in fantasy. After Tolkien, they increasingly took on traits that mirrored the way journalism and public discourse in the 19th through mid 20th century spoke of Native North Americans. Some of the language in DnD is a near mirror image for language once used to dehumanize Indigenous people around the world. Artwork of them often depicts them in 'feathered tribal' outfits, and their magical people get known as 'shamans', and it just goes on and on.

 

As a result, I often would create counter language among Orcs describing elves or humans in the same sort of way Native Americans described those invading their lands, and then did up a 'real culture' for my Orcs that was not rooted in assuming 'racialized language' was true, but that it was a political-slander to justify a conflict.

 

So... my Orcs have always been 'free agents' as much as my elves and my humans - but each had ideas that the other was evil, and a long tradition of 'loaded language' to back it. With so many fantasy settings assuming they interbreed, I could use the 'fear of racial dilution' as one reason / justification for the 'loaded language'.

 

 

Orc breeding pits and such can seem fun, but to me, I have always felt uncomfortable with the idea of any notion of pure good or evil, and violence justified on its basis. To me, even the escapism of it helps to keep alive the possibility of 'loaded perceptions' outside of escapism. So for me, seeing Tolkien's Orcs as actually evil was not escapism, it was something that made me uncomfortable, something that made me want to question why he felt the need to make an 'evil race', and I have never been able to stop thinking about that and the fact that he came out with LoTR not long after WWII came to an end (which partly inspired me to do this artpiece).

 

 

When they are not inter-breedable you can get away with a lot more. And even an 'Orc Breeding pit' need not be rooted in assumptions of pure good/evil.

 

 

I'm having odd ball ideas right now of Orcs reproducing in a matter similar to a platypus...

 

Which I can bring back to a breeding pit something or other as well... If the Orc population is an isolated evolutionary strain, it could end up with unusual means of reproduction.

 

Likewise, even if magically produced and breeding through the consequences of the magic... it need not be 'morally constrained' to a specific ethos, even if to outsiders it seems easy to describe it that way.

 

Nothing, for me at least, is more fun that having the player midway through the plot realize the bad guys aren't the bad guys...

 

 

This is one of the reasons I really like the basic premise in 'World of Warcraft' that there really isn't a good or bad 'race', just some very different outlooks on the world. Of course, I haven't actually played WoW (not up for monthly fees, and I know I will never convince the DnD core of my gaming group to try even d20... even the ones that play WoW nightly rejected trying it at the table top... so I didn't bother to get the game, I just drool over it everytime I see it in a gaming store...)

[Robyn]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

To me' date=' even the escapism of it helps to keep alive the possibility of 'loaded perceptions' outside of escapism.[/quote']

 

That pretty much sums up the reasons why I stopped gaming in general, though violence was not what I saw at the heart of it.

 

If the Orc population is an isolated evolutionary strain' date=' it could end up with unusual means of reproduction.[/quote']

 

 

I've heard of fetishes (in the Foci sense too, but I'm speaking specifically of the "prerequisite for sexual pleasure" term here), but making specific "unusual" practices a biological requirement of reproduction is a step beyond.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

Political implications aside, many biologists consider the multi-species worlds characteristic of RPG fantasy ludicrous, based on their opinion that when two sentient species come into contact, inevitably one or the other will be out-competed to extinction (if not exterminated outright). And Orcs fill their biological niche so well that in any competition they are the near-certain winners.

 

So in a Middle-Earth without an omniscient writer preserving an impossible balance, the Orcs would have wiped out everything that wasn't an Orc millenia before the story, Sauron or no Sauron.

 

It is disturbing to realize that most human moral values are useless, if not self-defeating, in raw Darwinistic terms. The very concept of morality is not useful in evolutionary terms. Fortunately, individual generations do not live in evolutionary time, so for us to be concerned about the next two or three million years of Earth's evolution is not necessary. And it remains to be seen whether the Darwinian model breaks down entirely when deliberate effort (as opposed to the application of random chance) is applied -- in other words, whether it is possible for humans to affect and alter the future development of their own species. Given the fact that humans have been able to alter numerous other animal species to the point that those species survival requires our constant intervention (would chickens be able to exist if we didn't raise and eat them?), this might be possible.

[Kristopher]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

Political implications aside, many biologists consider the multi-species worlds characteristic of RPG fantasy ludicrous, based on their opinion that when two sentient species come into contact, inevitably one or the other will be out-competed to extinction (if not exterminated outright). And Orcs fill their biological niche so well that in any competition they are the near-certain winners.

 

So in a Middle-Earth without an omniscient writer preserving an impossible balance, the Orcs would have wiped out everything that wasn't an Orc millenia before the story, Sauron or no Sauron.

 

It is disturbing to realize that most human moral values are useless, if not self-defeating, in raw Darwinistic terms. The very concept of morality is not useful in evolutionary terms. Fortunately, individual generations do not live in evolutionary time, so for us to be concerned about the next two or three million years of Earth's evolution is not necessary. And it remains to be seen whether the Darwinian model breaks down entirely when deliberate effort (as opposed to the application of random chance) is applied -- in other words, whether it is possible for humans to affect and alter the future development of their own species. Given the fact that humans have been able to alter numerous other animal species to the point that those species survival requires our constant intervention (would chickens be able to exist if we didn't raise and eat them?), this might be possible.

 

Considering that we have a single example in which one sentient species might have caused the extininction of another, well before any recorded history, it's quite the shakey claim from the start, never mind all the conclusions you arrive at.

[USAFguy]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

I found this descriptions of Orc to be "offal, absolutely offal!"

 

Actually, pretty good.

[arcady]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

I've heard of fetishes (in the Foci sense too' date=' but I'm speaking specifically of the "prerequisite for sexual pleasure" term here), but making specific "unusual" practices a biological [i']requirement[/i] of reproduction is a step beyond.

Yeah... I was trying to 'work with it' on the theme here...

 

Not a good attempt, but that's what I was aiming for... Trying for a 'morally unloaded' idea for why a 'breeding pit' (whatever that term entails...) might be in place.

 

-shrug-

[Lucius]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

Yeah... I was trying to 'work with it' on the theme here...

 

Not a good attempt, but that's what I was aiming for... Trying for a 'morally unloaded' idea for why a 'breeding pit' (whatever that term entails...) might be in place.

 

-shrug-

 

"Spawning pit" might be a better term, since as I understand it the whole point is that they don't "breed" as normal (whatever THAT is) beings do.

 

And I can see the point that even if they are created in that unusual way, it does not necessarily follow that they are not free moral agents.

 

By the way, have you seen the web comic Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire? I think you'd like his approach to Orcs.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary likes his approach to a lot of things.

[arcady]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

Political implications aside, many biologists consider the multi-species worlds characteristic of RPG fantasy ludicrous, based on their opinion that when two sentient species come into contact, inevitably one or the other will be out-competed to extinction (if not exterminated outright).

 

It is disturbing to realize that most human moral values are useless, if not self-defeating, in raw Darwinistic terms. The very concept of morality is not useful in evolutionary terms.

 

Look at my post in the 'poll on a sentient species' thread - the one over would they be bipeds or not...

 

Read between the lines on the reason I give for intelligence and you get a conclusion that is shaping up in some corners that it is our social systems, including moralism, that are -why- we are intelligent.

 

Let me explain that.

 

The idea in this theory is that intelligence comes about from a series of steps that begin with standing upright. A primate standing needs to ship the hips around in such a way that the birth canal becomes too narrow to deliver a mature or at least 'ready to be active within hours' offspring, as is seen in most other mammals.

 

In fact, human babies are so under-developed that they can take years to be able to take care of themselves in the most primative of aspects (not talking about 'getting a job' here, but basic 'get food' stuff the most wild human could not survive below probably age 6 or so... and certainly not below 3 or 4).

 

As a result, motherhood had to develop - as in nourishing and caring for offspring for a very extended period of time, teaching them survival skills. The human offspring is born so under-developed that most of its basic skills had to be taught rather than instinctual. Communication is forced to develop, and social networks are forced to develop.

 

Lots of animals have very advanced hunting and predatory skills without having intelligence, to include other primates - so nothing implies intelligence comes from the hunt. In addition, lots of animals gather food without developing intelligence, so nothing implies it comes from the gatherer side either.

 

Under this theory, it comes from changes required as a result of what is essentially an evolutionary defect - the underdeveloped offspring as a result of the narrow birth canal.

 

And the manner in which it develops is as 'intelligence in order to facilitate building social networks to compensate' - creating social motherhood.

 

The best short primer on this theory is in Jarod Diamond's book "Why is sex fun?"

 

But, under such a theory, two sentient species coming into contact might find it advantageous to cooperate in order to maximize brain power and have greater access to specialists who are not needed for getting food nor rearing offspring.

 

For example, it is also suggested in this theory that menopause, another 'evolutionary defect' is actually an advantage in that it takes a portion of the population out of reproduction that can then be used to pass on skills to future generations, especially given that taking them out of reproduction will enable them to survive longer once that stage is reached and the risk of death in childbirth is gone. The same purpose is served in having extended families - a wider network for skills in case of emergency.

 

Two populations coming into contact which are not interfertile can specialize for handling different tasks in the community, or even stage their reproductive cycles so that one segment is always out of production when another is in - and by being out lowers its risks and helps the other carry through, or performs specialized roles in the community while the other segment is otherwise occupied.

 

An example of this exists between man and dog - albeit dog did not develop sentience on the level of man. By coming into contact and each taking on roles in the community, each was able to progress further and faster than they might have alone.

 

So... it is not a forgone conclusion that two sentients meeting would war.

 

Theories could go either way.

 

the theory that two sentients will compete to death is backed solely by the loss of Neanderthal. And we do not actually have any evidence for any explanation as to what happened there. All we do know is that, as far as cutting edge DNA research is concerned, there are no Neanderthal genes present in modern Europeans that we know how to detect as separate from other human DNA... (ie: a vague conclusion that they probably did not mix with what became modern Europeans - this conclusion presupposes that we would recognize Neanderthal DNA for what it is if we saw it).

[Lucius]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

For that matter, even among say Chimpanzees, biologists have noted that there is no reason for them to be as smart as they are, to fill the ecological niche they do. An animal could make a living much as Chimpanzees do, without being as smart as a Chimpanzee.

 

So the only apparent reason to develop so much intelligence is - to cope with other Chimpanzees. So I've read, and so the idea that intelligence evolves specifically as a social coping mechanism is not new to me.

 

The argument about bipedalism I'm not so sure about. Rather like the "we killed off the Neanderthal" argument, it seems to me to be drawing a general conclusion from a single data point. Just because it developed that way for US doesn't mean that's the only way an intelligent, tool and language using species could come about.

 

However, I think we've drifted way off topic...if you want to start another thread, though, that might be a good idea. For example, I think the idea of ANY sentient being NOT being a moral free agent is disturbing to you - and I think I can understand why, but talking about is just too much thread drift.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a bicephalous quadraped

[Manic Typist]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

 

 

 

When they are not inter-breedable you can get away with a lot more. And even an 'Orc Breeding pit' need not be rooted in assumptions of pure good/evil.

 

 

 

 

Likewise, even if magically produced and breeding through the consequences of the magic... it need not be 'morally constrained' to a specific ethos, even if to outsiders it seems easy to describe it that way.

 

Nothing, for me at least, is more fun that having the player midway through the plot realize the bad guys aren't the bad guys...

 

 

 

Of course it doesn't. But it gives a logical process for their creation, and much of their psychology. It helps provide consistency for why they are "mooks."

 

Again, of course it doesn't. Except that in this case, the magic is doing exactly that.

 

The whole point of this was to create a causation for why orcs are so commonly perceived as evil.... and then at the same time provide room for that justifcation to not be always true. Thus, we create a bias, and then can throw it in the face of the players.

 

It allows you to mix and match the tone of not only your orcs, but even indiviudual confrontations.

[Markdoc]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

It is disturbing to realize that most human moral values are useless' date=' if not self-defeating, in raw Darwinistic terms. The very concept of morality is not useful in evolutionary terms. [/quote']

 

Way off topic, but I beg to differ. Humanity so far has thrown up numerous militaristic, aggressive societies, including some like Sparta, optimised for nothing but war. Without exception, these societies and their armies have been crushed under the iron foot/sandal/boot of societies expressing a preference for more openness and a larger role for morality and civil life.

 

You might argue that this will not always be the case, but all the datapoints we have so far point the opposite way. Theoretical models lke the prisoner's dilemma agree - if you have to play multiple times (and in real life you do) - then altruism and openness are winning strategies.

 

Fortunately' date=' individual generations do not live in evolutionary time, so for us to be concerned about the next two or three million years of Earth's evolution is not necessary. And it remains to be seen whether the Darwinian model breaks down entirely when deliberate effort (as opposed to the application of random chance) is applied -- in other words, whether it is possible for humans to affect and alter the future development of their own species. Given the fact that humans have been able to alter numerous other animal species to the point that those species survival [i']requires[/i] our constant intervention (would chickens be able to exist if we didn't raise and eat them?), this might be possible.

 

If we suddenly stopped raising chickens most of them would die - but many would not, and the survivors would be able to survive in the wild. This we know because the experiment has already been done with chickens that escape from captivity (same with sheep and cows). Humans are at the same level: the vast majority of us (even those in developing countries) can only survive in the context of relatively advanced technology. If that were suddenly magically withdrawn, there'd be a vast human die-off, but the survivors would be able to pick the pieces and keep going. In both cases, it's a question of numbers vs resources, not genetic alteration. Genetically, humans haven't changed that much in the last 10,000 years.

 

Which means - dragging the post kicking and screaming vaguely back on topic - that even if orcish society and orcs themselves are optimised for fighting, that's not necessarily enough to grant them eventual dominance (or even survival). To compete, you also need the ability to establish a stable society and control internal stresses in your society (something orcish society in most games and fantasy settings is notoriously poor at). There's no advantage in raising a huge army of fearless warriors if most of them starve to death (or are eaten by the others) on the march - leaving each one of the survivors to fight 10 well-equipped, well-organised and well-motivated opponents from an army that has a supply train. Likewise, as history teaches us, numbers and violent enthusiam is no match for better equipment, better organisation and decent quartermasters. Finally, if there is no stable basis for civics (be that ethics or morality) odds are pretty good your civilisation will never expand to the point where it can field large armies anyway - local differences will keep tearing it apart before it reaches that point.

 

That's how Tolkien kept his orcs from taking over - absent a magical controlling force (the will of Sauron, or the enchantments of Saruman) orcish society in his setting is kind of an oxymoron. Instead, you get scattered bands, who are incapable of taking down the more organised races - but equally are very difficult to defeat or eradicate permanently.

 

cheers, Mark

[Manic Typist]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

That last paragraph is exactly what I am striving for. More or less, except that some orcs can break out of this ugly cycle.

 

Anyway. Does anyone have any ideas for various naming tropes for the orcs? Or even the wizards and the device they used to control the orcs?

[Steve]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

For naming, I would suggest coming up with ones that are heavy on consonants and gutteral sounds, like Bargg or Krazt. They would also likely be a single syllable or at most two.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

Za Frûmi Saga

http://www.waerloga.com/zafrumi/

[Dale A. Ward]

Re: Fantasy Reproduction

 

Just name them after your favorite Klingons... Klingonese is, after all, Galactic Orcish.