Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

fearknight2003 wrote: I wasn't doing Kill-on-sight so much as tell-him-to-go-back-to-Sharpteeth Woods.

You're free (and I would say welcome) to RP hostility against any kind of race/etc. Orcs, tieflings, drow, etc.

Although for some reason a lot of players are in carebear mode and would attempt to give a hug to pretty much anything, probably including a lich.

As a result of that threads like this
http://bgtscc.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=51072
tends to go down in flames and eventually get closed.

As long as people can separate IC/OOC, I would enjoy more IC hatred and distrust to the other races. This kind of RP usually acknowledge choice of one's race and indicates that it has more weight than just mechanical benefit.

However, with all that in mind, hatred of orcs most likely is not part of melikki's dogma.

NegInfinity wrote: As long as people can separate IC/OOC, I would enjoy more IC hatred and distrust to the other races. This kind of RP usually acknowledge choice of one's race and indicates that it has more weight than just mechanical benefit.

One would think that any player choosing to play a full-blooded orc character would be making the choice with this very thing in mind.

Kayan wrote:

NegInfinity wrote: As long as people can separate IC/OOC, I would enjoy more IC hatred and distrust to the other races. This kind of RP usually acknowledge choice of one's race and indicates that it has more weight than just mechanical benefit.

One would think that any player choosing to play a full-blooded orc character would be making the choice with this very thing in mind.

Some do, but many don't.

This sort of thread appears regularly, as has been noted, but it seems many people have difficulty in distinguishing between racism in FR (where it is not only entirely valid, but canon) and that IRL (where it is brutish, nasty and thoroughly Orc-like).

A new thread to this argument that I've seen used lately, is that if players wish to bring modern day morals to Faerun then kick canon and make it part of server lore. That goes against what this server has always stood for in the past, but I think it's time for an up to date DM ruling on the matter, as the current situation is set to boil over at some point.

Kayan wrote:

NegInfinity wrote: As long as people can separate IC/OOC, I would enjoy more IC hatred and distrust to the other races. This kind of RP usually acknowledge choice of one's race and indicates that it has more weight than just mechanical benefit.

One would think that any player choosing to play a full-blooded orc character would be making the choice with this very thing in mind.

Yup. That was my case. (Even the ungduhs expected it, for those that remember)

Unless you are new to the server, you expect conflict with orcs. Mine was created with the expectation of pvp and hatred.

In the end, regardless of anyone's OOC feelings on the matter, the issue is an IC one. There are people (player characters) all over the region who tolerate evil, who condone barabarism. There are people who forget when orcs were just pillaging, killing, and stealing.. or when drow ran amok, killing and taking slaves at will. Don't get me started on the fact that there is a Red Wizard tower in Baldur's Gate when in server history the city was attacked by a Red Wizard, and had always been at odds with the local RW contingent.

But all of that is IC. If people want that to be their characters view, let em. But make them pay the price. Tolerance is Treason. Decreed by the Dukes. Round them soft hearted fools up before they allow the existing evil to grown.

Planehopper wrote:In the end, regardless of anyone's OOC feelings on the matter, the issue is an IC one. There are people (player characters) all over the region who tolerate evil, who condone barabarism. There are people who forget when orcs were just pillaging, killing, and stealing.. or when drow ran amok, killing and taking slaves at will. Don't get me started on the fact that there is a Red Wizard tower in Baldur's Gate when in server history the city was attacked by a Red Wizard, and had always been at odds with the local RW contingent.

But all of that is IC. If people want that to be their characters view, let em. But make them pay the price. Tolerance is Treason. Decreed by the Dukes. Round them soft hearted fools up before they allow the existing evil to grown.

I'm all for it.

Perhaps this should be suggested to DMs?

There are areas in Faerun where there is higher tolerance against orcs. Some of those places are where orcs are slaves and seen as tools. IE not quite so fearsome but just beings to use.

There is a city in Amn called Purskul where full blooded orcs were kept as slaves and then earned their freedom through hard work and were allowed to have children with humans, resulting in a very high (30%) amount of half-orcs in the population. This was quite mind baffling to me when I read it the first time because I had listened more to others rather than digging into lore myself to see how racism takes places in Faerun. It does not occur everywhere. If an orc proves themselves, they can be accepted/tolerated into some societies as seen by what happened in Purskul. Faerun is not 99% racist against orcs.

There are also some half-orc settlements scattered around (Palischuk is one).

Here is also an interesting paragraphs which has been pointed out to me:

The Code of the Harpers 2ed, p11 wrote:Harpers do not respect rank or power; Harpers do respect wisdom and good character. Harpers never discriminate on the basis of sex or race but almost always take careful note of a beings religion and how loyal that being is to it. Strong religious belief can be a dangerous thing, if the deity's nature or commandments stand opposed to Harper ends.

I am not advocating for complete tolerance against orcs or whatever, only trying to show the other side of the coin. How a character reacts to an orc they have not seen before should be entirely up to them. Trying to tell people to OOC shun all orcs is telling them how to RP... and that does not sit right with me.

If your character disagrees with another character's acceptance of orcs/a specific orc, that should be RPed about IG... your character might even find out a reason for why the character in question is tolerant.

Maybe part of the reason for the high tolerance level is that some people who play here want to relax. They do not want conflict. That is fine, as long as they can justify that with their character somehow. Maybe the old line of "I allow everyone to prove themselves" sounds cliche to some but it is a valid mind set for a character to have.

My own character was brought up in a bustling city and it was not really the orcs she viewed as monsters but other humans. Later on, she has basically had tea with beholders, dragons, hobgoblins, kobolds and even orcs because it was a work requirement. Unless someone tries to kill her or do something else she disagrees with, she has no issues walking past them.

Racism can also show itself in different ways. It is not all pitchforks and screaming mobs. Quiet racism is probably more prevalent than outright hostile behaviour. Sure, my character would not do anything to an orc simply passing by but she would not welcome said orc to cook for the orphans.


fearknight2003 - Cattie-brie's orc hatred comes after she is re-incarnated in 1463 DR, more than a hundred years from our server timeline. There is no way for your character to know of this. Your character therefore would have to adhere to what is commonly known and follow Mielikki's dogma as it is. If your character hates orcs, that is fine but in this timeline, there is no direct line between outright orc hatred and Cattie-brie and Mielikki. Also, apparently the super strong orc-hatred makes Drizzt uncomfortable.

All I'm going to say is:

Good is: An appreciation and endorsement for all things living, actively working to sustain the rights to life of all creatures not a threat to another's existence, and even then choosing redemption and turning towards benefical alignments instead of killing.

Just hunting down members of whatever race without casus beli on an individual/factional basis is evil, for it is destruction of life for the sole reason of destroying it.

An ideal good character (essentially a paladin) would deal with a tribe of raiding orcs by first attempting misdirection, to deter them from raiding without killing more than needed to prevent the deaths of innocent victims (aka, killing those that have weapons drawn and are ready to assault), spare any that surrender as long as no innocents are endangered by taking this risk [personal risk is to be ignored if we're talking ideal good. An ideal good character, in theory, will gladly lie down their life in the name of service] and hand them off to just courts if possible. The tribe itself they would try to deal with by disarming it, not commiting genocide. Essentially, if war is must, only the armed soldiers/raiders would be put to sword, not the "civillians" (children, mothers in case of orcs).

Now, our characters are never the Ideal Good Character and will have flaws in that, even if 100/X. Elves will have a very strong, inarguably evil predisposition to commit genocide on the drow over a long history that they take as sufficient proof to declare all the race as "too dangerous to be spared (due to trickery)". There is a reason Shevarash is Chaotic Neutral, not Chaotic Good like most of the Seldarine. Same for the case of orcs and monster races. Proper balancing of acts, results and mercy will keep a LG paladin LG even if he ends up wiping out an orc village as long as he does not do so cruelly. Ideally, he'd only kill the threats, and even then only after pressing concerns over the safety of innocents.



When talking about racism in the realms... keep in mind most characters are adventurers, not farmer #7285 who are likely to be well travelled and have a decent idea on what is dangerous, what isn't eventually.



And as Nomster pointed out, Harpers pretty much advocate for judging people on their individual actions, not race or sex. And in the Western heartlands/Lord's Alliance, the Harpers have a tangible influence and are of good reputation.

Long story short..

You can RP as much hate/racism towards Orcs/humans/elves/dwarves/tieflings/halfings as it fits your character and his story. Noone can tell you not to do that.

Nomster wrote:Trying to tell people to OOC shun all orcs is telling them how to RP...

That is not what it is about.

For a player that PICK race expecting a conflict, lack of appropriate response is ... baffling and disappointing. Reasons of the other side are irrelevant pretty much.

"Oh you're orc/tiefling necromancer/bloodmage that raised a zombie right here? Come here for our tea party so we talk about flowers and hugs and puppies! We'll give you a hug! We'll give your zombie a hug, too! Oh, you now summoning a Balor? he's welcome too! HUG!"

That's exhaggerrated, of course, but you should get the picture.

Lack of appropriate response feels like the choices you made during character creation are disregarded and ignored completely.
...And that does not sit right with me. Because the kind of attitude you describe - it must exist in contrast with something. And there's no contrast right now. So, the other party, essentially, in the name of good makes in-game experience of orc/tiefling player worse and less interesting.

At least I still have racist npcs to chat with.

mrm3ntalist wrote:Long story short..

You can RP as much hate/racism towards Orcs/humans/elves/dwarves/tieflings/halfings as it fits your character and his story. Noone can tell you not to do that.

Yup.

Derail/sidenote: I like that I actively encourage racism in a game and radically oppose racism in real life. I love the contradiction in goals.

I think part of the reason why one perceives so little hostility towards the obvious evils (necromancers, orcs, blood maguses, warlocks) is that there's no real point antagonising them. Whatever you do, there's no enforced consequences for actions and so why bother? If I see a necromancer with a vampire in tow, I can react with RP and be hostile. I can even beat the necromancer in PvP and kill it. And then 24 hours later, I'm going to see him wandering about with another vampire yet again. And over and over it goes.

And thus you end up with ridiculous cartoon villains. You can all think of a few already.

Obviously this door swings both ways. The obvious evils don't have a lot of point in antagonising the goodies either (though it does happen more). Start encouraging consequences by placing them on your own character before demanding it from others, and maybe we'll manage to change the views people have on it.

I find often, when these debates about "people respecting the setting" come up with regards to orcs and drow, often the fact that Ed Greenwood:
- wrote a setting that had as the main international faction of do gooders a bunch of loosely organised, beatnik bards
- gave them ideals influenced by his own decidedly flower power influenced ideals
- has himself written of non-hostile drow openly scampering through the woods of the north in his version of the realms
- has himself written of romances between elves and orcs in his version of the realms (they were presented as very exceptional though, I'm not advocating anything by mentioning them!)

None of that changes the default position that orcs are rampaging brutes in the Northern Sword Coast who exist in a near permanent state of war with the civilised realms (mind, human barbarians are not much better), or that further south they are known for the vast hordes that sweep down. I'd expect a default character from the north to hate orcs, myself, unless experience had given them a strong reason to the contrary. Which is unlikely.

Its worth noting though, that south of the Cloudpeaks the only horde that ever got that far was nearly wiped out (the slaves Nomster refers to came from the Amnian half of the war captives. The Tethyrians just executed theirs). Characters from Amn and further south would only know of the free orcs of Purskul, halfbloods, or in Calimsham, slaves. I RP'ed my Tethyrian as being very dismissive of both orcs, and the threat they represent. "If they cause trouble, just kill them. I don't see why you all get so excited." I personally think thats far more lore appropriate than "I hate all orcs" when they are a foreign problem to him. He's grown to see the threat they are though, due to server events.

Now hear him talk about Amnians, the Calish ites, or indeed, in his youth, elves, and you'd see racism (because south of the Cloudpeaks, the gods help you if you are an elf! The three big nations are each racist towards them in their own way. I do not see much of that RPed)

Regarding Mielikki, she is an ally of Eldath, who had until recently whole tribes of orcs worshipping her (Admittedly, this worship had changed them). I cannot see Mielikki wishing to genocide those orcs. But orcs are a classic enemy of nature based rangers because of the destruction their culture brings.

The point is, Forgotten Realms is a unique and diverse setting, and unique in its diverseness. It departs from the simple paradigm of "a big force of good and law" versus "a big force of chaos and evil" in a number of ways, not least to the highly regional nature of some conflicts and the cultural richness of its regions that underpin that. Its not Middle Earth, its not Warhammer. Orcs are just one of many barbarous races, and "Orcs vs Civilisation in the North" perhaps has undue prominence due to the prominence of the northern sword coast in printed materials.

The beauty of that is that it allows each person to RP their character as they like - and IC conflict to ensure.

Deathgrowl wrote:I think part of the reason why one perceives so little hostility towards the obvious evils (necromancers, orcs, blood maguses, warlocks) is that there's no real point antagonising them. Whatever you do, there's no enforced consequences for actions and so why bother? If I see a necromancer with a vampire in tow, I can react with RP and be hostile. I can even beat the necromancer in PvP and kill it. And then 24 hours later, I'm going to see him wandering about with another vampire yet again. And over and over it goes.

I believe there's DM team for that. Crimes will be dealt with, villains will be hanged - IF the crimes are reported.

In theory.

Catch DM online, run to the nearest NPC law enforcement describe a villain to them.

If you don't do that, and there's no consequences then there's almost no point in playing.

...

Or better yet - CAPTURE the villain yourself. Drag him to silver rose/flaming fist.

Deathgrowl wrote:I think part of the reason why one perceives so little hostility towards the obvious evils (necromancers, orcs, blood maguses, warlocks) is that there's no real point antagonising them. Whatever you do, there's no enforced consequences for actions and so why bother? If I see a necromancer with a vampire in tow, I can react with RP and be hostile. I can even beat the necromancer in PvP and kill it. And then 24 hours later, I'm going to see him wandering about with another vampire yet again. And over and over it goes.

Well said.

Essentially, what is required is 2+ Players, each agreeing to a set of "rules" for all the Characters involved—perma-death, consequence, etc.—with agreed upon "rules" for hostility, etc. With equal investment and understanding between all involved, you can create the type of game/environment you wish to see on BGTSCC, because YOU and THEY are enacting it. And...you've done a progamer thing by making a contract with another Player, instead of demanding another Player(s) to abide by your personal desires, BEFORE or WITHOUT asking them to participate, willingly.

My view is that too many Characters are far too invested in by the Players—on an emotional/social level—that few if any would apply their existing Characters to a more confrontational RP. That doesn't mean the same Players wouldn't do that with NEW Characters, but like I said above, a type of contract should really be "drawn up" between the participants, being protagonist and antagonist.