Ogres vs. Dwarves: Who Will Be Next in The Workshop?

I voted for both Elves and Kerran, but I'm not likely to ever play an elf, and only vaguely interested in playing a Kerran. They just sounded like fun architecture to work on. I'll most likely have a Dwarf character, though I haven't felt any interest in developing a Dwarven build yet. There's just no hook to draw me into a Dwarven build. Use of lava in their architecture is the first thing I've heard that's caught my attention, but my initial reaction to it was "well that's just silly."

A few items I'd like to offer regarding Dwarves:

1) Please, oh please, don't make them a punchline. Modern media has decided that Dwarves, like anything masculine on TV, should be comedy relief. Don't reverse roles and make Elves (that are supposed to get tipsy and whimsical and silly) that drink sad Dwarven lushes under the table, or comical Dwarves that can't keep up with humans over long distance marches, or any other form of the "Dwarves are there for a laugh" crutch that's become so stereotypical today.

2) Explain a bit more about Dwarves physical characteristics in their architecture. If they love and use Lava in their homes and forges, does that mean Dwarves have an abnormal tolerance for heat? Do they not need cooling or heat-protective gear the way others do? Is that something that could be added to our fortifications concepts? Does that resistance to heat/overheating play a part in their reputation for endurance (the Dwarven companies of fiction that can jog cross-country non-stop for days, eating up the miles without rest or fatigue)? Does that use of lava contribute to their love of large, vaulting architecture (that heat needing a place to go, preferably high overhead)?

3) Consider focusing on Dwarves as a community-first (lawful, unified, organized) culture and how that might effect our builds. They focus on and value community first and the individual second, In a classic Dwarven culture, the individual is worth what he can contribute or has contributed to society. It is their unity that makes them strong and secure, gives them identity, and contributes to an us vs them perspective of outsiders. It is their focus on community and the responsibilities of the individual to the community that contributes to their distrust of the "think about me and my self-interest first and my freinds/family/town/nation last" mentality of outsiders.

Help me as a builder latch onto something unique and fun that I'd be building (with DEs we had a military society that made it easy and fun to conceptualize, with Kerran we had sailors and explorers):

• Does a community-first mentality lead to holdhalls where the community convenes under the watchful eyes of their rulers to hear and participate in the judgement and punishment of those who commit negligent behavior?
• Does it result in dorm-living for the young adults after a certain age?
• Do all young people serve in a militia/military/industry unit, where they get their first real experience working as a unit both in combat and industry (like roman legions, units providing manpower to major community projects - road-building, construction, mining, etc.).
• Do they live separated within strict classes or is their community more socially integrated? Does birth or individual talent determine their eventual place in society? Are we building with an aye on class-based districts or an integrated community. As they mature and certain individuals start to stand out for their crafting/industry/martial skills, do they bring some/all of their dorm/unit mates along with them as labor force or do they separate and get assigned into professional districts/guildhalls?

I voted Dwarves because the Ogres are not what I envision Ogres to be. I prefer the old EQ "big dumb brutes" that live in crude haphazard looking buildings. Also, Thurgadin was always one of my favorite cities and I would like to build something in that style.

I am in complete alignment with you on this! On both counts.

At this point, I think it's builders who are voting for what they want to build, not what race they want to play. I think the concept art for the dwarves is really lacking compared to what we are shown for other races: Dark Elf, Kerran & Ogre. Is it that dwarven architecture is to be uninteresting in EQNext? Is that what the devs are looking for? Maybe I'm missing the mark by assuming from past experience that dwarves are master architects... are they also master architects in the EQNext milieu?

Zap

First and foremost, within the realm of fantasy gaming Ogres are almost always considered dumb. EQ2 is the exception in this regard, not the rule. And at that even EQ2 itself doesn't truly stray very far from the general idea of Ogres being dumb.

If we accept the EQ2 version of Ogre as the norm we're still left with the undeniable fact that 16 out of the 19 other playable races are as smart or significantly more smart than a "non-cursed" Ogre. Average intelligence in EQ2 terms falls just shy of 20. An Ogres base intelligence is 15. So no they are not of fairly average intelligence. To the contrary they fall well below the curve.

When you factor in EQ2 wisdom numbers it's even more easy to suggest that Ogres, who have the lowest wisdom of all playable races, are still in fact quite stupid. It's really as simple as asking what good is intelligence without wisdom? The answer in most cases is not a whole lot. I would submit it's akin to having a car with no wheels. You are correct in asserting that Dwarves are deemed to be even less intelligent than Ogres, but I would argue that in spite of what little they do know at least they have wisdom enough to make proper use of their knowledge. An Ogre's combined wisdom and intelligence, even in their newly enlightened state, still places them just above Trolls as being the only race they are truly smarter than.

I have no idea what "racial tradition" you are referring to in regards to Ogres and wisdom. In EQ they could be Shaman. That's about the extent of things. They could be Shadow Knights as well, but no one would suggest this fact alludes to them having a racial tradition of intelligence. I further disagree with your assertion that Ogres were ever made to actually lead armies. In EQ lore terms the only race they ever led was themselves and tales of their former conquering glory invariably cite their overwhelming brute strength -- not their tactical prowess -- as the primary reason. For a certainty whether they were cursed or not Ogres have always lacked the wisdom to comprehend why they do the things they do. They were created for the sole purpose of war and to date have never expanded their thinking beyond their bloodlust mentality.

Down-thumb me all you want, but the fact remains traditionally Ogres are singular in purpose and dumb. EQ Next lore seems intent upon completely rewriting the concept of an Ogre both in look and nature. As I said before, if that's a race they want to have represented in Next then by all means put that race in the game. But you can only fundamentally change a thing so much before it's simply no longer that thing. And what's presented here is simply not an Ogre.

Part of the problem is that they already used the "no visible seams in the construction" - traditionally the Dwarven signature - for DE geomancy. Dwarves done right, if limited to the existing textures, would look very similar in texture to the DE builds. Maybe they need to give us some lavastone textures, Let us build with that and obsidian.

You make some cogent points.. with the additional consideration that you not only have decades of dwarves in games, but a substantial literary presence as well, most of which are very similar (if not the same as the game dwarves, necessarily).

I have a problem with female looking dwarves, period--but that is largely because my concept of the race is built around the LotR concept, in which females are indistinguishable from males (basically due to the fact that they are a "contrived" race and the Vala who made them didn't really understand or didn't care about those types of differences).

In LotRO, dwarves have no gender, they are just dwarves. They could be male or female and you would not know unless they decided to tell you. My sense is, however, that very few female players play dwarves in LotRO... the appearance is a non-starter for many of them.

From a profitability POV and from a POV of making the race more attractive for a wider range of players, you probably need to create "pretty" female dwarves. I can live with that.

The reality is that there probably isn't a lot of room to play around with the race BECAUSE of expectations (as you note).. so SOE needs to address expectations and yet put an interesting spin on it that brings something fresh to the table.

Shadowbane (IIRC) presented a slightly different spin on Dwarves in the sense that they were (in essence) a kind of stone golem (meaning that they were living rock). Very tough and strong and created as servants and artisans to help create and maintain the world. Been a long time since I played Shadowbane but that is what I remember.

Dragon Age threw in some interesting political and social aspects that were a bit different from the norm.

Even though they are not, strictly speaking, dwarves the Dwemer from Elder Scrolls also represent an interesting spin on the concept.

One of the ways that you can look at the race is that they are (culturally) very oriental (in the stereotypical sense). Very concerned with lineage, honor (the concept of "face" applies here) and with a pronounced sense of cultural and racial superiority. Very insular and quite content to remain that way. The relationships between Dwarves and the other races would be purely commercial (which would account for why you might encounter them in the open world). Their lack of interest in others (outside of commerce) would make them useful mercenaries and potential diplomats.. similar in some ways to the Swiss.

You could throw in the standard clan structure and ideas or not... their inclusion would make for interesting internal political dynamics.

They remain artisans and craftsmen (whose products are highly desired) and whose magic is embedded in the things they make, rather than active in the sense of casting spells.

Given the traditional rarity (in literary sources) of female dwarves, it would actually make sense for the society to be dominated by the females.

I very strongly agree with this sentiment, specifically about Ogres.

I also feel that this extrapolates to much of EQN.

Nobody's in control...you will soon learn that.

Ogres present a much better opportunity to really influence the look of the race. We can pull styles from neoclassical, Hellenic, and some mid century modern big slab lay outs. Dwarves and just dwarves.

OK, I admit that I have not read the whole thread to see if this was said already but I have to say I am quite underwhelmed with the female dwarves. They look like dolls, even a little uninspired, as if their role is a little undefined yet. Given that the race of the dwarves is supposed to be strong the females look too whimsical in my opinion. Personally, I'd give them a little more pride and perhaps a little less body fat if you know what I mean. Give them a little more definition. Who says that the female dwarves stay behind closed doors if there is a battle to fight? To the least some of them might prefer to wage war alongside their husbands.

Well, I recommended combining mongolian architecture with greco-roman styles and materials...so imagine marble yurts. The yurt outline and profile would serve as the framework or "blueprints," while the Greco-Roman would be most apparent in the stylistic details and materials used...imagine the coliseum as a yurt. That's kinda what I was going for. I'm aware the mongols were nomads, but but they were also imperial conquerers, just as the romans, with a strong communal culture as described in Brozka's short story. Thought by combining these two empires architecture, we could come up with something more unique

Also, does the ogre architectural concept remind anyone of Zul'Gurub or the Zandalari? I thought it looked familiar...

I realize that no one is actually going to listen to me and it’s unlikely anyone will actually change their point of view, but this attitude really has to stop. It’s a disease within the genre that constantly kills attempts at innovation, all to placate people’s pathological fear of change, regardless of what that change even is.

Look everyone, there is no such thing as Dwarves or Ogres or Trolls or Kerrans or Elves or Halflings or any other fantasy race. They just that, fantasy. There cannot be a “canon” version of a race that does not exist. This constant insistence that “Ogres are not ogres unless they’re mentally re.tarded” or that “Dwarves are not dwarves unless they’re stereotypical comic drunks” does nothing but lower the bar and encourage lazy design on a macro scale, and frankly, make the genre intolerable and childish.

I can’t think of any other genre in which such a large portion of its own fan base demands that developers make it as formulaic and predictable as possible. Being predictable is a scathing remark against a book or a movie or most types of game, but read these forums and you’ll find dozens and dozens of posts demanding things be as stereotypical and boring as humanly possible.

Ok, I get that people have warm fuzzes when they think back to things like EQ1 or LoTR or <Generic Fantasy Books Here>, and I get that they desperately want to relive it by seeking out things that remind them of those. But they're making the all too common mistake of thinking that the elements they loved 15, 25 or 30 years ago will be just as good now. They’re not. You can’t relive your memories, and trying is naught but a depressing waste of time. Leave them in the past where they belong, accept that you’ll never be able to recreate them, and try and make new good memories, because you can’t resurrect the old ones.

I've studied folklore and mythology, and while I am not a credited academic on the subject, I can say with reasonable certainty that the majority of stereotypes about these “fantasy races” are recent inventions. Virtually every trope associated with these races was created in the last hundred years by a storyteller trying to do something new and different. You're not even defending the mythological origins of elves or dwarves in our own world, you're defending some 20th century author's contrived addition that they themselves made in order to distinguish themselves from the hoard of older stereotypes. But now those once original twists have themselves become new stereotypes, and it's time we rethink them. These less then a hundred year old depictions are not holy, and changing them is not sacrilegious.

SOE can do whatever the hell they want with their races, they can make them as different as they want, or as boring and predictable as they see fit, and that seems to be exactly what they’re doing. They’re not beholden to people to invent a new race because their version does not match some group’s arbitrarily strict definition of what that race is supposed to be.

Anyone who’s read my posts in this thread will clearly see I’m “pro-change” and think the current version of dwarves is a mistake on SOE’s part. They’re actively and consciously choosing to make their dwarves stereotypical caricatures, and I am disappointed that they’d take such a safe road while riding such a dead and bludgeoned horse. But just because I disagree with them does not mean their version of dwarves is somehow “invalid”, I am an adult and can accept that we have different opinions about how that race should be handled and not needlessly belabor the point. Conversely, people should accept that not everything is going to be as hardline conservative as their dwarves, and they will take more liberates with other races.

Discussing why you think X race should be like Y is perfectly fine. Mature debate is healthy and necessary. But this attitude of "Well if you make that change then they're just not X anymore" is neither helpful or accurate.

tl;dr, A fantasy race is whatever the author(s) says it is.

I'm open to seeing how SOE goes in a different direction with Ogres. Yes, traditionally, Ogres have been big, dumb and brutish in comparison to the other fantasy races. However, Trolls have also always been traditionally big, stupid, and vicious creatures as well. But then, another gaming company came along (Blizzard) and made them into something far more complex, intelligent, and thoughtful in their Warcraft universe instead of the Tolken / Dungeons & Dragons mold.

Before anyone jumps on the "SOE is not Blizzard" rants, my point is that we should give SOE a chance to flesh out their new ideas of Ogres and see how good / bad they do at it. Just dismissing them outright because SOE's plan for them goes against most everyone else's concept of Ogres is just being short-sighted. Maybe it'll feel artificial, maybe it'll be awesome, no one knows at this point.

Hmm no indication if i have voted or not? or do i have to go to the official page?

Just noticed my company has blocked the official site. that's may bee the problem.

Will try when I'm at home.

Personally I've always imagined the dwarves as lively, well travelled, swarthy skinned arabic traders with their fine beards and excellent metal work. As for their mountain dwellings, something along the line of Al Khazneh, as featured in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Mainly prompted by references in the norse mythology to them being dark skinned purveyors of fine goods. Which I would find a particularly amusing vein to explore if EQN has the guts

I would totally support that. Africans, Arabs and Native Americans are woefully underrepresented in the fantasy genre, and that would be a really cool way to work some West Asian tropes into the game without having resort to the vaguely ethnic "Dervish Empire".

Having both would be great actually, just move the Dwarves into the mountains of Ro, and make them surface dwellers who live in stone-cut buildings, problem solved. I'd totally vote for that if it was an option, and I would actually be interested in building that architecture.

Totally agree with that. I was thinking the same, but didn't know how to say it.
In Western Europe, 1000 years ago, Ogres existed in the popular minds, as did already exist elves, trolls, dwarfs, ... Ogres where just humans, big, fat, aggressive humans against other humans, eating children, but they were humans. Elves neither had anything to see with the LOTR elves, they where small, aggressive, and lived in the forest, scared everyone having to go through a forest by night. If Tolkien has written something else, that's not a reason to try again and again to write the Ogre (or troll, dwarf, elf, ...) story.

If we want to refer to "what is an ogre", then we must refer to the historical datablase, more than 1000 years old, not to what the last electronic games made with them those last few years ago.

Thanks to an ex-wife and a flood I no longer have all of my 2nd Edition D&D materials, but there were several interesting versions of Dwarves in that era of D&D. There were the traditional Hill and Mountain Dwarves which is what most people think of when they think of the race. There were also versions like the Jungle Dwarves, Gully Dwarves, and the Dark Sun Dwarves and half-dwarf Mul that were quite different.

One version was a desert dwelling people that were traveling merchants and herdsmen that lived in giant cities under the sands and jealously hid their crafts, treasures, and water from outsiders. I wish I could remember which book or article they were in for reference sake, but I always liked that interpretation of Dwarves.