Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - Orc-ogre crossbreeds?
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    Orc-ogre crossbreeds?
    Author Message
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 05, 2013
    Posts: 47


    Send private message
    Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:59 pm  
    Orc-ogre crossbreeds?

    Any suggestions where I could find information on orc-ogre crossbreeds? I was perusing the old Living Greyhawk Gazetteer while watching the movie Daybreakers (awful movie) and came across this enigmatic gem on page 11.
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2461
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:26 pm  

    I believe they are considered orogs or ogrillons, depending on which parent is the ogre, and which is the orc (like the difference between a liger or tigon from a lion/tiger cross). You can find orogs in the Monstrous Manual on page 282 under the orc entry. Ogrillons are found in the Fiend Folio.

    If you need more help, please let me know.

    -Lanthorn
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3207
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:12 pm  

    Ogrillons were in Greyhawk Ruins, too. They mostly look like orcs, but one in ten has an ogre's coloration. Ogrillons are sterile creatures, the offspring of female orcs and male ogres.

    An orog is the offspring of a male orc and a female ogre (though in 3rd edition they were presented as more of a larger Underdark variation of the orc).

    For a 3rd edition version of the ogrillon (including character details and new feats), look at this PDF document by Thomas Costa and Eric Boyd.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: May 30, 2004
    Posts: 107


    Send private message
    Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:02 pm  

    There were also 3e Ogrillons in The Tome of Horrors, the book from Sword & Sorcery Studios that updated a huge number of 1e monsters to 3e (mostly B-list monsters that WotC had no intention to update themselves, at the time).
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 01, 2007
    Posts: 699
    From: NOW IN Cape May, NJ! Loving the new digs!

    Send private message
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:22 pm  

    This is one thing that I haven't ever really understood. I mean, I get the difference between them, and the way the stats are different and all, but take for example, the quaggoth.

    There is a specific exception written into GH that they aren't typically found in the same regoins as in other settings. They are not subterranean, they are found in forests. I can't imagine any reason that Orogs/Ogrillions/what have you can't be written to have particular appearances or unusual ones, based on the setting. They did this in most all of the Monster Manuals for any of the third edition books - they listed specific ecology for Eberron and the Faerun. But, still, in the WoG books, it's listed that they're different. I just cannot fathom why it's never been addressed.

    At any rate, while I would use the 3rd Editoin/Pathfinder/whatever stats, I would be certain to make sure they conform to GH physical descriptions or terrain entries, along with the rest of the stuff. (kind of like how Axebeaks have had different stats from different edition sources, but, I'd make certain that they don't stray from the GH enties for them.)
    _________________
    Owner and Lead Admin: https://greyhawkonline.com
    Editor-in-Chief of the Oerth Journal: https://greyhawkonline.com/oerthjournal
    Visit my professional art gallery: https://wkristophnolen.daportfolio.com
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3207
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:48 pm  

    Icarus wrote:
    There is a specific exception written into GH that they aren't typically found in the same regoins as in other settings. They are not subterranean, they are found in forests.


    Their entry in 1st edition's Fiend Folio didn't specify what kind of terrain they typically lived in, so Gary Gygax put them on the Burneal Forest encounter chart in the Glossography. I guess because they're furry and look kind of like yeti.

    Later editions picked up on their original description's note that they hate surface elves and sometimes become slaves of the drow in order to get the chance to kill the dark elves' foes and assumed they must be subterranean, but it had already been fixed in Greyhawk canon that they live in the Burneal Forest.

    The authors of the Greyhawk Player's Guide noted this and slipped in a note that Greyhawk's quaggoth's preferred forests to subterranean regions. I think it's a reasonable interpretation of the 1st edition version of the creature to assume that when they're not busy being slaves of the drow, they might live on the surface. If there's a drow community beneath the Burneal they might go to the surface at night and steal young quaggoths to train as soldiers against their ancestral foes. If the Player's Guide meant to intimate that no quaggoths live underground, that's probably going a bit far. I interpret it to mean that they're "naturally" surface-dwellers but drow slaves and their descendants might live anywhere that drow dwell.

    Quote:
    I can't imagine any reason that Orogs/Ogrillions/what have you can't be written to have particular appearances or unusual ones, based on the setting. They did this in most all of the Monster Manuals for any of the third edition books - they listed specific ecology for Eberron and the Faerun. But, still, in the WoG books, it's listed that they're different. I just cannot fathom why it's never been addressed.


    It's probably safe to say that the Greyhawk's ogrillons match their description in Greyhawk Ruins and their orogs match the orogs in the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual (but you could use the version in Races of Faerun if you prefer). Greyhawk does not typically have variant appearances or ecologies for monsters, mostly because the core books in 1st and 3rd edition assume Greyhawk is the default world. The only reason quaggoths took a slightly divergent path in other worlds is because the authors of the 2nd edition Monstrous Compendium Fiend Folio Appendix failed to look through the Greyhawk encounter charts while fleshing out their ecology. I maintain that they don't really contradict each other, though: there's nothing stopping quaggoths from living both underground and in cold forests.

    If you dislike the existing descriptions of orc/ogre hybrids, of course you should change them.
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2461
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:11 pm  

    The original Fiend Folio random encounter charts (page 111) have quaggoths inhabiting ALL potential sub-arctic habitats: plains, scrub, forest, rough, hills, mountains, and marshes.

    -Lanthorn
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3207
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:05 am  

    Lanthorn wrote:
    The original Fiend Folio random encounter charts (page 111) have quaggoths inhabiting ALL potential sub-arctic habitats: plains, scrub, forest, rough, hills, mountains, and marshes.

    -Lanthorn


    Oh, good catch. Looks like the main difference between quaggoths in Greyhawk and quaggoths in the Forgotten Realms is that Greyhawk quaggoths follow 1st edition detail while FR quaggoths follow 2nd edition detail.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 01, 2007
    Posts: 699
    From: NOW IN Cape May, NJ! Loving the new digs!

    Send private message
    Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:13 am  

    Well ... certainly. Anyone can change anything they want. There's no Big Brother going to come swooping down like you were about to commit a crime in Minority Report. They can make an Orog be whatever they want them to be.The point is that I don't want to bother with going around changing things just to make work for myself. Generally, I like stuff just the way it's written and there's nothing wrong with it, until it's contradictory to stuff that's already there. I know that it's something that's changed with the era of gaming - nowadays, they have better R&D than they did 35 years ago.

    And yes, I generally assume any article of ecology is referring to the natural habitat. That entry has nothing to do with where slaves are taken. Tigers, for example, live in jungles for the most part. Their entiry wouldn't say "zoo" or "menagerie" though they could certainly be found there, too. And GH being "core" in 3rd edition would've been fine if GH had ecology listed like Eberron and FR, and not just the monster stats.

    The point that I am making is that I am tired of the edition games. If you follw 1st edition, if you follow 2nd edition ... I just want a Greyhawk edition. Editions change. Greyhawk endures.
    _________________
    Owner and Lead Admin: https://greyhawkonline.com
    Editor-in-Chief of the Oerth Journal: https://greyhawkonline.com/oerthjournal
    Visit my professional art gallery: https://wkristophnolen.daportfolio.com
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3207
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:19 pm  

    Icarus wrote:
    The point is that I don't want to bother with going around changing things just to make work for myself.


    Who said you had to? If you'd rather keep things the same, keep them the same. Your original post made it sound like you were complaining that monster books didn't make Greyhawk monsters arbitrarily different, so I suggested a fix. Was that not actually your complaint? Because as many times as you've tried to explain what your point was, you haven't actually made it clear what your point was.

    Quote:
    The point that I am making is that I am tired of the edition games.


    There are no "edition games" being played. There's just 38 years of contradictory canon that the designers do the best they can with. Tabletop RPGs are meant to be do-it-yourself to some degree, so the best you can do is treat them like a buffet that you can sample from and season as you will.

    It sounds like your real complaint is that you wished the 3e books had sections describing in detail how various monsters fit into Greyhawk, though what that has to do with the original question about orogs and ogrillons (who weren't in any of the generic 3e monster books) is puzzling.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 01, 2007
    Posts: 699
    From: NOW IN Cape May, NJ! Loving the new digs!

    Send private message
    Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:45 pm  

    Rasgon ... I'm not trying to turn this into a debate. I was stating an opinion. No one said that I had to do anything. I wasn't looking for a fix. I'm not looking for answers. I was sharing my thoughts on differences between monsters and wishing tha twe didn't have to go through mouunds of non-specific rulebooks for info. I'm just stating what I want (i.e. things I wish could have happened). I'd like to have seen GH get as much coverage as the other settings back when it was "core" in 3rd edition. I don't want "arbitrary" anything. I just wish that if there had been something changed, it would have been specific, clear, and for a reason, rather than arbitray differences beteen monsters in different editions.

    Yes, there are edition games. I didn't accuse you of them, or imply that you were playing them. I was simply saying that throughout the long history of the game the publishers have arbitrarily changed things about the same monsters. I'd prefer that there were a setting specific source, rather than going through mounds of editions' rulebooks looking for a reference that isn't even directly a GH book.

    Just putting my two cents in (on topic) about what I would like to see for monsters like the orog/ogrillon/quaggoth and similar creatures. I'd randomly throw peryton and others into the list as well ... but, I'm not trying to take this thread and hijack it about other people's preferences.

    If you'd like to continue a discussion about my personal preferences in editions, I'd be more than happy to talk to you in private messages or on a thread on the topic.
    _________________
    Owner and Lead Admin: https://greyhawkonline.com
    Editor-in-Chief of the Oerth Journal: https://greyhawkonline.com/oerthjournal
    Visit my professional art gallery: https://wkristophnolen.daportfolio.com
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Jan 05, 2013
    Posts: 47


    Send private message
    Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:26 pm  

    Icarus wrote:


    Just putting my two cents in (on topic) about what I would like to see for monsters like the orog/ogrillon/quaggoth and similar creatures. I'd randomly throw peryton and others into the list as well ... but, I'm not trying to take this thread and hijack it about other people's preferences.


    Funny you should bring up peryton's. Just got through a twisted fey realm adventure were the realm was controlled by a queen and her secret police of red caps on peryton's. it was bloody and brutal for us. We barely managed to escape. It was one of those encounters that made your butt pucker.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 13, 2001
    Posts: 64
    From: Stockholm, Sweden

    Send private message
    Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:37 am  

    Ewwwww! Bad imagery, gotta erase - where's my forget spell!
    _________________
    Never say blip-blip to a kuo-tua
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum




    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.28 Seconds