Why Are Ogres Yellow

Undrask

Undrask

Adept
Orcs are green and have tusks. Ogres are pallet-swaps of orcs, so they have to be a color, right? NOPE THEY SURE DON'T.

Why are Ogres yellow? Why not just put in tusks and be like, "I'm not green and I have tusks, so I must be an ogre!" Sure, yellow can be optional, and I'm sure some cultures with have coloration be a symbol of tribe or whatever, but requiring it as a racial requirement is unnecessary.

We have a few high-makeup taxes and it makes them harder to play and harder to make look good. Many people CAN'T play those races due to common allergies. I'm not saying EVERY race needs to be accessible, but as many as possible SHOULD be.

And as far as the argument of high makeup races get a high reward, I point to barbarians, elves, and even the kyn. Ogre racial traits are great, yes, but do are other low-makeup race traits. The idea that high makeup is rewarded is kind if a fallacy.
 
You have stated the reason, or at least the inverse: either ogres are yellow because their racial traits are considered to be strong enough to support full makeup and prosthetics, OR their racial traits have been balanced to accommodate the makeup and prosthetic requirements assigned to that race by the writer's design. They are yellow because that's what Alliance says ogres are. There isn't really a "why."

If you feel like ogres ought to have their makeup requirements lessened, that is absolutely something your chapter's owner could bring up to the Owners' Committee at large.
 
Aight, as long as I'm not missing some glaring detail. Thanks man
 
Better question is 'Why are Orcs and Ogres separate races.'

Much like Humans, Gypsies, and Barbarians, there's really no reason they aren't both culture options in a greater goblinoid race.
 
Either you are human or you are not right? ;)
 
Less that, more that none of the three are distinct types of creatures, but more just cultural upbringings.
 
That's always a fun question. How do you prove the difference?
 
Between Goblinoids and Ogroids? Hit them with a monster slayer. They're entirely different categories, as functionally different mechanically as Elementals and Animals or Undead and Plants. As a general rule, Ogroids have tusks, and Goblinoids do not.
 
If you don't like the requirements of the race, I feel it's better for the game if you play a race that meets your expectations for makeup, than to discuss eliminating a costuming requirement entirely and part of the race's visual distinction.
 
They are two separate and distinct races. Therefore, they have separate and distinct color patterns. They have different views, different cultures, different temperments.

I cannot use spirit gum as it literally melts my skin. This means I cannot wear any facial prosthetics unless I use liquid latex. There are alternative make ups if that is the allergy. I suggest that people try to find an alternative brand of make up. There are many on the market and even some now made with all natural ingredients.
 
In addition, you can use a mask instead, just like kin.
 
Your complaint seems to be that the race isn't balanced (counting high makeup / tusks as part of the balance). I agree it isn't a balanced race, but that is a greater problem with races in Alliance, in general, and not with High Ogres. Balancing of races desperately needs work (for example, "Can't be a Fighter" isn't a drawback at all if you intend to play a Scholar anyway).

As for High Ogres being yellow, that is a different issue. I no longer have easy access to the monster database (it is on an old computer), but I can tell you there are multiple ogroid creatures. Orcs and ogres immediately come to mind, but I know for a fact, at least in HQ, other types have existed as well, which were different colors. It is simple world consistency for ogres to be yellow.

If you think the benefits for full makeup and the (IMO) much more awful requirement of tusks don't live up, fight for better benefits. Assuming you are being reasonable, I will support that. But there is no reason to change the canon coloring of a race in order to fix balance.

-MS
 
I think the idea that as many races as possible should be accessible is sound. Right now, someone like me who won't wear makeup or masks or talk silly has only a few racial options.
 
James Trotta said:
I think the idea that as many races as possible should be accessible is sound. Right now, someone like me who won't wear makeup or masks or talk silly has only a few racial options.
Click to expand...

You are, perhaps unintentionally, being disingenuous. All of the races are "accessible". Where does it say in the ARB that you cannot play any of the races you want?

Just because you choose not to play a race because of make-up/prosthetic/speech requirements doesn't mean it isn't accessible, it just means you aren't willing to put up with those things (which is fine).
 
I am sincere (maybe not ingenuous, certainly not disingenuous). The rulebook may not say "James Trotta can never play a half orc, a half ogre, a sarr, a gypsy, etc." but I will never play one of those races. When I say my options are limited, I am being honest with you. It would be nice if there were more races with cool RP restrictions (like Stone elves) but without the makeup requirements. I would play a stone elf if I could handle the makeup.
Avaran said:
You are, perhaps unintentionally, being disingenuous. All of the races are "accessible". Where does it say in the ARB that you cannot play any of the races you want?

Just because you choose not to play a race because of make-up/prosthetic/speech requirements doesn't mean it isn't accessible, it just means you aren't willing to put up with those things (which is fine).
Click to expand...

It may also be worth noting that there is a difference between unwilling to put up with something (gypsys) and unable to put up with something (makeup and masks).
 
The Alliance runs on the paradigm that any given race must be readily identifiable by visual context. There are a limited number of methods to do that, with prosthetics and makeup representing the bulk of that.

I'll be honest, that last comment isn't sitting well with me, but the internet often robs communication of depth and context so I wanted to ask if you could be more specific about what restrictions you are dealing with. I certainly understand that some people are not well suited to playing heavy make up PCs, but it sounds like that's not the extent of what you're talking about. Obviously you don't have to answer, but you have put yourself out there as an example.
 
To clarify, I think the OP's idea that more races should be accessible to more people made sense. For example, races requiring prosthetics but no make up would be cool. It's too late for half ogres though. Perhaps accessibility would be worth keeping in mind if more races get added in the future.

Then I added that roleplay restrictions (stone elf severity) for races with no makeup would be cool too. Just another idea that means nothing for now.

The last statement wasn't meant to make anyone uncomfortable. Just pointing out to Avaran that for some people not wearing makeup (or not wearing a mask) isn't a true choice.
 
Truly inaccessible would be things like height or weight requirements which Alliance prohibits in its race packet creation. A chapter cannot require all of its elves to be 5'10" or taller with a BMI under a certain number, but it can require that all elves wear ears of a specified minimum length or particular clan tattoos or jewelry.

In theory, with enough investigation or experimentation, you could find a workaround to any inability to wear makeup or prosthetics of one kind or another. Theory and practicality don't always intersect, but its even more widespread work to go back and rewrite dozens of race packets to change and explain the alteration to canon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top