PDA

View Full Version : ....Sexy Female Orcs...?



Conners
2011-10-12, 12:07 PM
Something occurred to me out of the blue, and the question has bugged me since.

I guess you have seen World of Warcraft's orcs and trolls? And its female orcs and trolls? While they do look alien, they don't really look unattractive... to the contrary, even.


This is why I've begun to wonder: Is it right to have attractive female orcs, goblins, ogres, whatever?

The concept could be highly creepy... Orcs are meant to be ugly--having attractive orcs at the same time is sending mixed-messages. Sometimes, very alien things are mixed with very human things, giving the female a sometimes exotic and other times disconcerting attractiveness. If the creature is basically an animal, or not actually female, it could lead to nightmare-fuel worthy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NightmareFuel) material...
Let's not forget that it can be seen as obvious pandering to the male audience.

In other ways, you can see the, "good points" of having such: Female/male players will feel more like playing females of those races, generally. Also, it allows for subplots of inter-species romances, which can be interesting. Finally, in the case of a visual game/book/feature, it can pander to male players/watchers/readers by giving them "eye-candy" as they play/watch/read (pandering is sometimes a viable marketing strategy).



Those are the "pros and cons" of the matter.... So, in general: Should fantasy games/books/etc. take this approach, or avoid it? Are there certain cases where it is acceptable, or inacceptable? Also, if it should be done in some cases, should the same be done for males of the monstrous species (I don't recall any male orcs/goblins/etc. being done asthetic favours).

John Cribati
2011-10-12, 12:18 PM
Here's the thing. Humans are used as the Baseline. Dwarves are like humans, except they're a bit shorter and live in caves and have beards. Elves are like humans, except they're more graceful and innately magical. And so on. That's just how a lot of things run. Since a lot of Races are "Humans, only Moreso" you get the exaggeration of different human qualities. The qualities that make the male physique attractive and those that make the Female physique attractive are totally different, and often you can have masculine qualities on a female to a certain degree and they can still be attractive, so long as their female qualities shine through. Likewise, you can have a male be effeminate and still considered attractive.

hangedman1984
2011-10-12, 12:19 PM
Orcs are meant to be ugly

says who exactly?

Ravens_cry
2011-10-12, 12:22 PM
I prefer them . . . alternatively pretty. Ugly is after all relative and given the things Orc culture often values, strength for example, they are not going to look like supermodels. On the other hand Orcs are not humans, but they do enjoy mating with humans, otherwise Half-Orcs would not exist. Personally ,I picture them being like, at their prettiest to human eyes, female body builders. Maybe a little hairy, certainly greener, tuskier and longer in the arms, certainly a more simian countenance, but yeah, female body builder is my base. How attractive that is I leave as a question to the reader.
Personally, when they don't have that fake tan and oil look to make the muscles stand out more, many, female body-builders that is, are rather attractive in my eyes.

Morty
2011-10-12, 12:32 PM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Orc females might look hideous for humans, but be perfectly attractive for male orcs, who simply have radically different standards for atractiveness. Same goes for all other "monstrous" races. Frankly, making females of a species whose males look monstrous conventionally attractive is just fanservice with no real point or reason.

Cicciograna
2011-10-12, 12:34 PM
Don't know, I always imagined Therkla quite sexy, having a well muscled but not disproportioned body and a pretty face. So I fail to see why half-orcs, orcs and goblinoids should be ugly.

I mean, speaking of goblinoids, even the two cousins Aliyara and Kayannara from SoD seem pretty...pretty :smallsmile:

Keneth
2011-10-12, 12:38 PM
says who exactly? Says Tolkien. :smalltongue:

Ravens_cry
2011-10-12, 12:39 PM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Orc females might look hideous for humans, but be perfectly attractive for male orcs, who simply have radically different standards for atractiveness. Same goes for all other "monstrous" races. Frankly, making females of a species whose males look monstrous conventionally attractive is just fanservice with no real point or reason.
I even go so far as to include many of the humanoids in that statement. Which is why I like Mialee. She is weird looking in most art, to human eyes at least.
I still want to discuss interstitial mode lock in transformative arcane polybonds with her over some elven wine.

Morty
2011-10-12, 12:51 PM
However, Mialee is the only elf who looks weird. All other elves in the artwork are perfectly pretty.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-12, 12:54 PM
However, Mialee is the only elf who looks weird. All other elves in the artwork are perfectly pretty.
She's also the nerdiest of them all, being a wizard after all.

Talya
2011-10-12, 12:56 PM
Warcraft Orcs are not Tolkien Orcs. Tolkien suggested in the Silmarillion that orcs are the tortured and corrupted decendants of elves.

Warcraft Orcs are noble and proud nature-loving savages that fell under the thrall of the demon Mannoroth, but escaped and are now once again a proud shamanistic race.

The latter has a lot more potential for beauty than the former.

Callos_DeTerran
2011-10-12, 01:06 PM
I've never pictured orcs of any gender as being particularly unattractive. It's mostly just a function of their culture and their relative advancement. Most orcs are portrayed as primitive savages with ape-like features and stronger then the average person. Personally, I've always seen orcs as attractive as anyone else, once they get that Charisma up higher, they just have more exotic features to work with.

For some reason I always imagined orcs as bigger (not just taller) then other folk, so they're a bit built and...hrmm...more wide. You aren't going to find a willowy orc in my mind. They'll always be big and if they have any kinda curviness (for females) or muscle definition (for men) then they have a fair bit of it. Otherwise people just wouldn't notice. Kinda like green body-builder types in other words with a lot more variety for half-orcs. I've never gotten the idea that all half-orcs take more after their orc parent every single time rather then, say, their other parent.

huttj509
2011-10-12, 01:07 PM
Depending on how you view orc society, their opinion of "attractive" human females could be "well, she's okay, but way too frail." Much more useful to have a woman who can kick a wolf in the teeth while carrying a pig under each arm, and that's just because her hands were full so she couldn't reach her axe.

Heck, even just focusing strongly on physical capabilities rather than "what her face looks like" could provide a different tone.

gkathellar
2011-10-12, 01:12 PM
Unless you're explicitly emphasizing the whole "different species" aspect, then yes, females and males of any fantasy race should have the opportunity to be sexy. There are three principal reasons I can think of for this.

Firstly, eye candy isn't essentially bad, or sleazy, or shallow. It can be sleazy and shallow when eye candy is all you have to offer, but even then it's not necessarily bad. There's nothing essentially wrong with fanservice, so long as that fanservice isn't actively demeaning (which, to be fair, it often is).

Secondly, ugliness is often used as visual code for evil, and this is something that absolutely should not be encouraged. A lot of the time, fantasy races are drawn or portrayed as ugly as a correlary to their being sinister or villainous, as if we should be able to hate and not care about them specifically because we don't find them attractive. This is even more problematic when a fantasy race is portrayed as having a distinct culture (especially if it's a counterpart for a real-world culture). Ugliness is often used as a visual insult to the concept of cultural diversity.

Thirdly, fantasy races offer opportunities to play to less common standards of beauty, taking them to extremes or merely emphasizing their existence. I love what 4E did with female dwarves, for example (apparently there was some really interesting discussion about them in the art department at Wizards). And while I'd love to see more diversity in the art for human females I'm happy to know that short, stocky and well-built women are being acknowledged as attractive. Warcraft's female orcs and trolls occupy a similar niche.

So, yes, I think it's a generally positive, progressive step that I can get behind. Do I think every character in everything should be sexy? No, that's dumb. But I do think that creating entire species of ugly humanoids is lazy and discourages characterization.

Spiryt
2011-10-12, 01:13 PM
Depending on how you view orc society, their opinion of "attractive" human females could be "well, she's okay, but way too frail." Much more useful to have a woman who can kick a wolf in the teeth while carrying a pig under each arm, and that's just because her hands were full so she couldn't reach her axe.

Heck, even just focusing strongly on physical capabilities rather than "what her face looks like" could provide a different tone.

Frailness and general build are pretty much loosely connected at best in D&D though.

Standard drow in Faerun, are, as far as I'm informed something like ~ 120 pounds in wet clothes usually, yet can enjoy the very same strength score as 250 pound human.

So you can make tiny slim chick carrying pig under each arm in D&D just fine.

Miscast_Mage
2011-10-12, 01:33 PM
Keep in mind that sexy is a completely subjective trait; an artist might not mean to depict an orc or any fantasy/sci-fi race as sexy or attractive, but if it's humandoid enough(and maybe even when it isn't, mind you:smalltongue:), there will be people attracted to it.

I personally like masculine, warrior women which orcish women tend to be depicted as, and I've more than a few orcs as hunks, even when the artist didn't intend that. There's a lot of people in the world attracted to a whole lot of different things; no matter what you draw or write, there will always be people out there who find what you've made attractive.

So yeah, if it exists, a fraction of humanity will want to unf-unf it.:smallredface:

Talya
2011-10-12, 01:58 PM
So yeah, if it exists, a fraction of humanity will want to unf-unf it.:smallredface:

Hence, rule 34.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-12, 02:14 PM
@gkathellar:
While beauty may make it easier to subvert one trope "Always Chaotic Evil", it makes it harder to subvert another trope "Beauty equals goodness.", one I rather despise. Having Orcs be not always, or even often, evil and more-or-less conventionally beautiful only reinforces the trope. I give Orcs somewhat a pass as they can interbreed with humans, so there is going to be some resemblances, but not the "Green skin with cute little tusks" look.

gkathellar
2011-10-12, 02:26 PM
I agree. This is why I noted at the end of my post that it's less about every character being attractive than about a species having the potential to be attractive, and why I said that fantasy races present good opportunities to present less conventional standards of beauty in the third point.

FatJose
2011-10-12, 02:40 PM
Well, orcs are hideous in Tolkien's works because they were demonic, undead, profane...uh...evil...twisted...corrupt...I need a thesaurus. Basically, they were to elves what a rotted, black tree with gnarled roots and bare branches is to a pretty cypress tree. They are evil "and" ugly because they were twisted and deformed from what they were.
When you make orcs an actual species that occurs naturally and can crossbreed with humans without some creepy wizard overseeing, their form should be a lot more...stable and healthy?

SamBurke
2011-10-12, 02:40 PM
Frailness and general build are pretty much loosely connected at best in D&D though.

Standard drow in Faerun, are, as far as I'm informed something like ~ 120 pounds in wet clothes usually, yet can enjoy the very same strength score as 250 pound human.

So you can make tiny slim chick carrying pig under each arm in D&D just fine.

I suddenly feel the need to create a 5'1" Human Barbarian who duel-wields the largest weapons money can buy. I'm thinking... two Collossal siege cannons? XD.

GungHo
2011-10-12, 02:44 PM
Every time I think of this, I think of the SNL Centaur Job Intervew sketch with Christopher Walken.

Frosty
2011-10-12, 02:48 PM
Hence, rule 34.
Also, hence half-orcs exist.

And half-elves.



.......................





...also Centaurs.

FatJose
2011-10-12, 02:52 PM
Every time I think of this, I think of the SNL Centaur Job Intervew sketch with Christopher Walken.

We don't hire filthy centaurs.

Zombimode
2011-10-12, 02:58 PM
Unless you're explicitly emphasizing the whole "different species" aspect

Well, isnt being different the whole point of a different species? For me at least. If your orcs, dwarfes or demons are just humans with funny hats, why even bother? Just use humans.
For me rubber forehead aliens species are lazy desing.


But I do think that creating entire species of ugly humanoids is lazy and discourages characterization.

Certain types of snails are ugly, too. So was evolution lazy when it comes to snails? No, of course not. Snails just happen to have a form that many humans find repulsive. Thats nature for you. I fail to see how a humanoid lifeform that just happens to have an appearance that many humans find ugly/unattractive to be lazy design.
To the contrary, I think that non-humans that conveniently adhere to human beauty standarts is lazy desing.

I also fail to see how "ugly" orcs would discourage characterization.
Playing an individual of a species in a foreign evironment where this species is considred ugly is a roleplaying opportunity. And a thought exercise on what influence appearance/attractivenes has on your social interactions - or how much influence it should have.

That brings me to my next point. I see the ongoing trend of the last decade to sexualize everything in fantasy artwork as highly questionable. While probably in most cases not conciously intended by the artists the subtext should not be ignored. The more creatures drawn as attractive to the human eye, the more this specific appearance becomes the norm. It creates the notion that this is the "right" way to look.
I find this higly problematic and, frankly, discriminating.

Besides the fact there is NO reason whatsoever why human beauty standarts should apply to anything non-human.

Tanuki Tales
2011-10-12, 03:07 PM
I find this higly problematic and, frankly, discriminating.

To who?

There are only humans on this planet.

Otherwise I can see and even agree with the other points in your post.

Zombimode
2011-10-12, 03:23 PM
To who?

There are only humans on this planet.


I'm thinking mostly of the "beauty equals good" stereotype another poster already mentioned above.

Maybe I'm a bit too sensetive on that matter, but I think this stereotype is discriminating because not everyone on this planet is exactly blessed with good looks.

Yora
2011-10-12, 03:30 PM
Old fantasy tends to be remarkably black and white and tries to do everything to prevent any uncertainty about who is good and does the right thing, and who is bad and does evil things.

Recently, and particularly since the beginning of the 21st century, but also in the 90s, there seems to be a huge rise in popular stories that have a much stronger emphasis on ambiguity, faulty protagonists, and multi-faceted villains. Compared to that, the worlds presented in the work of tolkin and many of his contemporaries appear quite naive to us today.

Frozen_Feet
2011-10-12, 04:08 PM
Some posts about "sexiness" of other species and half-orcs in particular: 1, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11265762&postcount=16) 2, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10763125&postcount=89) 3. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10776875&postcount=134)

Overall, I like my non-humans as just that; making just females of species conventionally sexy is especially pointless form of fanservice. I understand some people have hots for weird skin, hair and eyecolors, but it's a really poor (even distasteful) setting-building element.

Zombimode
2011-10-12, 04:39 PM
Old fantasy tends to be remarkably black and white and tries to do everything to prevent any uncertainty about who is good and does the right thing, and who is bad and does evil things.

Recently, and particularly since the beginning of the 21st century, but also in the 90s, there seems to be a huge rise in popular stories that have a much stronger emphasis on ambiguity, faulty protagonists, and multi-faceted villains. Compared to that, the worlds presented in the work of tolkin and many of his contemporaries appear quite naive to us today.

Im not sure if I can agree.
You could say that Sauron, as the main antagonist, lacks depth. And yes, we dont get much of a motivation or even characterization for Sauron.
But actualy I dont think that Sauron realy qualifies for an antagonist. Or for a character at all. He, or "it" is more like a cosmic or natural force. It is anti-creation by its very nature.
The real anatagonists of LotR, if they exist at all, are maybe Gollum and Denethor. And these characters are rather sophisticated and ambigious.
Yeah, there is Saruman and I agree he is a weak point of the story.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that newer fanatasy literature has more complex characters and stories. I havent really followed fantasy literature since quite a while (because, lets face it, most fantasy books, old or new, are rather crappy).
Im just disargeeing with the notion that Tolkiens characters are simple or black-and-white.


For games I cant agree. There was black-and-white stuff. But there were also games with really sophisticated plots and characters in the past, like most of the Ultima series, or Startrail, or PST. Modern games... well they have their moments I spuppose... somtimes. Actualy I feel that most RPGs of the last 5 years or so really fell flat in terms of complex stories or characters.

Dr.Epic
2011-10-12, 04:45 PM
Man, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (let the jokes flow forth)

Point is, it's all about how you see beauty. That, and not all orcs are ugly.

Spiryt
2011-10-12, 04:51 PM
Yeah, there is Saruman and I agree he is a weak point of the story

Don't really get what's weak about Saruman?

While he in fact was pretty much 'standard' good guy, and big leader, before he succumbed to greed, despair and what else....

His actions after main plot had resolved are not exactly typical either.

But I agree with the rest - books and characters are either good or not, and time doesn't really change that much.

Many modern characters can be multi faceted and all... But also crappy in general.

Game's are good examples too - from Baldurs Gate 2 and Torment stuff generally went towards KOTOR and other stuff were I'm not even really sure what the hell is going on.

TheGameViking
2011-10-12, 05:11 PM
Unless you're explicitly emphasizing the whole "different species" aspect, then yes, females and males of any fantasy race should have the opportunity to be sexy. There are three principal reasons I can think of for this.

Firstly, eye candy isn't essentially bad, or sleazy, or shallow. It can be sleazy and shallow when eye candy is all you have to offer, but even then it's not necessarily bad. There's nothing essentially wrong with fanservice, so long as that fanservice isn't actively demeaning (which, to be fair, it often is).

Secondly, ugliness is often used as visual code for evil, and this is something that absolutely should not be encouraged. A lot of the time, fantasy races are drawn or portrayed as ugly as a correlary to their being sinister or villainous, as if we should be able to hate and not care about them specifically because we don't find them attractive. This is even more problematic when a fantasy race is portrayed as having a distinct culture (especially if it's a counterpart for a real-world culture). Ugliness is often used as a visual insult to the concept of cultural diversity.

Thirdly, fantasy races offer opportunities to play to less common standards of beauty, taking them to extremes or merely emphasizing their existence. I love what 4E did with female dwarves, for example (apparently there was some really interesting discussion about them in the art department at Wizards). And while I'd love to see more diversity in the art for human females I'm happy to know that short, stocky and well-built women are being acknowledged as attractive. Warcraft's female Orcs and trolls occupy a similar niche.

So, yes, I think it's a generally positive, progressive step that I can get behind. Do I think every character in everything should be sexy? No, that's dumb. But I do think that creating entire species of ugly humanoids is lazy and discourages characterization.

I agree with this to a point. There is nothing wrong with eroticism and maturity in your games. I use it all the time, players are warned coming into a game that I run that generally mature themes will come up and that includes sexual references. Orc's are a different race, that means they are a spectrum of people, both good and bad, attractive and ugly. Just like American's commit crimes, so to do they help children or put out fires. Granted they may be influenced by their lifestyle, but that doesn't prevent differing opinions and generalities springing up on both sides of the fence. I can totally get behind (See what I did there?) the idea of sexy Orc's and Goblins and whatnot, it is up to you as the DM to define these characteristics in your world building however, Don't just have them show up out of nowhere, especially if you have been using the standard DnD brutish thuggy beasts. Establish a world where Orc's and Goblins, while primitive are still somewhat nations unto themselves with culture, habits, language and the rest of the hallmarks of a good species. That includes sexy.

Dr.Epic
2011-10-12, 05:39 PM
Says Tolkien. :smalltongue:

Well if Tolkien said it, than it must be Dork Law!:smallwink:

gkathellar
2011-10-12, 05:48 PM
Well, isnt being different the whole point of a different species? For me at least. If your orcs, dwarfes or demons are just humans with funny hats, why even bother? Just use humans.
For me rubber forehead aliens species are lazy desing.

I tend to agree in principle, yet they have their uses within setting-design and storytelling. There's nothing essentially wrong with writing up species that act as foils to and representatives of certain facets of human nature in a fantasy setting marketed towards a human audience.


I fail to see how a humanoid lifeform that just happens to have an appearance that many humans find ugly/unattractive to be lazy design.
To the contrary, I think that non-humans that conveniently adhere to human beauty standarts is lazy desing.

I also fail to see how "ugly" orcs would discourage characterization.
Playing an individual of a species in a foreign evironment where this species is considred ugly is a roleplaying opportunity.

You have a point, but I do think that ugliness is used overwhelmingly in fantasy as a lazy synonym for evil, and this is chiefly how I intended my comment. And I do think it is also used as an excuse for being bland: "orcs are bestial and ugly" is a lot less interesting than "there are ugly orcs and sexy orcs." (If I intended much of anything at all — I didn't think through my closing point very well, to be frank, but I was just trying to get through the post without writing an essay on positive portrayals of sexuality.)


That brings me to my next point. I see the ongoing trend of the last decade to sexualize everything in fantasy artwork as highly questionable. While probably in most cases not conciously intended by the artists the subtext should not be ignored. The more creatures drawn as attractive to the human eye, the more this specific appearance becomes the norm. It creates the notion that this is the "right" way to look.

This is only problematic if the artwork is exploitative or propagates a specific standard of beauty as being right — which it often is and does, don't get me wrong. But there's nothing bad about the men and women in fantasy artwork being sexy, as long as they're sexy in positive ways and by a variety of standards.


Besides the fact there is NO reason whatsoever why human beauty standarts should apply to anything non-human.

And yet we continue to use the word humanoid, give our fantastic counterparts roughly human shapes, and be human!

flumphy
2011-10-12, 05:57 PM
Some posts about "sexiness" of other species and half-orcs in particular: 1, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11265762&postcount=16) 2, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10763125&postcount=89) 3. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10776875&postcount=134)

Overall, I like my non-humans as just that; making just females of species conventionally sexy is especially pointless form of fanservice. I understand some people have hots for weird skin, hair and eyecolors, but it's a really poor (even distasteful) setting-building element.

I agree with that making only females of a species attractive is ludicrous, but at the same time, I don't think Warcraft in particular is guilty of this. Their male orcs are actually as attractive or more attractive than their humans or elves (which, depending on the artist, can look malformed. And don't get me started on WoW's in-game models...) And they're not really my type, but lots of women seem to really dig the trolls.

Anyway, while you gain a lot of plothooks for RPG purposes by making races alien and ugly, there's also a lot to gain by making them somewhat similar and aesthetically appealing. Romance (and not necessarily anything sleazy) becomes possible. Half-breeds resulting from something other than rape become possible. There's a potential for greater mixing of cultures and the narrative possibilities that come with that.

It's also worth noting that there's evidence real life humans did interbreed with other hominids back in the day, so I think it's unfair to say that simply being a different species is a natural turn-off.

Frosty
2011-10-12, 06:59 PM
Overall, I like my non-humans as just that; making just females of species conventionally sexy is especially pointless form of fanservice. I understand some people have hots for weird skin, hair and eyecolors, but it's a really poor (even distasteful) setting-building element.You mean like this?


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_C63pd5E_vCQ/TLhIY5FdGpI/AAAAAAAAAfI/vB4hfN95M-o/s1600/WarcraftFemaleDraenei.jpg

VS


http://images.wikia.com/wowwiki/images/f/fd/Uncorrupted_draenei.jpg

Tengu_temp
2011-10-12, 08:35 PM
I don't really mind attractive female orcs, trolls, or other "monstruous" races. My reasons for this are completely unwholesome.

Vknight
2011-10-12, 09:39 PM
Well if Tolkien said it, than it must be Dork Law!:smallwink:

Hey that list includes several other people!!

@Frosty: I think that's what Frozen_Feet means but really who cares? I don't fanservice for fanservice sake does not bother me. Seriously look at it and deal with it go with the flow or your going to get beaten down.

Here this should help
Going With the Flow With Buffet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UruXWui1EG8)

TheThan
2011-10-12, 09:50 PM
I dunno, judging from alot of the art in the dungeons and dames thread, there seems to be plenty of precedence that orc females (and a few of the males too if you are inclined that way) are pretty attractive (har har, I made a pun). So it doesn't really bother me, as long as they are more than just rubber forehead aliens races.

Conners
2011-10-12, 09:58 PM
@Herpestidae: That's a give-in, since truly alien races don't do so well for the typical fantasy set-up (it does work for science-fiction stories). However, ugliness is one of the human concepts that orcs represent.

To be fair, the tusks and so forth don't do female orcs many favours.



says who exactly? Tolkien, DnD, and a few others. You can tell by looking at Warcraft orcs, in fact, that they're not meant to be pretty (except, the women in WoW).

Having orcs be attractive is like saying Edward Cullen is a vampire....


@Callos_DeTerran: This brings to mind an interesting possibility for male orc attractiveness. I've heard that women are often more attracted by personality (such as a good sense of humour) than men are. While definitely not true of all women and men, it seems to be the case part of the time.

Generally, orcs are shown to be pretty ape-like or monstrous in earlier art. Big tusks, strange shaped heads, sometimes hunched over to make them even more unnatural-looking. And while you can imagine orcs being attractive, I doubt you could imagine the same for goblins (even WoW doesn't try for it... well, we haven't seen any female goblins before, as far as I know).


@huttj509: I'm not meaning, "are orcs attractive to orcs--and should orcs be attractive to orcs?". That's usually a give-in. I'm talking about the fact that female orcs tend to be made attractive to humans, despite the fact they are meant to be an unattractive race by human standards.



Unless you're explicitly emphasizing the whole "different species" aspect, then yes, females and males of any fantasy race should have the opportunity to be sexy. There are three principal reasons I can think of for this.

Firstly, eye candy isn't essentially bad, or sleazy, or shallow. It can be sleazy and shallow when eye candy is all you have to offer, but even then it's not necessarily bad. There's nothing essentially wrong with fanservice, so long as that fanservice isn't actively demeaning (which, to be fair, it often is).

Secondly, ugliness is often used as visual code for evil, and this is something that absolutely should not be encouraged. A lot of the time, fantasy races are drawn or portrayed as ugly as a correlary to their being sinister or villainous, as if we should be able to hate and not care about them specifically because we don't find them attractive. This is even more problematic when a fantasy race is portrayed as having a distinct culture (especially if it's a counterpart for a real-world culture). Ugliness is often used as a visual insult to the concept of cultural diversity.

Thirdly, fantasy races offer opportunities to play to less common standards of beauty, taking them to extremes or merely emphasizing their existence. I love what 4E did with female dwarves, for example (apparently there was some really interesting discussion about them in the art department at Wizards). And while I'd love to see more diversity in the art for human females I'm happy to know that short, stocky and well-built women are being acknowledged as attractive. Warcraft's female orcs and trolls occupy a similar niche.

So, yes, I think it's a generally positive, progressive step that I can get behind. Do I think every character in everything should be sexy? No, that's dumb. But I do think that creating entire species of ugly humanoids is lazy and discourages characterization.
As for eye-candy, you have a valid point. Of course, I would say there are limits.

Would be interesting to have villains who are smart and good-looking, in a story. I think you're reading too deeply with the "orcs/whatever are used to sell racist propaganda" bit.... I've never noticed such a thing in a fantasy story, where the orcs were obviously muslins/Germans/Negros/white-people/whatever. Can't even think of any political messages that have been sold off, either. Of course, I don't read a ton of fnatasy novels, so this might be the reason (no doubt there are some would-be authors who have lots of that kind of material).

Was surprised when they started having attractive female dwarf artwork. Everyone knows all dwarves have beards :smallfurious:!! :smalltongue: Not actually upset about it, just didn't expect it.... But, it does come across an interesting point: All things in fantasy fiction and so forth seem to keep getting more sexed-up... EVEN BUGBEARS!!! (http://ffrpg.republika.pl/bugbear.PNG)

I'd say this is far too much of an overstatement! It discourages the idea of having actually different species. There are tons of unique features ou could give a race, and lots of interesting culture and asthetics, that wouldn't be attractive in the least. Having everything sexed-up is simply ludicrous.


@Zombiemode: I like snails. Was fun playing with them in the garden as a kid, feeding them lettuce and so forth. I guess snails "evolved" to be cute to a section of humanity :smalltongue:.


@Frosty: Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Also the female Bugbear.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-10-12, 10:02 PM
I like the 4e art for half-orcs in their entry in PHB2. 4e's fluff and art for things is spectacular, except for the FR fluff.

Kalirren
2011-10-12, 11:34 PM
I think the essence behind this thread gets boiled down to:

Orcish man thinking: Why would I want to bed this tiny runt of a human girl when I can try to bed this wise and strong medicine woman in her prime instead?

Human man thinking: Why would I want to bed this crazy orcish priestess who might kick my teeth in when I can try to bed this young princess instead?

Both men thinking: Either one's better than sleeping alone!

Frosty
2011-10-13, 01:12 AM
EVEN BUGBEARS!!! (http://ffrpg.republika.pl/bugbear.PNG)
This made me head-desk. :smallsigh:

CletusMusashi
2011-10-13, 01:22 AM
If orcs weren't attractive to other orcs there would be no more orcs. However, the features that make them so attractive to other orcs may not be easily discernible to the human eye playing the game. So, the game's "visual narrative" cheats, and makes the females look female by human standards and the males look male by human standards. That way, humans can play alien characters and still feel that they have a sexual identity. If it makes you feel better, you can even pretend that the big boobs on the screen are actually just the game's indicator that the character is producing a high level of pherenomes or whatever.

Vknight
2011-10-13, 01:23 AM
This made me head-desk. :smallsigh:

Why? NO seriously? Its a bugbear and it could be worse. Think about that we could have... Something (No image and to lazy to look for one)

Conners
2011-10-13, 04:32 AM
If orcs weren't attractive to other orcs there would be no more orcs. However, the features that make them so attractive to other orcs may not be easily discernible to the human eye playing the game. So, the game's "visual narrative" cheats, and makes the females look female by human standards and the males look male by human standards. That way, humans can play alien characters and still feel that they have a sexual identity. If it makes you feel better, you can even pretend that the big boobs on the screen are actually just the game's indicator that the character is producing a high level of pherenomes or whatever. The subject isn't, "are orcs attracted to other orcs". The subject is, "is it reasonable for male orcs to look hideous whereas female orcs look like green amazon-elves?" WoW doesn't take it quite to those extremes... but fairly close. We're talking about human beauty--because most of the people here on these boards are human.

Your reasoning for "sexual identity" doesn't make sense... I guess if you figured roleplayers were idiots it might make sense. But then, we're not.



Why? NO seriously? Its a bugbear and it could be worse. Think about that we could have... Something (No image and to lazy to look for one) "It could be worse" is never a good excuse. Being lazy is sometimes an OK excuse.

tensai_oni
2011-10-13, 05:19 AM
In a MUD, I played a female orc paladin once. Well, orc-equivalent - that game's setting had them as a proud warrior race that was very few in number because most turned undead in a terrible accident a while back. They are also not too ugly as far as orcs go, but ugly and orc-like enough, and also very tall.

She was a sweet and well-behaved young lady - but also pretty shy and awkward due to having to live around smaller, more fragile people whom she could accidentaly squish if she was not careful. Background-wise she came from an old house of military tradition, and went to the paladin guild to receive proper training, and also hopefully find an (orc!) husband who would be noble and strong enough to continue the bloodline.

Of course she had some pretty orclike behavior and not just being a proper lady, such as ferocity in combat or eating food by grabbing the whole portion and stuffing it in her mouth whole. Especially the latter made many players I interacted with go HNNNGH. So despite her muscular frame, slate gray skin and huge jaw, she was more of a Cute Female Orc than a Sexy one.

gkathellar
2011-10-13, 05:24 AM
As for eye-candy, you have a valid point. Of course, I would say there are limits.

Of course. The limit arises when it becomes in some way detrimental to storytelling or setting-building.


I think you're reading too deeply with the "orcs/whatever are used to sell racist propaganda" bit...

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying depictions of ugliness as a method of portraying other cultures as savage, unsophisticated or inferior has a longer history than we often acknowledge. In fantasy, it's often used in the same way — to flanderize "bad" fantastic species so we don't consider them beyond their status as members of the enemy.


But, it does come across an interesting point: All things in fantasy fiction and so forth seem to keep getting more sexed-up... EVEN BUGBEARS!!! (http://ffrpg.republika.pl/bugbear.PNG)

And yet that picture of a bugbear does a pretty good job, as far as I'm concerned. She looks aggressive, dangerous and powerful, sexual but not dominated by sexual imagery.


It discourages the idea of having actually different species.

So do half-elves. And, y'know, the persistently humanoid forms we assign to fantasy species.


There are tons of unique features ou could give a race, and lots of interesting culture and asthetics, that wouldn't be attractive in the least. Having everything sexed-up is simply ludicrous.

I absolutely agree. And that's why attractiveness is good as an option open to characters of major species in a setting, not a requirement for them.

Conners
2011-10-13, 06:18 AM
Of course. The limit arises when it becomes in some way detrimental to storytelling or setting-building. Which means the limit also varies incredibly.



That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying depictions of ugliness as a method of portraying other cultures as savage, unsophisticated or inferior has a longer history than we often acknowledge. In fantasy, it's often used in the same way — to flanderize "bad" fantastic species so we don't consider them beyond their status as members of the enemy. We also get human cultures who are savage, evil, etc. in fantasy stories (Game of Thrones/A Tale of Ice and Fire, Conan). They usually look dirty, but that's because everything has to look dirty in those sorts of stories...

Attractiveness does NOT decide how deep a race are... If you made them look like attractive humans on average, that's a light layer of story-depth in their appearance. If they are the same as humans, that's virtually no layer of story-depth in their apperance. Making them extremely ugly is no worse than making them extremely beautiful, proving proper handling in situation.

Making "villain-races" ugly is NOT a wrong move. Can be a cliche' one, but not wrong. Having races that exist only as a plot device (IE: The villains) however, can be a wrong move, unless it's justified.



And yet that picture of a bugbear does a pretty good job, as far as I'm concerned. She looks aggressive, dangerous and powerful, sexual but not dominated by sexual imagery. ...It is a BUGBEAR. It would make anyone sensible head-desk. It is a perfect example of how modern fantasy is becoming, "put boobs on everything", which is highly tasteless (like the lizard women of Flash Gordon... who inexplicably had bikinis and large human mamaries... accidental nightmare fuel).



So do half-elves. And, y'know, the persistently humanoid forms we assign to fantasy species. ....How do half-elves discouarage unique races...? I guess you mean, "the biologically improbable ability to breed with other species belonging to humans in most fantasy fiction"? Or, "the fact there are so many human-like humanoid species in fantasy fiction"?

True that those things can be a problem in creating unique fiction.... but, saying "we can't have ugly species" is even worse--so this would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Of course, I wasn't really defending the use of human-like humanoids in fiction... so it's a bit odd that this point had to be brought up.



I absolutely agree. And that's why attractiveness is good as an option open to characters of major species in a setting, not a requirement for them. Yes, it is a good option for fantasy species/races. As is making them ugly.

gkathellar
2011-10-13, 07:00 AM
Attractiveness does NOT decide how deep a race are...

No, it doesn't. But again, my specific objection is to the usage of attractiveness as a visual device to produce a universal response to an entire species.


Making "villain-races" ugly is NOT a wrong move. Can be a cliche' one, but not wrong.

I have problems with the whole idea of "villain-races" in general, but even considering their uses: sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Depends on context.


...It is a BUGBEAR. It would make anyone sensible head-desk.

And why is that?


...How do half-elves discouarage unique races...? I guess you mean, "the biologically improbable ability to breed with other species belonging to humans in most fantasy fiction"? Or, "the fact there are so many human-like humanoid species in fantasy fiction"?

I don't really think they're problems, though, that's the thing. I'm perfectly content to have fantasy races act as counterparts and foils to human beings. My point was only that in the usage thereof, you're not really creating new species, you're creating humans with slimmer waists and pointier ears and whatever else you've decided to stick on for this round. I don't have any issues with that, but the dominating trend in fantasy is not "unique species," as much as "funhouse mirror-images of human beings." And that means if you choose to establish universal appearance trends for that species, it will have effects.


Yes, it is a good option for fantasy species/races. As is making them ugly.

For individual members thereof, absolutely. I'm generally objecting to them being categorically either, because whether we like it or not, this does have a distorting effect.

John Cribati
2011-10-13, 07:33 AM
There seem to be two discussions going on, so here's my 2 cents on each:

First of all, I see no issue with races that are characterized as "Humanoid" being moderately to insanely attractive by human standards. After all, Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, ogres, giants, and whatever else can all breed with humans. That means (except in more... ahem... unfortunate cases) that 1) certain members of these races consider human attractive 2) certain humans consider members of these races attractive. Thus, it makes sense that some races have human sexual characteristics.

However, if the female of a species is always an amazonian Beauty, there is no reason for the male to be ugly as sin.

Conners
2011-10-13, 07:57 AM
No, it doesn't. But again, my specific objection is to the usage of attractiveness as a visual device to produce a universal response to an entire species. Depends on the style of story you're going for. Artistic-emotional type stories can be very powerful with visual aids both subtle and direct.



I have problems with the whole idea of "villain-races" in general, but even considering their uses: sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Depends on context. Again, depends on the story. Besides artistic ones made to reach out to base emotion, you get science fiction with the race of parasetic bugs or whichever.



And why is that? Put the rest of my paragraph in that post. You'll probably work it out.



I don't really think they're problems, though, that's the thing. I'm perfectly content to have fantasy races act as counterparts and foils to human beings. My point was only that in the usage thereof, you're not really creating new species, you're creating humans with slimmer waists and pointier ears and whatever else you've decided to stick on for this round. I don't have any issues with that, but the dominating trend in fantasy is not "unique species," as much as "funhouse mirror-images of human beings." And that means if you choose to establish universal appearance trends for that species, it will have effects. I don't find it to be a problem either. Generally, people want to relate to human-things, even if they also want the humans to wear a new coat of paint. Still, things could be more alien... I'm sick of women with a lioness head needing to have breasts just because they're a female which stands on two legs (even worse, non-mamals are given these body-parts... which is creepy).



For individual members thereof, absolutely. I'm generally objecting to them being categorically either, because whether we like it or not, this does have a distorting effect. Imagine a race of Slugmen... those exist in Dwarf Fortress (though technically they are a-sexual). Now you have a race that is ugly by human standards throughout. Are they the worse for it?

Regardless, this isn't a discussion about, "all orcs should be ugly/pretty" this is a discussion about the average, the norm. Having an attractive female orc when they tend to be ugly helps separate the character from the norm, for example.... having all female orcs be amazon-like is silly.



There seem to be two discussions going on, so here's my 2 cents on each:

First of all, I see no issue with races that are characterized as "Humanoid" being moderately to insanely attractive by human standards. After all, Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, ogres, giants, and whatever else can all breed with humans. That means (except in more... ahem... unfortunate cases) that 1) certain members of these races consider human attractive 2) certain humans consider members of these races attractive. Thus, it makes sense that some races have human sexual characteristics.

However, if the female of a species is always an amazonian Beauty, there is no reason for the male to be ugly as sin. Not against orcs having human-like standards of beauty (keep it inhuman because they're not human, but make sure it's still relatable/understandable).

Those are good points, all the same.

Frozen_Feet
2011-10-13, 08:30 AM
Just something I want to say:

Beauty does not equal sexually attractive.

There's a lot of room for non-human species to be aesthetically pleasing, while at the same time straying away from humanoid shape.

Conners
2011-10-13, 08:55 AM
Afraid I had forgotten this point somewhere in the thread. It certainly is a good one--you don't need to have all your attractive things sexual.

Still, one of the points of this discussion is that currently... fantasy writers/game-makers are only focusing on the sexual side of things -_-"...

Here is a good example of an "attractive" race which is not sexual: http://monsterhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Felyne They're so cuuuute!!

gkathellar
2011-10-13, 09:27 AM
Depends on the style of story you're going for. Artistic-emotional type stories can be very powerful with visual aids both subtle and direct.

Again, depends on the story. Besides artistic ones made to reach out to base emotion, you get science fiction with the race of parasetic bugs or whichever.

This is almost certainly true. I should clarify that my opinions here mostly apply to humanoids in particular.


Put the rest of my paragraph in that post. You'll probably work it out.

"Read it again" isn't really an answer to, "And why do you think that?"


I don't find it to be a problem either. Generally, people want to relate to human-things, even if they also want the humans to wear a new coat of paint. Still, things could be more alien... I'm sick of women with a lioness head needing to have breasts just because they're a female which stands on two legs (even worse, non-mamals are given these body-parts... which is creepy).

Eh, I wouldn't say there are any categorical problems with it. Again, it really depends on whether or not the species in question is intended to be "human but different" or whether they're supposed to be their own distinct entity. As we're establishing, context is important.

(Incidentally, you may want to check out C.J. Cherryh's science fiction work. She focuses on aliens intensely, and does an excellent job of making them relatable but deeply inhuman at the same time. The Chanur Saga and the Faded Sun Trilogy are particularly good examples, at least in part because nearly all of the main characters are aliens in both yet it still works.)


Imagine a race of Slugmen... those exist in Dwarf Fortress (though technically they are a-sexual). Now you have a race that is ugly by human standards throughout. Are they the worse for it?

No, but if you keep adding whatever animal to humans you're eventually going to get something for which our standards of attractiveness don't make any sense at all. Extremes are typically problematic for general statements, which doesn't make the general statement any less useful.


Regardless, this isn't a discussion about, "all orcs should be ugly/pretty" this is a discussion about the average, the norm. Having an attractive female orc when they tend to be ugly helps separate the character from the norm, for example.... having all female orcs be amazon-like is silly.

And I would err toward the middle-ground — humanoid races in general should neither be particularly ugly or particularly attractive, but have examples of each. Of course to be fair, fantasy art typically prefers to portray attractive characters, but that's neither here nor there.

Tiki Snakes
2011-10-13, 11:56 AM
I think it's interesting to note that back when they were tolkein's thing, Orcs had black skin and no tusks. If you imagine the average Orc pallet-shifted from the green that Warhammer seems to have pioneered and without the prominent tusks that seem to have come from Warcraft, and you have a very unsettling depiction when taken wholesale with their usual characteristics and role in the narrative.

It's all well and good emphasising that they aren't simply a different shade of human by adding things like the exotic skin colour and non-human features, but keeping them from the associated cliches of mindless villainy and inherant badwrong ugliness helps keep them from being too much of an uncomfortable cliche, to my mind.

To some degree, this is part of what Warcraft gets right, with their Orcs being a valid protagonist race in all senses, with a more believable scale of attractiveness vs repugnance and much more nuanced characterisation and culture. (Without, of course, throwing out the joyfully silly orcisms and hints of Warhammer-esque Waaaaaghishness).

tl:dr
It's just generally better if Orcs are allowed the potential to look good.

Yora
2011-10-13, 12:51 PM
In Middle-Earth, orcs are not characters. They are monsters.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-13, 01:03 PM
@Tiki Snakes
Warcraft Orcs are space aliens, (from fantasy Mars) and, if I remember my lore right, so are Warhammer orcs, so it makes even less sense for them to be human style pretty.
D&D orcs can interbreed with humans, so a certain similarity is valid. I still don't like the idea of them being conventionally attractive though. Of course, I also like my elves and other humanoid to look a little weird too. Sexy depending on your point of view, but still a little outside the human range. Somewhat inside it, they can also breed with humans, but also outside it as well.

gkathellar
2011-10-13, 01:07 PM
I still don't like the idea of them being conventionally attractive though.

Emphasis mine. Assuming I'm not taking you too far out of context, I can certainly agree with this. If a character is going to be attractive, then their being another species presents a golden opportunity to present unconventionally attractive characters — one no art team should miss out on.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-13, 01:20 PM
Emphasis mine. Assuming I'm not taking you too far out of context, I can certainly agree with this. If a character is going to be attractive, then their being another species presents a golden opportunity to present unconventionally attractive characters — one no art team should miss out on.

By conventionally attractive I mean, take your random GSSB* and (maybe) give her a cute little fang and/or digitigrade legs and call it a day. I love Fredrik K T Andersson fantasy art (NSFW as it may often be) for the most part, especially his sense of humour, but his orcs do not look orcy to me.
*Green-Skinned Space Babe

GenericGuy
2011-10-13, 01:41 PM
By conventionally attractive I mean, take your random GSSB* and (maybe) give her a cute little fang and/or digitigrade legs and call it a day. I love Fredrik K T Andersson fantasy art (NSFW as it may often be) for the most part, especially his sense of humour, but his orcs do not look orcy to me.
*Green-Skinned Space Babe

Really? the amount of muscles they have makes them orcy for me(and not just "green elves"), and his artwork is what I used to get femal PCs to want to play orc women (and Dwarves).

Ravens_cry
2011-10-13, 01:53 PM
Really? the amount of muscles they have makes them orcy for me(and not just "green elves"), and his artwork is what I used to get femal PCs to want to play orc women (and Dwarves).
Too human in my opinion, especially in the face. His orcs is how I personally portray the sexier (to human eyes) half orcs. Closest of what he draws is the one on the left (http://andersson.elfwood.com/Girl-Talk.2524348.html)here, with a bit more simian and probably less sharp teeth.
PnPRPG are primarily a non visual medium anyway, so having a character look conventionally sexy is only important to me when it is important to the character.
I draw all my characters myself by the way.

Fax Celestis
2011-10-13, 02:02 PM
Warcraft Orcs are not Tolkien Orcs. Tolkien suggested in the Silmarillion that orcs are the tortured and corrupted decendants of elves.

[...]

The latter has a lot more potential for beauty than the former.

Because of course, torture is hereditary (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailBiologyForever).

Ravens_cry
2011-10-13, 02:16 PM
Because of course, torture is hereditary (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailBiologyForever).

Depends, did the torture include something akin to rewriting their genetic code, with all the autoimmune disorders ramped up to 11 that would entail, while they were alive?

Fax Celestis
2011-10-13, 02:21 PM
Depends, did the torture include something akin to rewriting their genetic code, with all the autoimmune disorders ramped up to 11 that would entail, while they were alive?

Anyone capable of that kind of magic could certainly come up with better minions than orcs.

Frozen_Feet
2011-10-13, 02:24 PM
Depends, did the torture include something akin to rewriting their genetic code, with all the autoimmune disorders ramped up to 11 that would entail, while they were alive?

Several forms of torture would indirectly affect offspring. Notably, stress hormones lead to activation of different genes than if the mother was allright. Malnourishment or otherwise poor nutrition will also damage children and can even cause mutations. So on and so forth; even if we discount purposeful breeding towards cruelty and physical strenght, there are a lot of ways for the corruption to have become hereditary.

Fax Celestis
2011-10-13, 02:28 PM
...which requires generations of genetic drift and assumes mutations (if any) are dominant traits. Neither of which actually happened.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-13, 02:28 PM
Anyone capable of that kind of magic could certainly come up with better minions than orcs.
Morgoth did make other minions, as Trolls, if I remember correctly, were twisted or a mockery of Ents. Twisting Elves into despoilers and destroyers though really fits that ones rather Lulzy style of Evil and quantity has a quality of its own.

gkathellar
2011-10-13, 02:30 PM
...which requires generations of genetic drift and assumes mutations (if any) are dominant traits. Neither of which actually happened.

I want to side with you on this but in Tolkein's universe reality is made out of music, and Morgoth is a violinist who is trying to steal the conductor's wand. I'm not sure genetics really apply in a universe like that.

Fax Celestis
2011-10-13, 02:32 PM
That's...a good point.

Frozen_Feet
2011-10-13, 02:34 PM
Neither of which actually happened.

You base this on what? Orcs exist (existed?) in Middle-Earth for millenia, and their creation took a long time as well.

Also, mutations don't have to be dominant traits, if bearers of recessive traits are (forcefully?) bred with each other.

gkathellar
2011-10-13, 02:39 PM
You base this on what? Orcs exist (existed?) in Middle-Earth for millenia, and their creation took a long time as well.

Also, mutations don't have to be dominant traits, if bearers of recessive traits are (forcefully?) bred with each other.

Again: Morgoth is a mountain-sized angel-god trying to subvert the fabric of reality because he doesn't like his boss. With everything he corrupts, he grows slowly weaker. It seems like maybe we are playing with a different set of rules here.

Frozen_Feet
2011-10-13, 02:43 PM
Maybe. Doesn't stop me from pointing out that it'd work in under the other rules as well.

FatJose
2011-10-13, 03:25 PM
Get your science out of my fantasy! Stop spiking the punch bowl.

GenericGuy
2011-10-13, 03:44 PM
Get your science out of my fantasy! Stop spiking the punch bowl.

In my homebrew settings I usually have all humanoid races be evolutionary decedents of Humanity (this fact always gives the elves an identity crisis:smallbiggrin:)

Dwarves, Halflings and Ogres evolved through the normal way of natural selection, but Orcs and Elves evolved by a magical eugenics program. Because “its magic” this is why the half-elves and half-orcs are possible, but the other races have the same problems as real life cross species breeding(Half-ogres being the only ones with any real numbers, but birth defects are really common).

This is usually enough to satisfy my conscious from totally ignoring everything I learned in Biology:smalltongue:.

hiryuu
2011-10-13, 05:24 PM
This is usually enough to satisfy my conscious from totally ignoring everything I learned in Biology:smalltongue:.

You don't have to. Allow me to introduce you to the glory of ring species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species). Just put humans on the middle of a line of species that has elves at one end and orcs at the other. Bam, problem solved.

Now as for half-dragons... well, I've always considered a lot of those races to just be "soul stains" more than anything else. They're not half-breeding so much as they're spreading an effect.

Morithias
2011-10-13, 06:05 PM
According to the only book that I know of with rules on beauty (BOEF*). Your average half orc has an appearence score of 8, while your average orc has an appearence score of 7.

A human has 10 of course, while the most beautiful creature in existence is Nymph and Unicorn tied at 24 average a piece.

So by this logic you could have a half orc with an appearence score up to 16, or a orc with an appearence score up to 14 or 15 (i forget how negative mods work).

*Book of Erotic Fantasy

Ravens_cry
2011-10-13, 06:06 PM
In my homebrew settings I usually have all humanoid races be evolutionary decedents of Humanity (this fact always gives the elves an identity crisis:smallbiggrin:)

Dwarves, Halflings and Ogres evolved through the normal way of natural selection, but Orcs and Elves evolved by a magical eugenics program. Because “its magic” this is why the half-elves and half-orcs are possible, but the other races have the same problems as real life cross species breeding(Half-ogres being the only ones with any real numbers, but birth defects are really common).

This is usually enough to satisfy my conscious from totally ignoring everything I learned in Biology:smalltongue:.
I've had a similar idea, but a weirder idea I had was that elves were the evolved members of the fruiting body of single species biome* that was the "source" for many creatures of myth and legend, like pixies, dryads, satyrs and centaurs. The elves ancestors were washed out to sea. Funny thing is that while they love forests, fay forests hate them as they consider them to be dangerous competitors, the forest their ancestors came from having long since died out.

The orcs were a peaceful people who lived in small villages in the darkest forests. their natural strength meant they needed little technology. They had to keep their populations small, so twins and other multiple births were exposed on mountains and hills. Many survived as they are a very resilient species, very good at surviving, but without the close filial connection of village orcs, they were wild and savage, raiding the humans in the valleys.
Dwarves are space aliens who adapted to life underground ex post facto, their technology plus advances in magic helped fuel the worlds version Industrial Revolution.
None of them can interbreed, not with humans or each other.
It's meant to be an alternate Earth, in about now with now technology, some much better, some worse, but with magic as well.
No, there isn't a masquerade.
*Think the Piggies symbioses from Speaker of the Dead, but on a larger scale.

John Cribati
2011-10-13, 08:48 PM
Beauty does not equal sexually attractive.

I object. While someone does not need to be sexually attracted to someone to consider that person beautiful (I'm not gay, yet I can understand the beauty of the male form), I posit that one cannot be sexually attracted to someone they do not consider beautiful on some level, physical or otherwise.

Conners
2011-10-13, 11:09 PM
@Tiki Snakes and Yora: DnD is the lot who made orcs characterless, not Lord of the Rings... Not sure if you read it ,but the parts where you got to hear the orcs talking to one and other... they seemed very human in a certain way. They were vicious, but they had emotions. Were evil, but had reason. They weren't mindless slaves of their masters, so much as tribal warriors who in fact had propaganda.

Example: When they saw the Rohirrim coming, they said, "Run quick! Otherwise those white-skins will kill us and eat us!" They had the impression that humans eat orcs. Also contrary to the movie scene where they eat an orc, it turns out that canabalism is an insult among orcs (Ugluk the uruk-hai captain insulted the orcs from the mountains in this way--it started a fight).

Orcs in LotR are cruel, tortured creatures--which are described as enjoying every foul deed. It seems orcs did rape women (and yes, there are female orcs--you just can't tell them apart)... Tolkien had thought of this subject, but never went into it until asked. Orcs also can't breed with humans, unless the humans go through a similar corruption process first--then yo ucan breed the orcs with the corrupted humans to get uruks or uruk-hai. He didn't want to talk about orc children either--because he imagined they'd have very terrible lives, and Tolkien was sensitive about kids.

So, there you have it. Orcs in LotR are realistic sorts of creautres (the biology and magic is questionable, of course), with realistic human-like personalities. Tolkien gets blamed for a lot of things he didn't do, strangely enough.


@gkathellar:
Again: Morgoth is a mountain-sized angel-god trying to subvert the fabric of reality because he doesn't like his boss. With everything he corrupts, he grows slowly weaker. It seems like maybe we are playing with a different set of rules here. Actually, the majority of the human race believes in a higher power or higher powers.

Being mountain-sized is nothing new for a demi-god, and neither is, "not liking your boss". Growing weaker as you use magic is a matter of common sense if you link using magic to exerting energy.

This isn't to say that Morgorth and so forth don't play with a different rule-set... but their existence alone doesn't mean a change in the rules of the physical mortal world (middle-earth), by the same logic as religious faiths. It does delve into the theories of how immortal being can alter the mortal world, however (whether by breaking rules or just using loop-holes).


@GenericGuy: Since it's meant to take hundreds of billions of years to evolve noticeably... doesn't that mean that your humans have been around for hundreds of billions of years and are ultra advanced (or maybe only a hundred million years)? Unless you're going with the "nuclear war restarted the technological levels a few times" idea.

GenericGuy
2011-10-14, 12:18 AM
@GenericGuy: Since it's meant to take hundreds of billions of years to evolve noticeably... doesn't that mean that your humans have been around for hundreds of billions of years and are ultra advanced (or maybe only a hundred million years)? Unless you're going with the "nuclear war restarted the technological levels a few times" idea.

It does not take hundreds of billions of years for life to evolve (heck our univers is about 13 billion) just millions usually; and years arent whats important, its generations.

My homebrew setting started out much like our own world, maybe a few animals evolved there that didn’t show up here. But eventually three “gods” came to the world and “uplifted” some humans as the first Elves, and installed in them a belief that they are the chosen people by giving them all the ability to use magic (Elves are natural sorcerers) and long life.

The elves at first pushed out the competing early human tribes/family groups.

Some humans head north and remain humans, others used primitive boats and sailed west to a huge island chain and become the Halflings (mammals do tend to shrink in island environments to save energy and I got inspiration of them from the real world hobbit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis)

Other humans went east to an enormous mountain range and adapted to cave like environments under the mountains (Dwarves) while others lived on top of mountains and had a much more brutal existence (Ogres)

This all took a long time obviously, and although humans had evolved they had not developed civilization yet. Like in real life humans evolved 200,000 years ago, but civilization has only been around for 6,000 or so. Humanity in my world spent much longer as a stone age people than we really did, mostly because of Elven interference.

Orcs were created by the Elves from human slaves (making Orcs the youngest race), using methods their “gods” had used on them, but selecting for strength and endurance over intelligence and magical ability.

Conners
2011-10-14, 04:41 AM
13 Billion? How are you so sure on that exact amount.....?

Not sure how the elves would slow human technological growth, really. Even if they can somewhat... it's meant to take a LOOONG time to get any evolutionary change, otherwise we'd have found some hard examples of evolution, so I'm not sure things would just be medieval by the time you get ogres and so-forth.
Consinder Inuits who live in the arctic--they aren't that much different from people who live in Africa... yet they have lived in their respective homes for many generations.


Of course... we're starting to get off-topic here... Could discuss this over PM if you wanted to continue.

Marillion
2011-10-14, 05:30 AM
@GenericGuy: Since it's meant to take hundreds of billions of years to evolve noticeably... doesn't that mean that your humans have been around for hundreds of billions of years [snip]
That'd be pretty impressive, considering that as far as we can tell the Earth is about four and a half billion years old and the universe is about 14 billion years old, give or take.


otherwise we'd have found some hard examples of evolution,
But we have! You know how every year you need to get a flu shot to be protected, even if you were inoculated the year before? That's evolution. The influenza virus changes and adapts to its environment so quickly that we need to come up with multiple vaccines just to protect ourselves from it. Evolution does take longer to become apparent in multi-celled organisms, but we've still seen it and been able to study it in plants and animals.

Yora
2011-10-14, 05:32 AM
Oh come on people. You're not discussing about art here, you're just yelling at each other "you're stupid!", "no, you're stupid!".

Anarchy_Kanya
2011-10-14, 06:35 AM
Oh come on people. You're not discussing about art here, you're just yelling at each other "you're stupid!", "no, you're stupid!".
Isn't this what discussion is about? (on this boards at least)

Avilan the Grey
2011-10-14, 07:10 AM
Oh come on people. You're not discussing about art here, you're just yelling at each other "you're stupid!", "no, you're stupid!".

Sounds like a typical discussion of art to me.

Edit: as for beauty and standard of beauty the problem is in the design, not the logical conclusion. A hairless humanoid mammal species will very likely have similar developments between females and males (large upper body and muscles for males, wide hips and advertising mamary glands for females). The main question is HOW MUCH more feminine the female looks, not IF it will resemble a human female in basic design.

Conners
2011-10-14, 08:38 AM
@Marillion: 14 billion? Guess I was right, about them adding a billion years on every so often :smalltongue:.

Either way, we were talking about transitional forms, not adaptation.


I wonder if it's better to deal more with the issue of over-sexualizing women in general to work out the proper usage for orcs... On one hand, it seems fine to allow women to play as extremly attractive characters, forcing them to is bad, we got those basics pretty straight. So I guess it's on what ratio of attractive NPCs you want to have..

Having all the NPCs attractive in that you don't want to look at ugly NPCs seems reasonable in one light. In another, it can make things seem... "tacky" might be the word..? Might be better to maintain variety.

Yora
2011-10-14, 08:57 AM
It's not about characters being attractive or not.

It's putting characters into impractical outfits that are pure fanservice when there is no way anyone in that situation would wear that.

Conners
2011-10-14, 09:03 AM
There are some people who would wear bizzare things in impractical circumstances. Your point still stands, of course.

Still, I'm not so sure it makes sense to have too great an abundance of attractive characters. I remember your nanny in Dragon Age had the same body-model as the other females--very busty, and shapely... the effect was not pleasant.

Avilan the Grey
2011-10-14, 09:04 AM
It's not about characters being attractive or not.

It's putting characters into impractical outfits that are pure fanservice when there is no way anyone in that situation would wear that.

Fan service has never really bothered me, I must say. Not in the way you describe. As long as "impractical" clothes are fairly common (like in a lot of fantasy illustrations and games) and not glaringly obvious (like say Lady Rawhide from the Zorro comics).



Still, I'm not so sure it makes sense to have too great an abundance of attractive characters. I remember your nanny in Dragon Age had the same body-model as the other females--very busty, and shapely... the effect was not pleasant.

Two points:

1. That is not fan service, that is saving resources when coding.
2. It is not that noticeable unless you deal with say Wynne, who you can put in revealing robes. The nanny has never bothered me, because I was looking at her face, not her boobs.

Yora
2011-10-14, 09:06 AM
But except for the dalish leather bikini, female characters in Dragon Age actually wore armor and dresses covered the bodies. That game deserves huge credit for that, you rarely see such a thing in fantasy games or art.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-14, 09:51 AM
The thing I dislike about blatant fan service, and especially typical fantasy female armour, is they are out of universe phenomena, it's their for the viewers, and as such can knock one out of the story.
After all, if you are wearing armour at all, putting a hole where your phreaking heart is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_the_Azure_Bonds) is just silly and creates a real out-of-character moment if we are to believe the character is a competent warrior. And, frankly, that's one of the better ones I've seen.
Being light and nimble is one thing, defeating the purpose of wearing armour, protecting ones vitals, is another.

Anarchy_Kanya
2011-10-14, 09:54 AM
It's magical armor. You can even run around naked and still have armor bonus - Bracers of Armor.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-14, 10:02 AM
It's magical armor. You can even run around naked and still have armor bonus - Bracers of Armor.

Then just wear that, why bother with chain shirt at all? The stuff is heavy, wearing it next to skin would probably chafe like crazy, and there is still a hole over your phreaking heart!

Spiryt
2011-10-14, 10:07 AM
It's magical armor. You can even run around naked and still have armor bonus - Bracers of Armor.

Never really couldn't come up with some sensible explanation on why Braces of Armor wouldn't "stack" with normal armor, and I'm usually good at this stuff....

You have "invisible, tangible force field" around you that protects you... Fine, what stops you from wearing a mail too, then?



Then just wear that, why bother with chain shirt at all?

Because it's fetish accessory, or whatever - armor presented like that has literally no sense, but to create some funky image....

I've never really noticed fantasy drawers even denying this fact too much.

Yora
2011-10-14, 10:14 AM
My favorite manga writer once admited the reason that he drew all the naked women in one scene was because he just didn't feel like drawing a dude. :smallfrown:

The thing I dislike about blatant fan service, and especially typical fantasy female armour, is they are out of universe phenomena, it's their for the viewers, and as such can knock one out of the story.
Killing suspension of disbelieve is one factor. The other one is making me embarrased for being associated with people who apparently get a kick out of pinups where they don't have any place at all.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-14, 10:18 AM
@Spiryt:
That doesn't change that from an in-universe perspective it makes as much sense of going into a battle with nothing but nitroglycerin pasties. Besides, as I said before, Pen and Paper RPG are a non-visual medium and those early video games had graphics so crude as to make any in-game imagery to be representational at best.
Why do we need blatant fetish fan-service anyway?

Spiryt
2011-10-14, 10:42 AM
@Spiryt:

Why do we need blatant fetish fan-service anyway?

Dunno, but it's so popular that I would assume there's demand for it - and really that is pretty much the case, if people want to admit it or not, popularity and sheer size of "Dungeons and Dreamboats" thread speaks for itself.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-14, 11:03 AM
Dunno, but it's so popular that I would assume there's demand for it - and really that is pretty much the case, if people want to admit it or not, popularity and sheer size of "Dungeons and Dreamboats" thread speaks for itself.

I understand the demand, I can certainly understand the demand for eye-candy in both cheesecake and beefcake variates.
I just don't see the need.
We don't, for example, emblazon chess sets with a picture of two queens in slutacular royal-style outfits catfighting or a muscular sweaty Knight with his top armour off looking at the viewer.

Conners
2011-10-14, 12:12 PM
My favorite manga writer once admited the reason that he drew all the naked women in one scene was because he just didn't feel like drawing a dude. :smallfrown:

Killing suspension of disbelieve is one factor. The other one is making me embarrased for being associated with people who apparently get a kick out of pinups where they don't have any place at all. Appreciate the fact they were honest about it, I guess? Most authors will defend the most ludicrous obviously-bad decisions imaginable, after all.



I understand the demand, I can certainly understand the demand for eye-candy in both cheesecake and beefcake variates.
I just don't see the need.
We don't, for example, emblazon chess sets with a picture of two queens in slutacular royal-style outfits catfighting or a muscular sweaty Knight with his top armour off looking at the viewer. Chess doesn't have many competitors. They don't feel the need to "amp up graphic and eye-candy".

Of course, there are still likely several companies that make chess pieces... The other reason they don't tend to go for eye-candy, is that chess applies to a more specific audience rather than the world at large (which enjoys blatant fan-service for the most part).
--
There are still erotic chess pieces, almost certainly... I think I remember reading about a computer-game of chess featuring naked men on one side of the board and women on the other. From what I understood, killing pieces was replaced by erotic acts.... *Head-desk*


One thing to consider: Would it be OK to have a world rampant with sexualized outfits and unnaturally beautiful and shapely characters (who are probably unnaturally horny as well >_>), if it was justified as part of the setting rather than tacked on...? From that description alone, it seems like a terrible idea, even worse than the current trends (but that might just be my opinion).

hiryuu
2011-10-14, 12:43 PM
@Marillion: 14 billion? Guess I was right, about them adding a billion years on every so often :smalltongue:.

Yeah, holy cow, it's totally amazing when scientists admit mistakes and correct them, ain't it? It's almost like that's one of the principles it's founded on or something. Either way, we're not talking about the age of the universe here in these examples, we'd be talking about how long humans have been around and had civilization.

Speaking of, I think our earliest evidence of controlled use of fire is about 400,000 years old, give or take (and that was erectus; we sapiens have been around only about 200,000 years or so).


Either way, we were talking about transitional forms, not adaptation.

*facepalm*

Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. Every form is transitional. However, if you want to get technical, and talk about transitional forms between groups, it takes less than a minute to find a boatload (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils). They're practically everywhere (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html). In fact, they're so common and their location in the strata are so well known that when we go to look for them nowadays, we know where to look (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik)!

Ravens_cry
2011-10-14, 12:44 PM
Chess doesn't have many competitors. They don't feel the need to "amp up graphic and eye-candy".

Of course, there are still likely several companies that make chess pieces... The other reason they don't tend to go for eye-candy, is that chess applies to a more specific audience rather than the world at large (which enjoys blatant fan-service for the most part).

I suppose pen and paper Fantasy RPG makers are trying to appeal to a certain audience, which purportedly enjoys said blatant fan service.


--
There are still erotic chess pieces, almost certainly... I think I remember reading about a computer-game of chess featuring naked men on one side of the board and women on the other. From what I understood, killing pieces was replaced by erotic acts.... *Head-desk*

The Mens-side Queen might have trouble, being only interested in taking out its own side.:smalltongue:
But in all seriousness, that sounds pretty terrible.



One thing to consider: Would it be OK to have a world rampant with sexualized outfits and unnaturally beautiful and shapely characters (who are probably unnaturally horny as well >_>), if it was justified as part of the setting rather than tacked on...? From that description alone, it seems like a terrible idea, even worse than the current trends (but that might just be my opinion).

That sounds disturbingly like FATAL.:smalleek:
Let us never speak of this again.

Inyssius Tor
2011-10-14, 12:45 PM
I understand the demand, I can certainly understand the demand for eye-candy in both cheesecake and beefcake variates.
I just don't see the need.

I suppose that makes sense.

What do you see the need for, though?

Ravens_cry
2011-10-14, 12:50 PM
I suppose that makes sense.

What do you see the need for, though?
Interesting characters and situations in a world with fantastic, in the literal sense, laws of physics.
To me, over blatant fan service is like near-beer. Its got poor taste and it doesn't give even the satisfaction the real stuff does.

Spiryt
2011-10-14, 12:52 PM
I understand the demand, I can certainly understand the demand for eye-candy in both cheesecake and beefcake variates.
I just don't see the need.
We don't, for example, emblazon chess sets with a picture of two queens in slutacular royal-style outfits catfighting or a muscular sweaty Knight with his top armour off looking at the viewer.

I'm not really sure I follow you...

There's a need, because obviously fantasy fans like to look at such pictures and stuff. They like the appeal, image, or whatever of such characters.

Inyssius Tor
2011-10-14, 12:54 PM
Interesting characters and situations in a world with fantastic, in the literal sense, laws of physics.
To me, over blatant fan service is like near-beer. Its got poor taste and it doesn't give even the satisfaction the real stuff does.

I can certainly understand the demand for interesting characters, interesting situations, and fantastic settings. I don't really see the need for it, though. :smallwink:

Inyssius Tor
2011-10-14, 12:55 PM
I'm not really sure I follow you...

There's a need, because obviously fantasy fans like to look at such pictures and stuff. They like the appeal, image, or whatever of such characters.

That's not a need! That's a demand.

Granted, that chain of thought applies just as well to literally everything the hobby has ever produced, including the hobby itself, but still. :smallwink:

Spiryt
2011-10-14, 12:57 PM
That's not a need! That's a demand.

Granted, that chain of thought applies just as well to literally everything the hobby has ever produced, including the hobby itself, but still. :smallwink:

It pretty much applies to everything short of water, some fruits and temperature above ~ 10 C in fact. :smalltongue:

Ravens_cry
2011-10-14, 01:02 PM
I can certainly understand the demand for interesting characters, interesting situations, and fantastic settings. I don't really see the need for it, though. :smallwink:
Does the near naked lady or dude on the cover of a typical fantasy novel make the story itself better or worse?
You need at least some of the ingredients, setting, story, characters, plot, to make a good story, to make a fun world to play in.
Over-blatant fan-service without in-universe justification is just puerile window dressing.

Cerlis
2011-10-14, 07:01 PM
Tayla hit it on the head the first page.

Conventional orcs and trolls hags and stuff are ugly cus they where meant to be evil demon spawn that rose out of the muck.

Others are affected by "Our X are different", An Orc isnt an evil disgusting corrupted elf, its just another species. and like all species they evolve to have an advantage, and the main one is looks (for getting mates). So why wouldnt there be attractive ones (the main question is for nonmammal females. it would be interesting to figure out how, scientifically, they would be attractive, and not kept to mammilian standards)

Also i dont see why it would be "wrong" to make them "attractive". I'd say more but the statement seems just out of nowhere, there is nothing to be said.

Inyssius Tor
2011-10-14, 07:10 PM
Does the near naked lady or dude on the cover of a typical fantasy novel make the story itself better or worse?
You need at least some of the ingredients, setting, story, characters, plot, to make a good story, to make a fun world to play in.
Over-blatant fan-service without in-universe justification is just puerile window dressing.

I thought you said you could understand the desire for fan service.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-14, 07:23 PM
Also i dont see why it would be "wrong" to make them "attractive". I'd say more but the statement seems just out of nowhere, there is nothing to be said.
Is a bonobo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo), male and/or female, sexually attractive to you?
Orcs in settings where they can interbreed with humans without specific magical intervention are probably rather more closely related, but that still doesn't mean they have to be attractive to most humans.

I thought you said you could understand the desire for fan service.
The desire, yes. I just don't think it is needed to make a satisfying world in which to play. I don't mind sexy, sexy is nice and fine. I just refer it to have in-universe justification (the character has a reason for wanting to look sexy) then simply T&A.

H Birchgrove
2011-10-14, 07:40 PM
I don't really mind attractive female orcs, trolls, or other "monstruous" races. My reasons for this are completely unwholesome.

Yeah.

I leave (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11738059&postcount=1231) this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11740829&postcount=1239) here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11741036&postcount=1240). Keep brain bleach ready, at least for the first link.

PS. If you want a Speculative Fiction story that treats inter-species sex seriously, and yet has an *attractive* Space Babe, read The Lovers by Philip José Farmer.

FatJose
2011-10-14, 10:45 PM
http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/m/mare-8482.jpg
+

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Donkey_1_arp_750px.jpg/250px-Donkey_1_arp_750px.jpg
__________________________________________________ _________________

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Juancito.jpg/250px-Juancito.jpg

Now, I assume that Half-orcs aren't sterile. So making orcs look semi human instead of just upright walking boar-men isn't a bad idea at all. The difference between a horse and donkey simply by appearance is a pretty good comparison since only a gene here or there would have made them close enough to interbreed and create fertile offspring. They would probably look almost the same either way. Then we have the wolf and the dog who are the same species. We have minatures, bulldogs, labs and the like. If you didn't know better you'd think they were different species.

Orc should look human enough, the only reason they don't is because the early art was based on the Roman Orke so as to distance them from Tolkien's much more human variety that he had pretty much invented on his own. Thankfully, orcs being just goblins to begin with sort of made them fair play anyway...or maybe Tolkien or his estate didn't care as much as Wizards cares to protect their precious Beholders and Mindflayers.

If orcs are to be treated as humanoid, like dwarves (short, bulky humanoids), elves (thin, agile humanoids) or Halfling (small proportional humanoids), they should looks as humanoid as the others. And if they look as humanoids as the others, there shouldn't be a problem with some of them being easy on the eyes to humans. Personally, I just have the half-orc art represent full-bloods and describe actual half-orcs as ranging all over the middle.

Vknight
2011-10-14, 11:04 PM
My favorite manga writer once admitted the reason that he drew all the naked women in one scene was because he just didn't feel like drawing a dude. :smallfrown:


....He leaves us a great legacy then of nudity for that is probably the best excuse/reason to draw a group of naked women ever.

Let it stand that beauty is in the eye of the *GACK*.....

Beauty it is in the eye of s/he who Beholds the image before them for what is transcendent art before one is nothing before another.

hex0
2011-10-15, 12:25 AM
We don't hire filthy centaurs.

Last funny sketch on SNL.

some guy
2011-10-15, 04:30 AM
It's magical armor. You can even run around naked and still have armor bonus - Bracers of Armor.

I feel this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqCcJTt1OkE&list=PLE3C1D5D794A41536&index=2) is relevant.

Conners
2011-10-15, 05:53 AM
@hiryuu: And then they'll find out these facts also are wrong, in need of replacement by similar but re-adjusted "facts"... Suggestion: Just say, "it might be like this" instead of, "it is definitely like this!!" and you won't come out of it as smug or self-important. That way it'd be reasonable to re-adjust statements based on findings.

Nice vague example. There was also a Martian invasion eighty years ago. They came down to predict the meme, "all your base are belong to us" then ran home giggling. Want any more statements based on trust and naivety?

What an original, funny, mature response, which doesn't take jabs at a person's intellect in much the same way an uneducated child might insult one of a minority group. I ought to apologize, since sarcasm is also unoriginal.

We were talking about humans becoming large, monstrous creatures featured in myth. If you relate mythological creatures so closely to evolution, then I'm not sure if that's ironic (no one is sure what irony is, these days)...
You seem very excited. Good for you!


@Ravens_cry: Well, guess the idea is as bad as I figured it.


@FatJose: As you say, dogs can look very different between breeds (still dog-like, but still very different). Therefore, there's a lot of possibility for orcs being ugly and non-human looking.



Along the line of the problem with orcs, I have more trouble on the line of things that are even less human.

Some people love to give lizard-people breasts... which as I have said before, makes no sense. Neither does giving a female Minotaur large human breasts, instead of an udder--though at least they are mammalian.
Then you get the sexual undead, which is passable in the case of vampires--but why do they throw out "sexy" zombies and ghouls? Corpse =/= attractive in any sense.
Like I said with the bug-bear example, they've just started slapping boobs on everything female, and it has gotten to a point where it is annoying me.

Oddly enough, I can't think of this being the case with males in fantasy, for the most-part. Of course, I wouldn't be sure as to what qualities females would be looking for in their fan-service.

FatJose
2011-10-15, 09:29 AM
@FatJose: As you say, dogs can look very different between breeds (still dog-like, but still very different). Therefore, there's a lot of possibility for orcs being ugly and non-human looking.
A dog is still a dog. A chihuahua has no qualms with jumping on a pit if he could reach. No dog is non-canid looking. I don't see how you mean, Humanoid means human looking. Dwarves look human, Elves look human. Its up to taste if you can consider either attractive.

Some people love to give lizard-people breasts... which as I have said before, makes no sense. Neither does giving a female Minotaur large human breasts, instead of an udder--though at least they are mammalian.
Lizard boobs are stupid. I based them on Crested anoles so males are just bigger, bulkier and have crests. For most reptiles the difference is size, no need for bitties.The lore behind Minotaur is that he was the product of bestiality. There aren't supposed to be female minotaur but if there were they'd have reason to be humanoid to that extent.

Then you get the sexual undead, which is passable in the case of vampires--but why do they throw out "sexy" zombies and ghouls? Corpse =/= attractive in any sense.
Vampires aren't passable, that is their entire point. They seduce. It's been like that since Dracula. Don't know what you mean with zombies and ghouls, though. Never seen that.

Like I said with the bug-bear example, they've just started slapping boobs on everything female, and it has gotten to a point where it is annoying me.
I don't think they ever "started." I think its more that female monsters weren't prevalent until recently with the exception of exclusively sexual monsters. (vampires, succubi)

Oddly enough, I can't think of this being the case with males in fantasy, for the most-part. Of course, I wouldn't be sure as to what qualities females would be looking for in their fan-service.
Super humanly masculine musculature mostly.

Conners
2011-10-15, 09:55 AM
A dog is still a dog. A chihuahua has no qualms with jumping on a pit if he could reach. No dog is non-canid looking.

I don't see how you mean, Humanoid means human looking. Dwarves look human, Elves look human.

Its up to taste if you can consider either attractive. Dogs tend to be less picky about appearance, from my incredibly-basic-understanding-of-dogs-when-it-comes-to-this-matter. Give dogs human-intelligence, and you'll probably find the chihuahuas looking down on bull-dogs, while doing everything they can to win-over a husky.

Sorry, I over-emphasized that. I meant that they might reach into the uncanny-valley levels of human--almost there, but eerily off (tusks and so-forth). Also, though humanoid does means human-looking, I figured it had low standards--like a gorilla who could stand straight would be considered humanoid.

While it is up to taste as to whether elves or dwarves are attractive, you could still easily have something a bit different for orcs quite realistically: Some find them attractive, but the majority of people would feel queasy and excuse themselves at the idea of sexually relations with an orc.


Lizard boobs are stupid. The lore behind Minotaur is that he was the product of bestiality. There aren't supposed to be female minotaur but if there were they'd have reason to be humanoid to that extent. With the original minotaur, he was a punishment from the gods on some rich woman, because she lusted after a bull... and went through with her lust. Unless that's some watered-down version I heard.

It's a bit odd to have minotaurs as a race in general, come to think of it, when there was only meant to be one in a strange circumstance. Same thing has happened with Medusa.


Vampires aren't passable, that is their entire point. They seduce. It's been like that since Dracula. Don't know what you mean with zombies and ghouls, though. Never seen that. By, "passable", I mean that having a vampire with the odd idea that less clothes means more power is something I can live with in a story (I'm patient).

However... I've seen fiction where female zombies have very large chests, sometimes exposed for the viewer(s). Coupled with the intensely gored parts of the mobile corpse - and the fact it is a mindless corpse who is trying to eat you - this type of fan-service very disturbing to me--particularly for the fact necrosexuals exist.


I don't think they ever "started." I think its more that female monsters weren't prevalent until recently with the exception of exclusively sexual monsters. (vampires, succubi) Ah... So they're merely applying what they know about past female monsters to female monsters they wouldn't normally add? ...That, is almost cute (in a, "child repeatedly tripping over their shoelaces which are tied together" sort of way).


Super humanly masculine musculature mostly. I thought female fan-service lovers were split between that and slim bishonen types?

FatJose
2011-10-15, 11:20 AM
Dogs tend to be less picky about appearance, from my incredibly-basic-understanding-of-dogs-when-it-comes-to-this-matter. Give dogs human-intelligence, and you'll probably find the chihuahuas looking down on bull-dogs, while doing everything they can to win-over a husky.
True, but that is all taste, preference and whatever baggage caused by history. No different from actual racial prejudices and the weird phobias and kinks that come with all that. "Because" it is seen as disturbing to have Chihuahuas pair with bulldogs there would be a significant subgroup of Chihuahuas that find the idea exciting for the taboo alone.


While it is up to taste as to whether elves or dwarves are attractive, you could still easily have something a bit different for orcs quite realistically: Some find them attractive, but the majority of people would feel queasy and excuse themselves at the idea of sexually relations with an orc.
I agree with that idea. My problem with orcs is more that they take a step too far in either end.
http://www.otherworld.me.uk/images/gallery/PFOrc2_t.jpg
This is a boar with hands. Why not add Half-Gnolls and Half-kobolds at this point?
....
I tried to looks at Warcraft for a good example of color swapped humans but...Warcraft orcs are pretty solid. Not a fan of the vibrant green but they did do a good job fusing human and simian facial and body structure. Even the females are savage looking. I think its really the fanart that idealizes them to the point of being just sexy green tough guys.
Now, Lineage has no excuse at all.
(They do but I don't buy it)
http://lineage2.megaxus.com/files/l2files/gracia18.jpg
And their Dwarves have a whole other layer of squick going on.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_msHSwNbmBuM/THRGoGHigfI/AAAAAAAAA14/QTot_gB1Pyg/s1600/sshotDwarf01.jpg They are all the same age...


However... I've seen fiction where female zombies have very large chests, sometimes exposed for the viewer(s). Coupled with the intensely gored parts of the mobile corpse - and the fact it is a mindless corpse who is trying to eat you - this type of fan-service very disturbing to me--particularly for the fact necrosexuals exist.
But they were human once. Becoming a zombie doesn't take away a woman's bust. And breasts, even if exposed, doesn't equate sexual appeal. You can rule it as that but where is the line if we're taking into account the depraved and what gets their rocks off?


Ah... So they're merely applying what they know about past female monsters to female monsters they wouldn't normally add? ...That, is almost cute (in a, "child repeatedly tripping over their shoelaces which are tied together" sort of way).
Not sure what that means but...They're lazy...and putting boobs on things has been around for a very long time in general. Maybe if people did the research...


I thought female fan-service lovers were split between that and slim bishonen types?
You know...the tastes of women over the centuries are so mercurial that I don't know why people even bother. The standard always does the trick, though. Elves can be depicted as bishonen and tough superior examples of humanity who are also intelligent, sensitive and blah blah blah. So there's that for their popularity. Everyone else fits a niche, though. The strong dependable dwarf for those who like chivalry, and traditional households...and Santa Claus/Older Men. The orc/halforc can be the wild body-building bad boy...but then again...drow can do that too with the added quirk of being litterally fluffed and tailored to be tameable by the lady folk and still have all the pros of being elves... Hmm. :smallconfused:

hiryuu
2011-10-15, 11:59 AM
@hiryuu: And then they'll find out these facts also are wrong, in need of replacement by similar but re-adjusted "facts"... Suggestion: Just say, "it might be like this" instead of, "it is definitely like this!!" and you won't come out of it as smug or self-important. That way it'd be reasonable to re-adjust statements based on findings.

I never said "it is definitely like this!!" Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Science changes when we find new evidence. And that is a strength. However, at this point, it's unlikely we'll overturn the majority of our thinking in regards to some processes, like the idea evolution (since we rely on it to, I dunno, build computers and processors, make vaccines, predict what types of bacteria will become immune to antibiotics, and do any sort of biology at all).

As another example, it's very unlikely that we'll ever say we were wrong and that gravity just simply doesn't exist. We can be pretty darn sure that objects gravitate toward each other, just as we can be sure that allele frequencies change over time. How they do that is another matter entirely, and I've seen it erupt into shouting matches (actually, I've once seen a fistfight over whether a postage-stamp sized fragment of a maxilla once belonged to a reptile-like mammal or a mammal-like reptile; that was seriously something else).


Nice vague example. There was also a Martian invasion eighty years ago. They came down to predict the meme, "all your base are belong to us" then ran home giggling. Want any more statements based on trust and naivety?

And then we say "evidence, plox?" That's how science works. If the evidence is compelling enough, it can overturn any number of long held assumptions.


What an original, funny, mature response, which doesn't take jabs at a person's intellect in much the same way an uneducated child might insult one of a minority group. I ought to apologize, since sarcasm is also unoriginal.

Sorry about the sarcasm bit at the start of my post. I tend to start biting early on, especially when, again, less than five minutes on google could turn up ridiculous mounds counter-evidence that simply can't be ignored.


We were talking about humans becoming large, monstrous creatures featured in myth. If you relate mythological creatures so closely to evolution, then I'm not sure if that's ironic (no one is sure what irony is, these days)...
You seem very excited. Good for you!

You're the one who brought evolution into this. A fantasy world is another matter entirely, especially since most of the ones in D&D have large, painfully obvious evidence that deities are actively doing things. Also there are wizards.

______________________

I've no problem with some orcs being attractive. Obviously, some of them are. We half half-orcs, and not all of them can be born to non-consensual unions. D&D also probably does not work on the laws of heredity as we know them (especially somewhere in, say, Eberron, where just being born in a specific location can turn you into a genasi or other planetouched).

I seem to remember playing in a campaign once where "orc" was a disease, and that a particular "patient zero" orc or whatever moving into an area slowly turned the population into other orcs over the course of a couple of generations, usually so slowly they didn't notice, and half-orcs were the "stage" at which most communities noticed and scattered far and wide. Thus leaving a true breeding race almost universally shunned for being magical hate-lepers.

Squidmaster
2011-10-16, 10:14 PM
Says Tolkien. :smalltongue:

Thus endeth the discussion.

Cerlis
2011-10-16, 11:17 PM
Is a bonobo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo), male and/or female, sexually attractive to you?
Orcs in settings where they can interbreed with humans without specific magical intervention are probably rather more closely related, but that still doesn't mean they have to be attractive to most humans.

The desire, yes. I just don't think it is needed to make a satisfying world in which to play. I don't mind sexy, sexy is nice and fine. I just refer it to have in-universe justification (the character has a reason for wanting to look sexy) then simply T&A.

ok, see when making comparisons you need to do Like-to-like. We are talking about sentient bipedal human based species. so the proper response would be

Is this attractive http://www.teenidols4you.com/blink/Actors/helenbonhamcarter/helenbonhamcarter_1286254948.jpg

and i think many people would say at LEAST "Well, she is pretty, for a monkey chick" Just like how one might think that "well green skin and tusks arent my thing, but she is pretty hot i guess."

so why wouldnt we be making other humanoid species have attractive members? Thats what i dont understand.

Conners
2011-10-17, 01:19 AM
There's a difference between attractive members, and having the entire race look, "pretty good, I guess". The thing is, attractive female orcs are often not unusual with a lot of fantasy writing.

Gamgee
2011-10-17, 01:42 AM
I'm sick of fantasy races in general being unimaginative human rip offs. One look at the animal kingdom and some basic thought will give you nightmares. NIGHTMARES!

Conners
2011-10-17, 02:19 AM
You mean you want horror races in fantasy?

Frozen_Feet
2011-10-17, 05:40 AM
ok, see when making comparisons you need to do Like-to-like.

Like-to-like? Monkeys and apes are the closest rea -life point of reference for how attractive other humanoid species might be to us. On that note, tell me which sex this gorilla (http://www.gorilla-haven.org/ghphotos/colo.jpg) is.


I object. While someone does not need to be sexually attracted to someone to consider that person beautiful (I'm not gay, yet I can understand the beauty of the male form), I posit that one cannot be sexually attracted to someone they do not consider beautiful on some level, physical or otherwise.

... if that's your objection, you're not really objecting to anything I said. World is full of species among which sexual attraction is dictated by pheromones or other hormonal (or environmental, etc.) factors instead of appearance. Sure, you could translate that as a "beautiful scent" (etc.) in human terms, but here's the crux: what's attracting to one species can be disgusting, or imperceptible, to others. Furthermore, many species are not constantly in heat like humans; sexual attractiveness might not even enter to their everyday standards of beauty.

As such, in nonhuman species, even those closely related, there's a lot of room for there to be massive dichtomies between what is seen as aesthetically pleasing and sexually attractive.

Look at these (http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs13/f/2006/355/7/a/Sun_Serpent_Milotic_by_Kureculari.jpg) three (http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/thumb/f/f5/470Leafeon.png/230px-470Leafeon.png) creatures (http://pokemon-pokedex.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/620/media/images/Mew.jpg). Questions: are they beautiful? Are they sexually attractive?

(As a sidenote, Pokemon is goldmine for creatures that can be quite pretty without being human. Even the humanoid species are notably different and in the latest generations, even have sexual dimorphism. For example, you distinquish male and female Alakazams by comparing lenght of their whiskers.)

Conners
2011-10-17, 06:51 AM
So cuuuute!! But not sexy at all.

Spiryt
2011-10-17, 07:03 AM
Like-to-like? Monkeys and apes are the closest rea -life point of reference for how attractive other humanoid species might be to us. On that note, tell me which sex this gorilla (http://www.gorilla-haven.org/ghphotos/colo.jpg) is.


Female?


Yes, I was right! (http://www.gorilla-haven.org/)

FatJose
2011-10-17, 12:34 PM
I'm sick of fantasy races in general being unimaginative human rip offs. One look at the animal kingdom and some basic thought will give you nightmares. NIGHTMARES!

That's a weird way to argue for nonhumanoid pc races. They're human looking because that is as fantastic as you can get. There are dozens of species of canids, felines, equines, starfish, thousands of different kinds of ants..but only 1 human species with our next kin being far removed. Fantasy races are just the original aliens. Strange people from far away lands.

Yora
2011-10-17, 01:03 PM
Well, that statement is one that depends a lot on your ideology. There are no clear lines between individual species and races in the animal kingdom and you can mix and match quite a lot populations with each others. People did and do regard humans as being of different races, just as dogs or horses.

Cerlis
2011-10-17, 01:08 PM
Like-to-like? Monkeys and apes are the closest rea -life point of reference for how attractive other humanoid species might be to us. On that note, tell me which sex this gorilla (http://www.gorilla-haven.org/ghphotos/colo.jpg) is.


and we are talking about fantasy creatures here.

In this particular instance asking me about gorillas is like trying to compare 4th dimensional beings to humans. they arent the same thing. or saying if you like the councelor from Next generation you have a fish fetish.

The ape woman i showed and humans are both sentient developed humanoid beings, as are orcs, medusa, minataur, ect.

a gorilla/monkey/ape isnt.

Human-Sentient civilized humanoid race
Orc-Sentient Civilized humanoid race
Ape-woman- Sentient Civilized humanoid race
Gorilla-Semi-sentient vaguely humanoid animal.

Like to Like.

or are we thinking that cus an orc is sexy that we'd probably like gorillas and alligators too?

---------------

there is another subdiscussion in here that i dont quite understand. I think it has to do with the idea that people willingly go fanservicy on strange and things we dont care for.

I dont fully understand whats being said, but I would like to make 2 points.

1) is that there are a wide variety of people out there with different wants and needs. I understood recently just how perverted the whole Face Hugger thing was with xenomorphs, but it wasnt until i read up on the creator of the Alien that i realized how perverse the whole concept was and that it was intentional. Here we have someone who purposefully takes images from the same source we get Cthulu from ( i believe) , and uses it to traumatize us visually and sexually. That is a negative example, but there is also growing support for the fact that fetishes and kinks are a normal part of the human sexuality. The main example is summed up by the whole meme of Furry bashing, and those who fight against it (and i say that because it just seems like people Furry bash to jump on the band wagon, IMO). There are alot of legitimate sexual images people want out there, and they can be deliberate or accidental, they can be for the audience, or they can be because of the creator and the fact that they finally have "clay" to play with and create their ideas.

2) This is kinda linked to the Xenomorph example, and is in reply to the comment about big breasted zombies. The fact is, Sex is a part of everyones life, even Virgins are ruled by it in the fact that they are called virgins because of a Lack of sex. So sex still is a major part of a persons life even if you arent having any or want any. Thus it is a major factor and a major tool for writers to work with. So in this particular case, what better way to scare, freak out, and disturb someone than to link their sexuality to something that horrifies them. ZOmbie? Meh. Zombie that has the non decayed beautiful features of a woman, with large breast and voluptuous lips whos lower body is torn open with dead (insert a level of disturbing images you are comfortable with) hanging out of her? congrats you successfully freaked out your audience by activating the sexual and nauseated and fear parts of his brain at the same time. People will remember that image for along time, you have done your job.

gbprime
2011-10-17, 01:29 PM
You realize this discussion is trying to rationalize the urge to procreate? If the other person is a person and not a thing... urges happen. And if alcohol is involved, all bets are off. :smalleek:

http://files.shaunthesheep.com/newsletters/14_october/images/scared_sheep.jpg

Frozen_Feet
2011-10-17, 04:12 PM
and we are talking about fantasy creatures here.

In this particular instance asking me about gorillas is like trying to compare 4th dimensional beings to humans. they arent the same thing. or saying if you like the councelor from Next generation you have a fish fetish.

The ape woman i showed and humans are both sentient developed humanoid beings, as are orcs, medusa, minataur, ect.

a gorilla/monkey/ape isnt.

Human-Sentient civilized humanoid race
Orc-Sentient Civilized humanoid race
Ape-woman- Sentient Civilized humanoid race
Gorilla-Semi-sentient vaguely humanoid animal.

Like to Like.

or are we thinking that cus an orc is sexy that we'd probably like gorillas and alligators too?


I don't think you're understanding what's being argued at all.

There is no imperative whatsoever for a humanoid, civilized species to be sexually attractive to humans, outside out-of-story reason of appeal to the human author(s) and/or audience.

Yes, you can justify such similarity in-story with the different species being closely related, effectively a single species; but several writers here (including me) find this has been done to the point of triteness, or that it's often done from laziness.

A gorilla is a humanoid, sentient creature. So are baboons. (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_W90V87w3sr8/TSBNaF7tdMI/AAAAAAAAAjg/34eq7ljfIEE/s1600/baboon+jaws.jpg) Or chimpanzees. The way you put it, that these creatures are "semi-sentient animals" does not do justice to how close they actually are to us. It would not take all that much extra brainpower from them to start forming their own cultures while still retaining notably inhuman form. In the realistic end of settings, that's how close other sapients from parallel evolution would likely be.

Oh, you can hide behind "it's fantasy!", but then I'll point you back to Pokemon. Machamp (http://www.sixprizes.com/wp-content/uploads/machamp-225x245.gif), Alakazam (http://starsmarathon.yolasite.com/resources/126497423794.gif), Blaziken (http://images.wikia.com/pokemon/images/c/cb/BlazikenStnd.jpg), Hitmonlee (http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/ani106.gif), Lucario (http://ruben-gamer.blogspot.es/img/Lucario.jpg) and Gardevoir (http://worldofmugen1.webs.com/Gardevoir.gif) all fit the bill of sentient, humanoid species, but none of them share either sexual charasteristics or mating biology with humans.

To elaborate:

Machamp, Hitmonlee and Lucario have no readily apparent sexual dimorphism. Those pictures might just as well be females or males of the species.
Alakazam has sexual dimorphism, but nothing like humans. You can tell the picture has a male Alakazam, because it has long whiskers; a female would have short ones.
Blaziken has sexual dimorpishm, but again, nothing like humans; you can tell the picture is male, because it has long "hair" feathers and a large V-shape on its beak; female would have shorter ones.
Gardervoir, perhaps the most human of the lot, is even more interesting. It has a parallel evolution, Gallade (http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/thumb/5/58/475Gallade.png/200px-475Gallade.png), which is much more obviously masculine and can only evolve from male members of their pre-evolution species, Kirlia (http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/1/10459/834873-kirlia_large.jpg). However, despite its feminine appearance, Gardevoir is not similarly female-exclusive - there are both male and female Gardevoirs, with no readily apparent sexual dimorphism to distinquish between them. So again, that picture could be either male or female.

All of them reproduce via laying eggs, as far as anyone knows.


So your insistence of comparing "like to like" really has no legs to stand on. There is no imperative, in either real-life evolution or in fantasy, for either imaginary or real humanoid sapients to share sexual traits with humans, other than the aforementioned appeal to human author(s) and audience.

Gamgee
2011-10-17, 05:38 PM
That's a weird way to argue for nonhumanoid pc races. They're human looking because that is as fantastic as you can get. There are dozens of species of canids, felines, equines, starfish, thousands of different kinds of ants..but only 1 human species with our next kin being far removed. Fantasy races are just the original aliens. Strange people from far away lands.

Who says these weird animal looking things don't have their own way of thinking and intelligences that are completely alien. To some degree they can understand concepts like logic and math, but on another level they have adapted and thrived in completely alien conditions. So that's biased in their mindset. Who says they communicate the same at all? Perhaps some have adapted to being able to read electrical signals, or even manipulate them. What would their thoughts/speech look like to an ordinary human? Would it just scramble your brain or would at least some context get through?

My point is all to often the people who think of fantasy races are ineptly lazy.

Hyudra
2011-10-17, 06:43 PM
"Attractive" is heavily subjective. Take any given thing, type, activity or person on Earth, and there's someone out there who is attracted to or fetishizing it. A google search will generally turn up ~something~. There's people who are attracted to tupperware. Or squeezing bread. It's not a stretch of the imagination that someone could find orcs (even ugly orcs) appealing somehow.

Add the fact that it's a dangerous fantasy setting, a different time, and there's cases where yeah, a character might be attracted to a nonhuman race:

Jennette works at her father's tavern in a small outlying village. Her romantic opportunities are limited to three people, one of whom isn't attractive, successful or interesting, another person eight years older than her, and the final contender is an average looking guy who has four girls vying for him. Her dim hopes rest on the possibility of a traveler passing through town.

Her boring, hopeless life is radically altered when orcs ride into the center of town and demand tribute. Their leader is heavy featured (like a green Ron Perlman with tusks, long dark braids and a snoutish nose), but he's exciting, and that combines with Jeanette's loneliness and frustration to make weird connections in Jennette's head. It becomes clear the tribute includes young men and women as well as wealth, iron and food, and the orcs ready to take the miller's son and the young Pelorite priestess that serves as the village healer.

In a fit of combined selflessness and teenage hormones, Jennette volunteers herself in the place of the priestess. A year later, she's one of the chieftain's wives, and she's come to love him in a way, to look past and even like features that otherwise balk people that are seeing them for the first time. Not so unusual, as it's something that happens with married couples IRL. So as infatuation & confused/complicated feelings wind down, love fills the gaps. Again, much as happens in real life.
So yeah, I think inter-species attraction can easily make sense in-setting, given human proclivities, and the bizarre ways we can become attracted to particular things. Doubly so in situations where adrenaline runs high and the lines between fear, anger, excitement and lust get blurred.

From a design perspective, though? I think it can work well enough, provided the sentiment comes from the right place. If your orcs are sort of neanderthal-like, and a handsome orc is maybe on par with a below average human, that's fine. If you're making orcs handsome at the expense of sense, though, for pure titillation purposes, I think it'll come through (in a bad way) in the context of the writing/game.

flumphy
2011-10-17, 06:43 PM
I would argue that once you start demanding plausible evolutionary differences in your races, you are no longer within the realm of fantasy. You have just moved into science fiction.

There is nothing wrong with sci-fi, but it is a different genre with different conventions that generally tells different types of stories. There's not even anything wrong with mixing the two genres, if that's your thing. However, to bash vanilla fantasy for not following sci-fi conventions is silly.

What's next? Are you also going to start demanding realistic crime lab depictions in your comic books and police procedurals? The removal of folding chairs and insanely high-quality parking lot "security cameras" from professional wrestling? It would add little, and the stories would actually suffer for it. If an entire genre diverges from reality in a consistent way, there's generally a good reason for it.

Gamgee
2011-10-17, 07:20 PM
I would argue that once you start demanding plausible evolutionary differences in your races, you are no longer within the realm of fantasy. You have just moved into science fiction.

There is nothing wrong with sci-fi, but it is a different genre with different conventions that generally tells different types of stories. There's not even anything wrong with mixing the two genres, if that's your thing. However, to bash vanilla fantasy for not following sci-fi conventions is silly.

What's next? Are you also going to start demanding realistic crime lab depictions in your comic books and police procedurals? The removal of folding chairs and insanely high-quality parking lot "security cameras" from professional wrestling? It would add little, and the stories would actually suffer for it. If an entire genre diverges from reality in a consistent way, there's generally a good reason for it.
Fine then don't use your imagination. Stick the tried and true conventions. I never said science replaces fantasy, I said use it for inspiration. But god forbid wanting something a little more unique these days.

gbprime
2011-10-17, 07:36 PM
Add the fact that it's a dangerous fantasy setting, a different time, and there's cases where yeah, a character might be attracted to a nonhuman race:

Jennette works at her father's tavern in a small outlying village...

"It's a little something I like to call "role playing"."

Like.

flumphy
2011-10-17, 07:41 PM
Fine then don't use your imagination. Stick the tried and true conventions. I never said science replaces fantasy, I said use it for inspiration. But god forbid wanting something a little more unique these days.

Except striving for races that are alien but realistic has been going on in science fiction since before either of us were born. To be clear, I'm not saying that sci-fi is bad or that the idea is bad or that using it makes a work automatically uncreative. I'm just saying that the idea is not new and that, in fact, it's actually an expectation of hard science fiction.

You are effectively replacing one genre with another, or at least mixing the two. And that's not bad either, but it's naive not to acknowledge that's what you're doing, especially if you ever intend to search for a literary agent and/or publisher.

H Birchgrove
2011-10-17, 07:44 PM
If I had the skills, I would make a spoof of Guess who's coming for dinner with a human and an orc (half-orc, drow, dwarf, whatever) visiting the human's parents.

Gamgee
2011-10-17, 08:11 PM
Except striving for races that are alien but realistic has been going on in science fiction since before either of us were born. To be clear, I'm not saying that sci-fi is bad or that the idea is bad or that using it makes a work automatically uncreative. I'm just saying that the idea is not new and that, in fact, it's actually an expectation of hard science fiction.

You are effectively replacing one genre with another, or at least mixing the two. And that's not bad either, but it's naive not to acknowledge that's what you're doing, especially if you ever intend to search for a literary agent and/or publisher.

I never said brand new thoughts or techniques. I said I was striving to create something more unique than typical in fantasy using a bunch of methods to creatively inspire myself. My definition of unique doesn't usually mean brand spanking new because there's no such thing as that. I was going for something generally unheard of or not used very often. It's not been done in fantasy often to my knowledge, thus is is more unique than just passing out the Tolkien cheat sheet. I know full well what I'm doing, your the one who seems to have a problem with it for the sake of a problem. I can't even tell what your trying to debate at me for anymore since we agree on the same points.

FatJose
2011-10-17, 08:33 PM
...
My point is all to often the people who think of fantasy races are ineptly lazy.

Sure, I don't know what you're on about but if that's your cup of tea...

And it isn't a Tolkien "Cheat Sheet." All those creatures existed long before Tolkien and he did very little to change them. Fantasy in general keeps alive our oldest legends, myths and long unpracticed or obscure religions. All magic is based on the religions of others. All mythical creatures are from scripture and simple campfire stories. Like a game of telephone, it changes over time from speaker to speaker. You can play with the elements that make it and create something of your own. This is only one area of fantasy and your essentially complaining that people should work more towards your preferred area of completely spontaneously imagined fantasy because anything else is somehow less. Not cool. Also, not what the thread's about at all.

Cerlis
2011-10-17, 09:19 PM
I don't think you're understanding what's being argued at all.

There is no imperative whatsoever for a humanoid, civilized species to be sexually attractive to humans, outside out-of-story reason of appeal to the human author(s) and/or audience.

Yes, you can justify such similarity in-story with the different species being closely related, effectively a single species; but several writers here (including me) find this has been done to the point of triteness, or that it's often done from laziness.

A gorilla is a humanoid, sentient creature. So are baboons. (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_W90V87w3sr8/TSBNaF7tdMI/AAAAAAAAAjg/34eq7ljfIEE/s1600/baboon+jaws.jpg) Or chimpanzees. The way you put it, that these creatures are "semi-sentient animals" does not do justice to how close they actually are to us. It would not take all that much extra brainpower from them to start forming their own cultures while still retaining notably inhuman form. In the realistic end of settings, that's how close other sapients from parallel evolution would likely be.

Oh, you can hide behind "it's fantasy!", but then I'll point you back to Pokemon. Machamp (http://www.sixprizes.com/wp-content/uploads/machamp-225x245.gif), Alakazam (http://starsmarathon.yolasite.com/resources/126497423794.gif), Blaziken (http://images.wikia.com/pokemon/images/c/cb/BlazikenStnd.jpg), Hitmonlee (http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/ani106.gif), Lucario (http://ruben-gamer.blogspot.es/img/Lucario.jpg) and Gardevoir (http://worldofmugen1.webs.com/Gardevoir.gif) all fit the bill of sentient, humanoid species, but none of them share either sexual charasteristics or mating biology with humans.

To elaborate:

Machamp, Hitmonlee and Lucario have no readily apparent sexual dimorphism. Those pictures might just as well be females or males of the species.
Alakazam has sexual dimorphism, but nothing like humans. You can tell the picture has a male Alakazam, because it has long whiskers; a female would have short ones.
Blaziken has sexual dimorpishm, but again, nothing like humans; you can tell the picture is male, because it has long "hair" feathers and a large V-shape on its beak; female would have shorter ones.
Gardervoir, perhaps the most human of the lot, is even more interesting. It has a parallel evolution, Gallade (http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/thumb/5/58/475Gallade.png/200px-475Gallade.png), which is much more obviously masculine and can only evolve from male members of their pre-evolution species, Kirlia (http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/1/10459/834873-kirlia_large.jpg). However, despite its feminine appearance, Gardevoir is not similarly female-exclusive - there are both male and female Gardevoirs, with no readily apparent sexual dimorphism to distinquish between them. So again, that picture could be either male or female.

All of them reproduce via laying eggs, as far as anyone knows.


So your insistence of comparing "like to like" really has no legs to stand on. There is no imperative, in either real-life evolution or in fantasy, for either imaginary or real humanoid sapients to share sexual traits with humans, other than the aforementioned appeal to human author(s) and audience.

Why not? There are some plenty damn good reasons for humans to be shaped just the way they are, and unless other species somehow evolved by being inferior to each other, then they evolved based on simular or parallel rules.

A creature with no manipulation has limited effect on its enviroment, a creature with few senses can be taken by suprise easy, a creature who is to small or to big is at a disadvantage, a creature who is exothermic is at a disadvantage, a creature who is endothermic and has no way to keep that heat is at a disadvantage. a creature who cannot see the enemy is at a disadvatange,a creature who does not have obvious signs of attraction (such as a large waist for bearign children, or strong looking pecs for protecting family) is at a disadvantage.

its unlikely realisitically, but there are a hundred or more features of humans that other species would have advantages if they had as well. and Thats how we evolved. So there is plenty of reason for other alien species to have humanoid bodies, to have multiple limbs for motor and tactile skill, for eyes and ears and noses and mouths, to stand up right, and have obvious sexual traits for attracting a mate.

and it all doesnt even really matter because it IS fantasy. and there is a reason other genre's are called Science FICTION. If someone wants to make an alien sexy because they want a sexy alien, than more power to them.

Showing how close apes are to humans doesnt matter, because whether they where created by magic, gods,science, or happen to have evolved a different way and ended up looking like humans they are Closer to humans than a chimp is. Even if their DNA is 100% different and they arent carbon based if they look more like a human than something else then they are

in this discussion. Because we are talking about how things LOOK, not what their dna is. A robot is more sexually attractive to most people (most likely) than a Gorilla is, yet its not even made of the same compounds, much less having simular DNA. We're talking about attractiveness and sexuality, and aside from hormones that all comes down to stimulie, and for any extra stimuli to happen most of these species have to look at the other and say"hey thats sexy/pretty" So it all comes down to looks.


I never said brand new thoughts or techniques. I said I was striving to create something more unique than typical in fantasy using a bunch of methods to creatively inspire myself. My definition of unique doesn't usually mean brand spanking new because there's no such thing as that. I was going for something generally unheard of or not used very often. It's not been done in fantasy often to my knowledge, thus is is more unique than just passing out the Tolkien cheat sheet. I know full well what I'm doing, your the one who seems to have a problem with it for the sake of a problem. I can't even tell what your trying to debate at me for anymore since we agree on the same points.


it seems like every 5th episode of any star trek (any series) is them discovering some strange new life form made out of rock, palsma, or exists in another dimension. Interesting that one show would use both To-Human and completely alien, aliens.

And more recent in Halo there is a strange intelligent jelly fish thing that creatures use as giant computers.

Xenomorphs are very alien, yet use human form just enough to become sexually disturbing.

Seems to happen enough.

Gamgee
2011-10-17, 11:36 PM
Why not? There are some plenty damn good reasons for humans to be shaped just the way they are, and unless other species somehow evolved by being inferior to each other, then they evolved based on simular or parallel rules.

A creature with no manipulation has limited effect on its enviroment, a creature with few senses can be taken by suprise easy, a creature who is to small or to big is at a disadvantage, a creature who is exothermic is at a disadvantage, a creature who is endothermic and has no way to keep that heat is at a disadvantage. a creature who cannot see the enemy is at a disadvatange,a creature who does not have obvious signs of attraction (such as a large waist for bearign children, or strong looking pecs for protecting family) is at a disadvantage.

its unlikely realisitically, but there are a hundred or more features of humans that other species would have advantages if they had as well. and Thats how we evolved. So there is plenty of reason for other alien species to have humanoid bodies, to have multiple limbs for motor and tactile skill, for eyes and ears and noses and mouths, to stand up right, and have obvious sexual traits for attracting a mate.

and it all doesnt even really matter because it IS fantasy. and there is a reason other genre's are called Science FICTION. If someone wants to make an alien sexy because they want a sexy alien, than more power to them.

Showing how close apes are to humans doesnt matter, because whether they where created by magic, gods,science, or happen to have evolved a different way and ended up looking like humans they are Closer to humans than a chimp is. Even if their DNA is 100% different and they arent carbon based if they look more like a human than something else then they are

in this discussion. Because we are talking about how things LOOK, not what their dna is. A robot is more sexually attractive to most people (most likely) than a Gorilla is, yet its not even made of the same compounds, much less having simular DNA. We're talking about attractiveness and sexuality, and aside from hormones that all comes down to stimulie, and for any extra stimuli to happen most of these species have to look at the other and say"hey thats sexy/pretty" So it all comes down to looks.



it seems like every 5th episode of any star trek (any series) is them discovering some strange new life form made out of rock, palsma, or exists in another dimension. Interesting that one show would use both To-Human and completely alien, aliens.

And more recent in Halo there is a strange intelligent jelly fish thing that creatures use as giant computers.

Xenomorphs are very alien, yet use human form just enough to become sexually disturbing.

Seems to happen enough.
It's like you didn't read my post. -_-

Edit
@ FatJose
You said it in your own post. We reinvent these things through the ages, and unfortunately Tolkien is the most widely acclaimed re-inventor of the modern age of those tropes. Most people turn to him for their inspiration because he's the most current up to date thing. I never said these didn't exist before. I'll admit to being a little harsh calling them inept, but I was exasperated by that point in the debate over such a small and simple point I wouldn't think would balloon out of proportion like this.

Frozen_Feet
2011-10-18, 02:30 AM
"Attractive" is heavily subjective. Take any given thing, type, activity or person on Earth, and there's someone out there who is attracted to or fetishizing it. A google search will generally turn up ~something~. There's people who are attracted to tupperware. Or squeezing bread. It's not a stretch of the imagination that someone could find orcs (even ugly orcs) appealing somehow.


Thing is, that's not an argument for making imaginary species humans in funny make-up - it's an argument against it. If us humans can get jollies out of something that's distinctly inhuman, then tropes like interspecies romance have no need for human-like aliens.


I would argue that once you start demanding plausible evolutionary differences in your races, you are no longer within the realm of fantasy. You have just moved into science fiction.

On the contrary, fantasy has much greater room for imaginative species than science fiction, exactly because it doesn't have to give crap about what's plausible. Again, Pokemon. Our ancestors knew this as well - look at some of the older myths for gods, angels, demons, nagas or such.


Why not? There are some plenty damn good reasons for humans to be shaped just the way they are, and unless other species somehow evolved by being inferior to each other, then they evolved based on simular or parallel rules.

You're failing to take into account that in evolution, the same end-result can be reached by wildly different ways. Take, for example, eyes: they've evolved indepentendly several times during the course of history. All of them fullfill the same basic function. But if you take a quick glance at they eyes of different animals, you see that they're often very different. You said it all comes down to looks, so would you find someone with large, segmented eyes to be attractive? Or ones which look milky, watery or otherwise unhealthy for humans, despite being the norm for the inhuman species?

There are good reasons for why we are the way we are, but there's vast room for other species to be something completely else for equally good reasons. Let's take Alakazam of the above examples - body is hunched and athropied, while the head is overly large by human standards. But the reason they look so frail is because they can move their bodies with psychic powers, which are supplied by their massive brain. Compare to Machamp, which is the peak of muscular fitness by our standards - if you focus on nothing but looks, it'd be easy to make the mistake of claiming Machamp is "superior", while it's in fact the opposite (Psychics w(in over Fighting types in Pokemon). The two creatures are equally viable despite using near-opposite methods to achieve the same goals.

Human sexual traits are especially superfluous, since like the peacock's tail, many of them developed not as a response to any external stimuli, but as a response to preferences within a species. (There's a specific term for this type of natural selection, but it escapes me of now.) Breasts for human females are a good example (Note how our close relatives lack permanent fat tissue around mammaries.) There are myriad hypothetical and actual parallel evolutions that could fit the exact same purpose.

And again: you can't hide behind "it's fantasy". Fantasy can handwave all of the above, allowing the author to make his fantastic creatures just as bizarre as he wants to!

I stand behind my conclusion: there's no imperative for humanoid aliens to look sexy to us, the practice stems solely from laziness and/or desire for mainstream appeal. Again, some of us have a beef with that, and would rather see more imaginative and/or realistic portrayals of non-human sapients.

Conners
2011-10-18, 04:33 AM
On that topic, Frozen-Feet, what would you consider a realistic/plausible/reasonable way to do non-human sapients which are attractive to humans? The easiest way that could come about - I suspect - would be: Magically altered humans.

Using the evolution theory to create races... doesn't that just lead to taking existing animals then splashing them with purple? Unless the features you give them directly cause their breeding rate to be lower than their death rate, you can get anything.

Frozen_Feet
2011-10-18, 04:41 AM
Human off-shoots would be the most plausible yes, or alternatively, inorganic sapients made so for the lulz. (Robots, for example.)

Using evolution as a baseline can lead to very imaginative results. I recall a scientific effort to speculate what kind of life would live on a tidally locked planet orbiting a red dwarf star. Can't remember the project name, but should you find it, you'll see that the results were interesting.

gbprime
2011-10-18, 07:29 AM
I stand behind my conclusion: there's no imperative for humanoid aliens to look sexy to us, the practice stems solely from laziness and/or desire for mainstream appeal. Again, some of us have a beef with that, and would rather see more imaginative and/or realistic portrayals of non-human sapients.

Take for example Orks in the Warhammer 40K universe. They are actually a sentient fungus, genetically engineered to be a warrior race who can regrow in generations despite being wiped out, whose skill and technology is coded in their genes, and whose entire ecosystem literally grows around them.

It's strongly implied the Warhammer Fantasy orks are the same way, minus the technology thing.

endoperez
2011-10-18, 07:56 AM
If I had the skills, I would make a spoof of Guess who's coming for dinner with a human and an orc (half-orc, drow, dwarf, whatever) visiting the human's parents.

Fredrik Andersson (he was mentioned before, I think) has done it a few times. His gallery isn't SFW, because it contains both topless girls, and otherwise suggestive images. They're blurred out by default with an Elfwood script thingy, but you might still want to avoid browsing the gallery if that's an issue.

Here's a few work-safe pieces of his that fit the theme of this thread:

Here she is an elf (http://andersson.elfwood.com/Feeding-Frenzy.3533133.html) (and a vegetarian). There's another similar table scene where a human girl has brough his ogre boyfriend (and kids) over to her parents'... unfortunately, that's not on Elfwood any more, and I don't think hotlink works with the Naorhy mirror.

"Orc boy meets dwarf girl... (http://andersson.elfwood.com/Love-Conquers-All.2524386.html)
An old piece, and one of the reasons I started practicing drawing.

Then there's this piece, titled Human interest (http://andersson.elfwood.com/Human-Interest.2524358.html), in which the female elf might as well be asking (in OP's words), "Is it right to have attractive female humans?"

Avilan the Grey
2011-10-18, 02:38 PM
Fredrik Andersson

This guy is a genius. The whole Bard series is relevant to this discussion I think. :smallbiggrin:

GungHo
2011-10-18, 03:49 PM
Then just wear that, why bother with chain shirt at all? The stuff is heavy, wearing it next to skin would probably chafe like crazy, and there is still a hole over your phreaking heart!
The in-universe answer is that Alias' armor was like that so her creators could easily sacrifice her with a dagger. And, yes, otherwise she does have a magical field between the girls.

Don't blame me. Blame Jeff Novak and Kate Grubb. They wrote the book, though it was likely that the lines went in after Clyde Caldwell had done the artwork.

Heliomance
2011-10-18, 03:52 PM
and we are talking about fantasy creatures here.

In this particular instance asking me about gorillas is like trying to compare 4th dimensional beings to humans. they arent the same thing. or saying if you like the councelor from Next generation you have a fish fetish.

The ape woman i showed and humans are both sentient developed humanoid beings, as are orcs, medusa, minataur, ect.

a gorilla/monkey/ape isnt.

Human-Sentient civilized humanoid race
Orc-Sentient Civilized humanoid race
Ape-woman- Sentient Civilized humanoid race
Gorilla-Semi-sentient vaguely humanoid animal.

Like to Like.

or are we thinking that cus an orc is sexy that we'd probably like gorillas and alligators too?


What's your point? If and when gorillas gain full sapience, they almost certainly won't look significantly more human than they already do.

GungHo
2011-10-18, 04:01 PM
Once they can sign up for Ashley Madison, all bets are off.

AMFV
2011-10-19, 04:26 PM
What's your point? If and when gorillas gain full sapience, they almost certainly won't look significantly more human than they already do.

Source? As of yet humans are the only sapient creatures, as we have ZERO comparison points any statements about how other species will or will not evolve is pure speculation.

Frozen_Feet
2011-10-19, 04:46 PM
Such view have become contested lately as our understanding of the animal kingdom has improved, but long story short: Gorillas are nearly there already. While they lack several adaptions that helped humans become dominant species on Earth, their barrier to sapience is practically few brain cells more. It's hard to say what pressure would trigger the requisite change, but there's no imperative for them to become notably more human-like in appearance. This because, as noted, our research of human qualities has shown that quite a few are superfluous to sapience and/or could as well be served by different parallel evolutions.

There being zero comparison points is obviously false; we have the whole animal kingdom. You don't necessarily need more than one sapient species to start deducing what qualities other species might need to hit that treshold.

Spiryt
2011-10-19, 04:55 PM
Our 'sapience' is pretty much closely connected with our highly precise, fine fingers and other manipulating abilities, versatility, omnivorousness, upright stance, etc.

Any other creature gaining some kind of "sapience" would be sapient in slightly different way than us, hard to really say how would it exactly look like.

We seem very similar, but still ape than can fall some trees with bare hands if there's need, but couldn't probably really tie a lace would develop rather different mindset...

Yora
2011-10-19, 05:05 PM
Some birds are extremely smart and the areas that humans use for problem solving don't even exist in their brains.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-10-19, 10:09 PM
I once ran a game with a sexy female orc with an Intelligence of 5 and Barbarian class levels. Lots of fun.

Avilan the Grey
2011-10-20, 01:16 AM
Some birds are extremely smart and the areas that humans use for problem solving don't even exist in their brains.

More OT:

Over the last 10-15 years or so, scientists has upgraded the intelligence on basically every species on earth. This should not come as a surprise to pet owners, but basically scientists now believe that most species are about twice as intelligent as formerly believed. They have also upgraded specific species even more.

This is hard to quantify, obviously, but on the scales I have seen, the large parrots are now believed to be about of equal intelligence as higher primates (aka a cockatoo has about as much smarts as a chimpanzee). The same for at least the larger crow relatives (ravens and crows especially can give parrots a run for their money, and are skilled tool makers). Many signs point to dolphins being even smarter (as in smarter than primates).

Reasons why intelligence is so hard to measure is partly what is quote above; bird brains, for example, has a different architecture than primate brains. It was easy for scientists to look at them and say "Doesn't look like a human brain, so it's stupid". It wasn't until challenged properly (as seen several times on amusing clips on TV, parrots and crows can both count, understand the concept of different words connected to different objects on an abstract scale (meaning "key" is not only a word for that key, over there, but also for say a completely different looking key, or a key on a photo instead of the real object, etc etc). Another main difficulty is that different species use their brains for different things than primates (and we) do. It wasn't until we realized both that a specific behavior actually isn't instinctual AND exactly how much brainpower it actually takes to DO whatever this specific species does that we realized how smart they really are.

As Spiryt points out above, the human brain evolved in part because of our need to being able to finely control our lovely four digits and thumbs. It is not the whole truth, of course, a lot of it has to do with the fact that we started eating meat, as well as other things. For other species with high intelligence it might be something else (big brains helps you being very opportunistic, for example (crows) or to control a highly tuned ultra sound equipment (dolphins).

...

Anyway, I know this has probably been said in this thread before but "A wizard did it". Seriously.

The main reason most sentient species in a fantasy world look similar is because of gods and / or magic.

H Birchgrove
2011-10-20, 09:31 PM
What about Neanderthal? Would you squick if they existed today and some Homo Sapiens formed families with some of them?


Fredrik Andersson (he was mentioned before, I think) has done it a few times. His gallery isn't SFW, because it contains both topless girls, and otherwise suggestive images. They're blurred out by default with an Elfwood script thingy, but you might still want to avoid browsing the gallery if that's an issue.

Here's a few work-safe pieces of his that fit the theme of this thread:

Here she is an elf (http://andersson.elfwood.com/Feeding-Frenzy.3533133.html) (and a vegetarian). There's another similar table scene where a human girl has brough his ogre boyfriend (and kids) over to her parents'... unfortunately, that's not on Elfwood any more, and I don't think hotlink works with the Naorhy mirror.

"Orc boy meets dwarf girl... (http://andersson.elfwood.com/Love-Conquers-All.2524386.html)
An old piece, and one of the reasons I started practicing drawing.

Then there's this piece, titled Human interest (http://andersson.elfwood.com/Human-Interest.2524358.html), in which the female elf might as well be asking (in OP's words), "Is it right to have attractive female humans?"

Great stuff! :smallsmile:

Avilan the Grey
2011-10-21, 12:45 AM
What about Neanderthal? Would you squick if they existed today and some Homo Sapiens formed families with some of them?


Already happened IRL. So there.

John Cribati
2011-10-21, 06:41 AM
If us humans can get jollies out of something that's distinctly inhuman, then tropes like interspecies romance have no need for human-like aliens.

Humans identify with things that look and/or act human. That's why we make movies about talking animals. Sure, you could write a romance between a human and an eight-legged, tentacled Octopus alien, but more people would identify with a relationship between a human and a humanoid-looking octopus alien. It's just how these things work.

Frozen_Feet
2011-10-21, 07:31 AM
I know how it works. It still boils down to mass appeal. I claim it'd make for a fresher use of the related tropes to not anthropomorhpize inhuman beings as much. Screw what people identify with.

John Cribati
2011-10-21, 07:34 AM
I know how it works. It still boils down to mass appeal. I claim it'd make for a fresher use of the related tropes to not anthropomorhpize inhuman beings as much. Screw what people identify with.

Except if you want your story to be read and enjoyed, you have to get people to identify with it.

Frozen_Feet
2011-10-21, 07:54 AM
You're assuming that deconstruction of one facet of the story leads to the whole being unenjoyable. I disagree; you can break conventions an expectations of people and still end up with a good story.

Just to note, I recall reading one short story by Clark Ashton Smith, which had interspecies romance between a human and some five-armed blue thing. It was better than most other uses of the trope, for reasons unrelated to biology. Can't remember the name of the story, unfortunately.

PersonMan
2011-10-21, 01:04 PM
Except if you want your story to be read and enjoyed, you have to get people to identify with it.

Either I've, for all my life, not really been understanding 'identify with' or I definitely disagree. If there's a story about how a completely nonhuman entity and a human have a romance, I'm going to at least be curious about how it's pulled off. In fact, I'd almost certainly read such a story, just because it's almost never done that way.

Heliomance
2011-10-21, 05:55 PM
By the way, PersonMan, it's off-topic, but I just wanted to tell you how great your handbooks are.
*ducks*

wumpus
2011-10-23, 01:54 PM
Well, this thread seems to have diverged far from the greenskin start, but I had to mention this:

Look up Tanda of Myth Adventures (of the late Robert Asprin's books). Although technically, she isn't a troll. The men from Trollia are trolls, the women are trollops...

Cerlis
2011-10-24, 02:19 AM
What's your point? If and when gorillas gain full sapience, they almost certainly won't look significantly more human than they already do.


why wouldnt they? Humans certianly changed alot as their sapience and brains developed. Its not like gorillas and humans appeared on the planet at the same time from the same ancestors. Humans evolved more than gorillas.

Despite how genetically simularity doesnt not have an effect on what you are saying. THe fact these two species (gorillas and humans) are so simular is just proof of how complex and important DNA is.

My point is like i said, Gorillas are not a highly developed species, Orcs, elves, Goblins and Some Trolls (depending on your fantasy genre) are. They have language, clothing, tools, and their society works at much more complex levels than social animals.

it was suggested that if a orc or alien could be attractive to a human, than a gorilla should be too. but Orcs are a species on the same level as humans, and most depicted aliens are as well. You cant compare that to animals. Its like comparing gorillas and mice, or mice and salamanders, or salamanders and fish, or fish and prefish.
---------------------------

As for the other part of the discussion, its easy to create a wacky unique species, expessially in fantasy when you can just say "its psychic" or "it exists partially on another plane" to explain why its so weird. And there are many interesting plot points nad potential stories you can make form that. HOwever it is so much more limited than when you deal with human like species.
Take your alien that doesnt have a body, communicates differently, ect. Well most stories you get from that are going to be centered on establishing reliable communication and dealing with the differences of physiology. If you had one as a reacurring character you could delve into more plot points that people would be interested in. Romance, bias, murder, intrigue. But then you can accomplish all that with other races like klingons. Most people dont put other races in to create an alien weird race. They do it to make more extreme forms of actual in world themes and conflicts. Need barbarians? why settle for human barbarians when you can have cannibalistic orcs who dont speak English. Need an advanced empire we need to impress? make it more fantastic with space elves who have no need for everything we could give them and no interest in conflict, resources or money.

Most books are based off Meta-human concepts and problems.

Jeraa
2011-10-24, 02:50 AM
There is no (good) reason for orcs (or any other non-human race) to be ugly to humans. and there is no (good) reason for them to be pretty to humans either.

And all this evolution discussion is half pointless. Sure, orcs may have evolved in some settings, but in others they are the direct creations of the gods themselves. They look like they do because that is what the gods wanted.

Appearance of the races is personal preference. There is no right or wrong way to do it.


Tolkien suggested in the Silmarillion that orcs are the tortured and corrupted decendants of elves.


Partly true. That is one of the possible origins Tolkien suggested. It is also the one he grew to dislike as well. Other origins he proposed were:

bred from the heat and slime of the earth (The oldest origin)
some of them could of been fallen Maiar (Sauron, Gandolf, and the Balrog are all Maiar)
simple, soulless animals empowered by Morgoth
corrupted men (not elves. Tolkien proposed this one after his corrupted elf origin, but this one would have changed too much of what he had already written. There were no men when the orcs first appeared)
corrupted elves and men (the first orcs were corrupted elves, but later orcs were made from both)

Tolkien also described orcs as:

..they are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes; in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types

While that doesn't sound pretty, that also doesn't sound monstrous - it just sounds like an ugly human to me.

endoperez
2011-10-24, 02:58 AM
why wouldnt they? Humans certianly changed alot as their sapience and brains developed. Its not like gorillas and humans appeared on the planet at the same time from the same ancestors. Humans evolved more than gorillas.

Evolution doesn't mean "becoming more like humans are at the moment". Evolving means changing. Gorillas are different that gorilla-ancestors, so gorillas have evolved. Humans are different than human-ancestors, so humans have evolved. Humans are more intelligent, but that's VERY different than saying that humans are more evolved!

Insects and other organisms with very short generational cycles "evolve more" than mammals, because evolution happens through several generations. Evolution isn't about "getting better at everything", but about "adapting to current situation".



My point is like i said, Gorillas are not a highly developed species, Orcs, elves, Goblins and Some Trolls (depending on your fantasy genre) are. They have language, clothing, tools, and their society works at much more complex levels than social animals.

it was suggested that if a orc or alien could be attractive to a human, than a gorilla should be too. but Orcs are a species on the same level as humans, and most depicted aliens are as well. You cant compare that to animals. Its like comparing gorillas and mice, or mice and salamanders, or salamanders and fish, or fish and prefish.

It's likely the example of gorillas was about physical attraction. A gorilla doesn't look sexy. If orcs look as different from humans as gorillas, they can't look sexy.

Sentience only affects the possibility of psychological attraction.

That doesn't apply when orcs are portrayed as green bodybuilders, of course.

Theo Hammond
2011-10-25, 07:53 AM
Well i think thats it all sorted then.

In succinct and direct answer to the original question, which was "Is it right to have attractive female orcs, goblins, ogres, whatever?"

The answer is quite clearly;

Possibly.



(Oh internet, is there nothing you cannot answer?)

TechnoScrabble
2011-10-25, 10:25 AM
I always figured that since those savage societies such as goblin and orc tribes treated women as objects, undesirable women were killed off, leaving only those pretty enough to please their masters and strong enough to put up with them.

Which led to my best friend's gf having our party captured by powerful green seductresses when she DMed. It was not fun.