The Campaign Builder's Guild

Hi folks.  Been a while since I posted, but then it's been a while since I played too.

I've been keeping up with things, kind of, and trying to write.  Short stories, building up to a novel.  It's slow going, and I just hit a speedbump.

For years people have been talking about the fact that halflings don't seem to have a name of their own.  (There are various setting-specific names, but that is really beside the point.  In fact, that kind of makes my point.)

Perversely, WotC has, in the course of building fluff for 4e, given the elves a new name but not halflings.  Okeydokey, whatever.

The point is, halflings are not really the most egregious example of a misnamed race in D&D.  

I'm talking about orcs.  Yes, orcs.  See, before Tolkien, the word 'orc' was hardly ever used - it's so Tolkien specific it's almost legally actionable.  'Hobbit' is actionable, hence the fact that it is almost never used in game settings that aren't Middle Earth.  But 'orc' slips by because it seems it is a word independent of Tolkien.

But I don't much care for it.  So I'm changing it.  From now on, the creatures described under the Orc entry in the Monster Manual will not be called 'orcs' in Ferakoss or any other writing of my creation.

My alternate name is Dire Folk, derived from the fact that orcs are to humans as dire beasts are to regular beasts.  But here's the problem - it has been pointed out to me that 'dire folk' might lead to confusion with 'shire folk,' which would give entirely the wrong impression.

My rebuttal is that there is no Shire in Ferakoss, so such confusion shouldn't be a problem.  But I have to admit, I'm playing to the kind of audience who might be confused that way.

What do you think? Any thoughts or reflections?  Criticisms?  Rants?  Death threats?  (Ordinarily I wouldn't be asking for those, but considering the subject matter I figured we might as well get them out of the way.)  Any comments will be appreciated.

'Dire Folk...'

You complain about Halflings not having a name of their own and yet you name Orcs 'Dire Folk,' which is, quite honestly, the exact opposite of the direction I had assumed you were going. No one, least not the folk I travel with, enjoys D&D's use of adding the suffix -folk to the back of any less than apt description. Lizardfolk, Catfolk, Pandafolk and now Dire Folk... I shan't be amiss when I say that anything with the suffix '-folk' is not an acceptable name in my book, least when it comes to actual, non-derogatory names.

Now I have no problem with your hillfolk and peasantfolk calling Orcs 'Dire Folk,' seems apt, if a tad unsuspecting and unassuming but let us not use the term Dire Folk for the race's actual scholarly name!  

Point taken.  And that was kind of my problem - there are a lot of 'folk' out there.  But something dire seems so appropriate, so obvious, so right...  maybe dropping the whole term dire is the way to go, for anything.  I mean, what does one make of the long neglected dire corby from the original Fiend Folio?  What, does that mean there is a regular corby around?

...okay, that last couple of sentences strongly implies, upon rereading, that I need to go to bed.  Later, folk.

Quote from: DeeLPoint taken.  And that was kind of my problem - there are a lot of 'folk' out there.  But something dire seems so appropriate, so obvious, so right...  maybe dropping the whole term dire is the way to go, for anything.  I mean, what does one make of the long neglected dire corby from the original Fiend Folio?  What, does that mean there is a regular corby around?

...okay, that last couple of sentences strongly implies, upon rereading, that I need to go to bed.  Later, folk.

I think your spot on with the 'Dire' part, so long as it isn't over used. The problem I have is with the -folk, which is over-over used by WotC. Perhaps the best route is not to invent a new overarching, trans-setting term for Orcs, why not just come up with a unique term for your setting? If Dire Folk works for you and your setting, who am I to intervene?

I'll need some fundamental info before I can do much here.

Are you looking for what they call themselves, what the general 'Common' term for the race, or slang derivations of same?  This is very crucial to fluff and flavor.  It speaks to who has dominance (whose language is being used, etc) and social position.

My Bugbears call themselves the 'Gartier', which is a derivation of old Omwo~ for 'leaders'.  They are called 'Garters' by most other races in the cities, but the older common term is Bugbears, from the days when they used to only be seen from afar, leading tribal humanoid bands.  This is now conssidered very, very poor taste in cultured areas.
[spoiler=Gartiers tendency to snideness](Gartier captain to Orcash seargant in the middle of pitched battle, "Doohik, what is the orcash word for 'thong'?"
Orcash Seargeant Doohik, confused, "Uhhh I dunno so...Percui, I think."
Gartier captain smiles, and summons a runner.  "Boy, please convey to the leader of the wolf-riders that his terrible legions ride like their percui are riding up to their elbows.")[/spoiler]
[note=Bugs]
we had a gartier priest of Belial that one of the Scarlet Pilum Militia insisted on refering to as 'Bugs', despite my many assertations that this could be taken badly (note that these were both PCs).  After the fourth time the priest was 'low on restorative spell points' when the Scarlet Pilum was injured, he got the message.
At that point, the Gartier player handed me a note to stop putting the enflamed chili powder in the Scarlet Pilum's morning Kaffee.[/note]

So a lot of this is goint ot be determined by who is calling what and why.

Trollocs! *snicker*

I'm a big fan of setting-specific names but they are hard to instate when the MM names already conjure for your players the images you need to tell a story.  I don't have anything to offer other than support, unfortunately!

I would say that your "dire" name for them (direfolk, diremen, diredaks, etc) is most likely the name that all the other races call them, while these creatures themselves will most likely have their own name. Like Eskimo/Inuit, Elf/Tel-araismoblablahblah (Forgotten Realms), etc, your creatures could be called "Diremen" by outsiders, and "Vhuldrak" (or whatever) by themselves.  That's how I do things, and it seems to make some sense. :)

Okay, I'm back and kind of awake.  So far so good - I see the various posters points about different speakers using different terms ('dire,' for example, could easily be a technical term for a creature who has been modified by magic to be tougher, uglier and meaner than its parents, while the actual dire humans might refer to themselves as kesht and other dire creatures as tough meat.)

On the other hand, 'dire' might be better reserved as a slang or informal term with something more euphonious for technical reference.  Maybe something draconic - dragons came up with the 'Dire Transformation' in the first place...

This at least has me going again.  Thanks to everyone who has posted!

'Trollocs.'  Okay Eladris, I'll see your Trollocs and raise you this one...

I have at last thought of a good scholastic term for the general category of Dire beasts and humanoids.

Aggrozooics.

Agrozooica Trolloctia?

Quote from: Sdr$g$n1984Agrozooica Trolloctia?

Now that's a name I could get behind!

Call orcs goblins? Tolkien did it every now and again, so why the hell not?

While we're at it, let's restat all the "dire" folk and make 'em playable. Ogres, trolls, and goblins at the very least. And none of this "half" crap. A half-anything takes after one of its parents more'n the other.

So saith beebs, who is back.

As for calling orcs goblins, good idea but no.  'Orcs' and 'goblinoids' are two distinct peoples in this setting.  Orcs being a race of, well, grunts, and goblin-kind being an old and far more complex race descended from faerie-kind.  Otherwise, I would frankly jump at that suggestion like a shot.