If you want to know the exact details of the case, look it up yourself. I know because I was there when it happened. Just because something is written on the internet doesn't make it true, especially if it is written long after the event.
As far as I've been able to determine myself hobbit, ent and balrog were changed to halfling, treant and balor in the 1977 6th printing of the original white box rules. There were green-skinned orcs and half-orcs in the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon which had it's original television broadcast run in 1983-85 in addition to the LJN toys that were produced during that same time period. This more than "just a few years" before the 2e Complete Book of Humanoids was published in 1993. I've listed multiple verifiable citations to support my posts. I'm not claiming to "know because I was there when it happened" even though I am 100% certain of my own personal memory from that period of time. I watched the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon during it's original television broadcast run Saturday mornings on CBS. I saw the commercials for the LJN toys during that same span of time. Despite all that I still listed publications that anyone can independently check so they can see for themselves.
You're claiming to know because you were there when it happened, right? If you were physically present when a legal decision was rendered then at which courthouse was this argued and at what date was the verdict announced? I have tried to look it up myself, but have not found any unequivocal and incontrovertible proof; which is why I'm asking. I've read many vague mentions of a court case or some type of legal proceedings regarding this situation, but never any listing of independently verifiable specifics. If there was any legal paperwork filed there has to be some public record. I'm not very convinced by someone else's claims if they are not willing to provided citations to support them and I am unable to independently verify them, especially if the claims are at odds with my own first-hand memory.
The Tolkien estate won over hobbits, and halflings where changed in 2nd edition.
Um... so, where are the 1st edition Hobbits? I guess, because of the alphabet, they must come sometime after the "Halfling" PC race is described on page 17 of the 1st ed PHB... (publication date: 1978)
AD&D isn't the first edition of D&D. The original D&D was published in 1974 and did contain Hobbits, Ents, Balrogs etc.. By the sixth printing of D&D in 1977, the references to Tolkien's creations had been removed, *except* a reference to hobbits on page 6 of Men & Magic (in every other place they are referred to as Halflings in printings after the fifth).
Source - um, Dungeon & Dragons, Volume 1: Men & Magic (see below)
Um... so, where are the 1st edition Hobbits? I guess, because of the alphabet, they must come sometime after the "Halfling" PC race is described on page 17 of the 1st ed PHB... (publication date: 1978)
Orcs where certainly green in the cartoon several years before they where green in the game, and you are right about when the names "Hobbit, Ent and Balrog" where changed. This is when "Orc" was NOT changed, as it was shown not to be a Tolkien invention (which was actually a bit of a stretch, based on an obscure use of the word to mean ogre - it usually meant demon or evil spirit). The descriptions of "halflings" in 1st edition AD&D (1979) where still considered to be too close too hobbits, and had to be changed further. Green orcs where still considered controversial amongst players when the 3rd edition Monster Manual was published (2000), and there was much discussion on the fledgling internet. I think it was the first to feature colour illustrations throughout though, 1st and 2nd edition Monster Manual/Monstrous Compendium had black and white illustrations.
Generally, the accepted concept of orcs has changed gradually over the years, going from 100% Tolkienesque (although he was a bit vague), short, black skinned with no tusks; to grey-brown pig men; to bright green pig men in the cartoon (probably because of Return of the Jedi Gammorians); to olive green with tusks but no pig-snouts in 3rd edition; to the current WoW/Warhammer bright green with large tusks.
If you want to know the exact details of the case, look it up yourself. I know because I was there when it happened. Just because something is written on the internet doesn't make it true, especially if it is written long after the event.
You're claiming to know because you were there when it happened, right? If you were physically present when a legal decision was rendered then at which courthouse was this argued and at what date was the verdict announced? I'm not very convinced by someone else's claims if they are not willing to provided citations to support them and I am unable to independently verify them, especially if the claims are at odds with my own first-hand memory.
"Just because something is written on the internet doesn't make it true, especially if it is written long after the event."
I wouldn't hold my breathe for new ones within any of the E-IE games. Though... I do fully expect more unique models/sprites/animations/paperdolls/ect. for all player races/subraces in case IWD III and/or BG III sees the light of day. No reason to repeat the errors of the past.
AD&D isn't the first edition of D&D. The original D&D was published in 1974 and did contain Hobbits, Ents, Balrogs etc.. By the sixth printing of D&D in 1977, the references to Tolkien's creations had been removed, *except* a reference to hobbits on page 6 of Men & Magic (in every other place they are referred to as Halflings in printings after the fifth).
Was aware, thanks But Fardragon claimed the changes weren't made till the 80s-90s. I actually have the Men & Magic book that has both the words "Hobbit" and "Halfling" within it.
AD&D isn't the first edition of D&D. The original D&D was published in 1974 and did contain Hobbits, Ents, Balrogs etc.. By the sixth printing of D&D in 1977, the references to Tolkien's creations had been removed, *except* a reference to hobbits on page 6 of Men & Magic (in every other place they are referred to as Halflings in printings after the fifth).
Was aware, thanks But Fardragon claimed the changes weren't made till the 80s-90s. I actually have the Men & Magic book that has both the words "Hobbit" and "Halfling" within it.
No, I didn't. The changes to Orcs where made in the 80s and 90s, because that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Tolkien estate law suit.
It's a digression, but Tolkien uses both "hobbit" and "halfing" in LotR. Hobbit is what they call themselves, Halfling is what other races call them. Although "hobbit" was not used in 1st edition AD&D, the Tolkien estate was still unhappy with the use of "hairfoot" and "stour" as halfling subraces, so further changes where made.
Orcs where certainly green in the cartoon several years before they where green in the game,
No, they weren't. Again, quoting from the 1977-1978 1st ed AD&D Monster Manual:
"Orcs appear particularly disgusting because their coloration – brown or brownish green with a bluish sheen – highlights their pinkish snouts and ears."
Near as I can find, this is the earliest actual published citation in the D&D game of what orcs actually look like. The animated series, meanwhile, ran from 1983-1985. This reference of "brownish green" orcs predates that by several years.
The descriptions of "halflings" in 1st edition AD&D (1979) where still considered to be too close too hobbits, and had to be changed further.
Actually, Halflings remained fairly Tolkien-ian all through 2nd edition. Most people still play them this way (I know I sure do). The Complete Book of Gnomes and Halflings (published in 1993) is replete with pictures and flavor text that make them out to be just like Tolkien imagined them. Some excerpts from the introduction to the Halfling section of that book: "The halfling race, by and large, cherishes a pastoral existence full of comfort. As a people, they are remarkably lacking in ambition, content to dwell in a snug, well-furnished burrow, enjoying a pipe of rich tobacco and a filling, multi-course meal at dinner. ... Averaging about 3' in height, Hairfeet [Halflings] are slightly stockier in build than is typical for humankind. ... They rarely wear shoes (only in bad weather and bitter cold) and can be easily distinguished by the thick patches of hair growing atop each foot."
Green orcs where still considered controversial amongst players when the 3rd edition Monster Manual was published (2000), and there was much discussion on the fledgling internet.
Um. Wait, the internet was "fledgling" in 2000?... I can't find a single reference anywhere to this 3rd edition Monster Manual controversy. Any citations to share here?
I think it was the first to feature colour illustrations throughout though, 1st and 2nd edition Monster Manual/Monstrous Compendium had black and white illustrations.
False. The 2nd edition Monstrous Manual (published in 1993) was full-color, as were the Monstrous Compendium Annuals (Volumes One through Four), published between 1994 and 1998.
Generally, the accepted concept of orcs has changed gradually over the years, going from 100% Tolkienesque (although he was a bit vague), short, black skinned with no tusks; to grey-brown pig men; to bright green pig men in the cartoon (probably because of Return of the Jedi Gammorians); to olive green with tusks but no pig-snouts in 3rd edition; to the current WoW/Warhammer bright green with large tusks.
There's absolutely ZERO proof that ROTJ Gamorreans had ANY effect on the depictions of D&D orcs. Further, all cited textual sources that I've seen (either in my own library or provided here) describe orcs as being either "brown or brownish-green" or "green or grey-green." I've not seen a single reference that describes them in the D&D game as being black-skinned or without pig snouts and tusks (the picture accompanying the 1977 description of orcs in the Monster Manual clearly shows orcs as being pig-faced). This may be because some of the very earliest game materials went almost entirely without a depth of physical description for some of their monsters, but even so we do have a physical description in a text from 1977, three years following the initial publication of the D&D game -- unless you have something earlier, I think we have our winner.
You're also a little confused on your timelines here. Warhammer and its orcs pre-date 3rd edition D&D by a *lot* (1983). Warcraft, meanwhile, was first published about a decade later (1994), and featured green orcs -- again, well before 3e. Both depictions (and it's highly plausible that Warcraft's orcs were inspired by Warhammer's orcs) had green skin, large underbiting tusks, and more human/simian faces (rather than pig-like snouts).
AD&D isn't the first edition of D&D. The original D&D was published in 1974 and did contain Hobbits, Ents, Balrogs etc.. By the sixth printing of D&D in 1977, the references to Tolkien's creations had been removed, *except* a reference to hobbits on page 6 of Men & Magic (in every other place they are referred to as Halflings in printings after the fifth).
Was aware, thanks But Fardragon claimed the changes weren't made till the 80s-90s. I actually have the Men & Magic book that has both the words "Hobbit" and "Halfling" within it.
No, I didn't. The changes to Orcs where made in the 80s and 90s, because that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Tolkien estate law suit.
It's a digression, but Tolkien uses both "hobbit" and "halfing" in LotR. Hobbit is what they call themselves, Halfling is what other races call them. Although "hobbit" was not used in 1st edition AD&D, the Tolkien estate was still unhappy with the use of "hairfoot" and "stour" as halfling subraces, so further changes where made.
The Tolkien estate won over hobbits, and halflings where changed in 2nd edition.
Suggesting that the change from Hobbit -> Halfling was made after 1st edition, and this is not the case. Also, Hairfoot, Stout and Tallfellow were current through 2nd edition AD&D, which was published through 1999-2000. If the changes to Halflings were as a result of this "lawsuit," they took longer to implement than the changes to orcs.
The Tolkien estate won over hobbits, and halflings where changed in 2nd edition.
Suggesting that the change from Hobbit -> Halfling was made after 1st edition, and this is not the case. Also, Hairfoot, Stout and Tallfellow were current through 2nd edition AD&D, which was published through 1999-2000. If the changes to Halflings were as a result of this "lawsuit," they took longer to implement than the changes to orcs.
Sorry for the lack of clarity. This is what I meant: The Tolkien estate won over hobbits [i.e. there are no references to "hobbits" in 1st edition as a consequence of the law suit], and halflings where changed in 2nd edition [i.e. there where changes made between 1st edition halfings and 2nd edition halflings].
But I suspect you are right: I remember the Tolkien estate making a fuss about the subrace names (and hairy feet), but I never owed the 2nd edition core rulebooks (I was playing FASA Star Trek at the time), so they may not have changed.
Clearly, there where major changes to halfings, elves and orcs in 3rd edition, but that was done for creative reasons, not legal.
False. The 2nd edition Monstrous Manual (published in 1993) was full-color, as were the Monstrous Compendium Annuals (Volumes One through Four), published between 1994 and 1998.
[shrugs]. Never owned them, but since I only said "I think" the 3rd edition book was the first one in full colour, what I said was TRUE - I did think it. You can't falsify something that isn't claimed to be factual in the first instance. Do you happen to have a colour illustration of an orc from the 2nd edition book available?
There's absolutely ZERO proof that ROTJ Gamorreans had ANY effect on the depictions of D&D orcs.
I never said there was. The words "I suspect" indicate I was SPECULATING, given the similarity of appearance between Gammorians and the orcs from the cartoon, and the fact that both came out in 1983.
You can't PROVE cultural influences. Cultural Historians are not scientists or lawyers.
You're also a little confused on your timelines here. Warhammer and its orcs pre-date 3rd edition D&D by a *lot* (1983). Warcraft, meanwhile, was first published about a decade later (1994), and featured green orcs -- again, well before 3e. Both depictions (and it's highly plausible that Warcraft's orcs were inspired by Warhammer's orcs) had green skin, large underbiting tusks, and more human/simian faces (rather than pig-like snouts).
I'm well aware of that. Given that Warcraft was a rip-off of Warhammer (because Games Workshop wouldn't sell Bizzard the rights) Warcraft orcs and Warhammer orcs are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing."
Rejoice, then. For they already got that through an update.
I shan't because my BG:EE is up to date and alas "infra-vision" is not listed under the half-orc racial features and when I play the game it also fails the eye test (<--well intended pun). F to the rownie face.
Try making a Half-Orc in BGII:EE and be pleased by the fact that they won't be needing a flash light anymore. Same goes for our green friends in IWD by the way.
Pretty sure the next BG:EE patch will fix things up in his regard as well. Although it's true that I wouldn't mind a small hotfix for the BG:EE's currently missing orcish infravision as well.
Just a point of clarification: half-elves do not have their own paperdoll or in-game animation. They use the Elf model for both. So half-orcs using the human animation is not unprecedented.
A half-elf is defined as having 50% or more elf blood. Any "half-elf" with 49% or less elf blood is a human. If the same rules apply to half-orcs then it's more reasonable for a half-Orc to use an Orc sprite rather than a human sprite (or at least let players choose).
Is there a rule for that? It's just the first time I hear that.
There is no place where any of the books state an actual percentage...
While not explicitly stated as percentages, you can find the rule in the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook:
Half-elves are the most common mixed-race beings. The relationship between elf, human, and half-elf is defined as follows: 1) Anyone with both elven and human ancestors is either a human or a half-elf (elves have only elven ancestors). 2) If there are more human ancestors than elven, the person is human; if there are equal numbers or more elves, the person is half-elven.
While not explicitly stated as percentages, you can find the rule in the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook:
Half-elves are the most common mixed-race beings. The relationship between elf, human, and half-elf is defined as follows: 1) Anyone with both elven and human ancestors is either a human or a half-elf (elves have only elven ancestors). 2) If there are more human ancestors than elven, the person is human; if there are equal numbers or more elves, the person is half-elven.
That rule always bugged the bugbear out of me. It just feels so unfinished in its implemention. Any mixed-race being with more than two ancestor species in their family tree should devinitely be treaded as neither parent race. But as a fully fledged mongrelman/-folk with variable appearance instead.
As half-elves are categored as a seperate race which can breed true, offsprings between half-elves and any other race would be a mongrelman/-folk in their own right as well. Most likely even if their partners are humans or elves themselves. The same should naturally apply to half-orcs, half-ogres and any other crossbreeds as well, really.
In other words:
*inhales*
~VOTE MONGRELFOLK FOR PLAYABLE RACE IN BALDUR'S GATE 3~
Comments
You're claiming to know because you were there when it happened, right? If you were physically present when a legal decision was rendered then at which courthouse was this argued and at what date was the verdict announced? I have tried to look it up myself, but have not found any unequivocal and incontrovertible proof; which is why I'm asking. I've read many vague mentions of a court case or some type of legal proceedings regarding this situation, but never any listing of independently verifiable specifics. If there was any legal paperwork filed there has to be some public record. I'm not very convinced by someone else's claims if they are not willing to provided citations to support them and I am unable to independently verify them, especially if the claims are at odds with my own first-hand memory.
Source - um, Dungeon & Dragons, Volume 1: Men & Magic (see below)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons_(1974)
Edit:
Whoa, totally ninja'ed.
Generally, the accepted concept of orcs has changed gradually over the years, going from 100% Tolkienesque (although he was a bit vague), short, black skinned with no tusks; to grey-brown pig men; to bright green pig men in the cartoon (probably because of Return of the Jedi Gammorians); to olive green with tusks but no pig-snouts in 3rd edition; to the current WoW/Warhammer bright green with large tusks.
"Just because something is written on the internet doesn't make it true, especially if it is written long after the event."
Though... I do fully expect more unique models/sprites/animations/paperdolls/ect. for all player races/subraces in case IWD III and/or BG III sees the light of day. No reason to repeat the errors of the past.
It's a digression, but Tolkien uses both "hobbit" and "halfing" in LotR. Hobbit is what they call themselves, Halfling is what other races call them. Although "hobbit" was not used in 1st edition AD&D, the Tolkien estate was still unhappy with the use of "hairfoot" and "stour" as halfling subraces, so further changes where made.
I can't find a single reference anywhere to this 3rd edition Monster Manual controversy. Any citations to share here? False. The 2nd edition Monstrous Manual (published in 1993) was full-color, as were the Monstrous Compendium Annuals (Volumes One through Four), published between 1994 and 1998. There's absolutely ZERO proof that ROTJ Gamorreans had ANY effect on the depictions of D&D orcs. Further, all cited textual sources that I've seen (either in my own library or provided here) describe orcs as being either "brown or brownish-green" or "green or grey-green." I've not seen a single reference that describes them in the D&D game as being black-skinned or without pig snouts and tusks (the picture accompanying the 1977 description of orcs in the Monster Manual clearly shows orcs as being pig-faced). This may be because some of the very earliest game materials went almost entirely without a depth of physical description for some of their monsters, but even so we do have a physical description in a text from 1977, three years following the initial publication of the D&D game -- unless you have something earlier, I think we have our winner.
You're also a little confused on your timelines here. Warhammer and its orcs pre-date 3rd edition D&D by a *lot* (1983). Warcraft, meanwhile, was first published about a decade later (1994), and featured green orcs -- again, well before 3e. Both depictions (and it's highly plausible that Warcraft's orcs were inspired by Warhammer's orcs) had green skin, large underbiting tusks, and more human/simian faces (rather than pig-like snouts).
But I suspect you are right: I remember the Tolkien estate making a fuss about the subrace names (and hairy feet), but I never owed the 2nd edition core rulebooks (I was playing FASA Star Trek at the time), so they may not have changed.
Clearly, there where major changes to halfings, elves and orcs in 3rd edition, but that was done for creative reasons, not legal.
I never said there was. The words "I suspect" indicate I was SPECULATING, given the similarity of appearance between Gammorians and the orcs from the cartoon, and the fact that both came out in 1983.
You can't PROVE cultural influences. Cultural Historians are not scientists or lawyers. I'm well aware of that. Given that Warcraft was a rip-off of Warhammer (because Games Workshop wouldn't sell Bizzard the rights) Warcraft orcs and Warhammer orcs are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing."
I have that somewhere on a shelf! It has colors. (And yellowed-out pages by now).
Pretty sure the next BG:EE patch will fix things up in his regard as well. Although it's true that I wouldn't mind a small hotfix for the BG:EE's currently missing orcish infravision as well.
Their awesome choice of skin colors is what distinguishes them apart for me.
As half-elves are categored as a seperate race which can breed true, offsprings between half-elves and any other race would be a mongrelman/-folk in their own right as well. Most likely even if their partners are humans or elves themselves. The same should naturally apply to half-orcs, half-ogres and any other crossbreeds as well, really.
In other words:
*inhales*
~VOTE MONGRELFOLK FOR PLAYABLE RACE IN BALDUR'S GATE 3~
*drops mic*