The Gaming Den

You damn well should. So, your premise was "the only stories worth telling about the Norse involve pillage". OK, I underestimated your stupidity.

Not "pillage". Dangerous situations. I somehow doubt Dark Ages Europe is more fun with Plows and Potatoes style games than any other setting.

Not going with the more retarded version of your premise: don't be the majority. Play a woman.

And deal with the relatively limited rights and freedoms of one.

You just agreed a definition was legitimate and proceeded to discard it. Congratulations.

"Its not absent entirely."=/= "common enough there's no surprise in people having it."

And so? You just nailed for me that the exact same happens in Constantinople, only less often. And I saw the same in a school this week.

Joe Average Viking is in a situation where the need to defend himself is gonig to come up on a not regular basis for one reason or another. Not so for a merchant of Byzantium.

See "legitimate alternate definition discarded".

See "I got through life without any violent thigns ever happening." being a little too improbable to count on.

How about actually stating your premises (which you didn't by own admission)? Having premises less retarded helps as well.

The premise that Vikings are in a culture where knowing how to fight is something there are very few playable adventurer types who would not be at least basically familiar with is perfectly nonretarded.

Like the other people didn't go to war, and like the non-violence of the modern (rich) world's up for comparison.

No one said the others didn't, and the point is that while in our world, knowing how to fight is "not necessary for survival", this is one where it pretty much is, some places being particularly good examples of that.

Northumbrians did not regularly go raiding parties against Denmark. The reverse is not entirely true...but it is much more common than Northumbrians looting Danish lands.

So, growing up a Viking is going to promote certain skills, underdevelop certain skills and strongly discourage or encourage certain things.

One might resist cultural influence, but being completely unlike its norms would be strange.

And "So I'm a pariah. Oh well." is not an attitude that can be taken safely in all places and eras.

Fortunately for me, this doesn't deserve a full response - I can just point to your actual intent of banning characters who are improbable, surprising, or outcast.

Vikings do come from a culture in which it's entirely probable they'd never fought before.

-Crissa

Bigode: So, I have a problem with one in a million if that cases being treated as just as appropriate as something that's actually likely to happen. Oh noes.

Crissa: Not particularly. You have something showing that it is probable that you could go your whole life or most of it without having or needing familarity with fighting?

Not "without being a specialized warrior"...but without any combat training and experience at all?

I know that at least in part of this era, the Anglo-Saxon fyrd is pretty nearly "the able bodied men of the kingdom", and I believe there's a Viking equivalant.

Personally, I don't mind things that there are reasonable odds for, but "my Viking studied kenjutsu." and "My Viking has sworn an oath to not kill ever and doesn't eat meat and doesn't drink and hates sailing." are both outside that.

Such things could theoretically exist. It is also theoretically possible that there have been females disguised as males become popes and that someone was raised by wolves (in our world).

Elennsar wrote:How much room do we have on a d20?

No, seriously.

Very little, the default hit chance needs to be fairly high so people don't just wiff all the time. Add up to +4 for favourable circumstances and its almost gone. If you want to allow accurate but low damage attacks then you'll be in auto hit territory very fast.

No we don't have room for the base PC races to get even a +1.

Very little, the default hit chance needs to be fairly high so people don't just wiff all the time.

Remind me not to go to any special effort to get anything that boosts AC (maybe even including armor).

After all, if you're supposed to hit me 75% of the time, its not really a reliable defense.

And if you reliably hit most of the time anyway, accurate but low damage is not even necessary.

Blegh. Offense > defense by a large margin is not particularly exciting.

Boolean wrote:Unwise = a great plot hook

It worked for Rurouni Kenshin.

I'm not sure that's something I'd like to use as a model and example, however excellent it may be.

Note: The above statement is purely a matter of personal opinion and has no bearing on the quality of the work or the individual(s) who would like to use it as a model or example.

All comments assuming otherwise will be considered for the sake of producing lulz.

Maj wrote: It worked for Rurouni Kenshin.

ffffffffffffffff

Elennsar wrote: If you think orcs should be just as capable of Int 9001 as humans, that's entirely different than represent orcs who aren't just as capable.

So you want orcs who don't have "naturally prone to being stupid, nurture be damned", and I do.

How is this any different than arguing on any other preference?

Prone to being stupid can be represented with mechanics other than an intelliegence penalty. Keep in mind that even if an orc is technically capable of intelligence 18, there's no saying that this orc actually exists anywhere in the world.

Okay, I can think of three things.

1) Orcs are naturally prone to stupidity.

2) Orcs who appear too smart are killed by other orcs before they become "too dangerous".

3) Orcs who would have the potential to fully develop smarts don't have the opportunity within orc culture due to a cultural lack of support for the things that nurture the mind.

1) being naturally prone to something doesn't mean that every single being has that trait and nobody is special. Again, back to Yao Ming. Most asians are short. Yao Ming is tall. Very tall. And yes, he's still asian. And yes, even though Yao Ming exists, the asian stereotype of being very short hasn't changed. You'd still say that asians are naturally prone to being short.

As for 2 and 3, they're situational and it's easy for a PC to have a backstory that says "Ok, yeah that usually happens, but it didn't happen in this case." Maybe he hid his talent from the orcs and secretly learned magic from an old grimoire he got from a fallen wizard, that the other orcs couldn't use effectively. Maybe he was enslaved by a wizard, and managed to learn some of the wizard's tricks before escaping. Maybe he was raised by humans.

Why is it that nobody can be special in your world, and everyone just has to be a walking stereotype. Would you tell an elf who wanted to use an axe or mace as a weapon that he can't do it, because elven culture just focuses on longbows and swords? Would you ban an elf who wanted to be really clumsy?

All your flavor reasons have stated is why most orcs aren't smart. And that's fine. But why does a PC have to be a typical orc and can't have an interesting backstory that let him develop his intellect?

Do you seriously force your PCs to be nothing but a walking stereotype?

Prone to being stupid can be represented with mechanics other than an intelliegence penalty. Keep in mind that even if an orc is technically capable of intelligence 18, there's no saying that this orc actually exists anywhere in the world.

I'm, as stated previously, interested to hear what you have in mind.

1) being naturally prone to something doesn't mean that every single being has that trait and nobody is special. Again, back to Yao Ming. Most asians are short. Yao Ming is tall. Very tall. And yes, he's still asian. And yes, even though Yao Ming exists, the asian stereotype of being very short hasn't changed. You'd still say that asians are naturally prone to being short.

Yao Ming also comes from a species where "tall" is not limited by subgroup since the subgroups are mostly cultural and only slightly if at all biological (beyond the usual rules on genetics and inherited traits).

As for 2 and 3, they're situational and it's easy for a PC to have a backstory that says "Ok, yeah that usually happens, but it didn't happen in this case." Maybe he hid his talent from the orcs and secretly learned magic from an old grimoire he got from a fallen wizard, that the other orcs couldn't use effectively. Maybe he was enslaved by a wizard, and managed to learn some of the wizard's tricks before escaping. Maybe he was raised by humans.

It's easy to have one, its not necessarily believable. (depending on the exact details of the backstory and the setting). Most of those, in my opinion, work in standard D&D (other than the old grimoire, which might be hard to read at all without having someone to help.)

Why is it that nobody can be special in your world, and everyone just has to be a walking stereotype. Would you tell an elf who wanted to use an axe or mace as a weapon that he can't do it, because elven culture just focuses on longbows and swords? Would you ban an elf who wanted to be really clumsy?

a) Probably not, but I would ask how he learned it and why he learned it instead of the usual elven weapons.

b) Yes. Mind, FAF (my setting) elves are not LA 0. In standard D&D, I'd ban anyone who wanted to be really clumsy as part of "This makes no damn sense for an Heroic adventurer."

All your flavor reasons have stated is why most orcs aren't smart. And that's fine. But why does a PC have to be a typical orc and can't have an interesting backstory that let him develop his intellect?

Why does a PC have to be permited to be a freak of nature? Because that is what it would take to have a "smart orc" when orcs are racially dumb. Not prone to being dumb, not culturally challenged at avoiding being dumb...racially flawed in this regard.

I'm fine with people not wanting to do elves exactly like every other elf, but insisting that using a crossbow should be supported as much for elves (who don't benefit from their primary advantage and thusly wouldn't feel the need to bother) as humans (who do benefit) is unreasonable.

Do you seriously force your PCs to be nothing but a walking stereotype?

In a word, no. But if you're coming from a culture that disdains missile weapons, "I'm special." is not good enough to justify ignoring it. We know you're special. What's your point?

Honestly, I would be disappointed in a game that treated "this is normal" as "totally optional, ignore as much as you like."

Reason?

http://www.superdickery.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=38

is not something I want. Ever.

Nor is this: http://www.superdickery.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=38

The latter may be "well, that's not going to happen". But the former is bad enough.

Nor is this: http://www.superdickery.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=38

Unfortunately that does already exist in D&D. Though I'm not sure that it's a good thing.

Elennsar wrote:
I'm, as stated previously, interested to hear what you have in mind.

I stated it before, and I think Frank did as well. In whatever system you used to generate attributes, you just favor strength, and dump intelligence. Much as you'd tend to represent an orc in GURPS. Instead of buying IQ with your points, you buy physical stats. Since you're the DM and you make the NPCs, you get to make them into any stereotype you want. So if you want all the NPC orcs to be dumb. Then so be it.

Yao Ming also comes from a species where "tall" is not limited by subgroup since the subgroups are mostly cultural and only slightly if at all biological (beyond the usual rules on genetics and inherited traits).

The subgroups aren't exactly cultural. Statistics say otherwise.

Why does a PC have to be permited to be a freak of nature? Because that is what it would take to have a "smart orc" when orcs are racially dumb. Not prone to being dumb, not culturally challenged at avoiding being dumb...racially flawed in this regard.

Freak of nature? Hardly. Having an interesting background. Sure. Lots of heroes have interesting backgrounds. Why is Superman from the planet Krypton instead of being a normal human? Why does Harry Potter get to have parents that are wizards instead of being the human average and being a mundane? Why is Yao Ming super tall?

Heroes tend to have exceptional backgrounds. Some may come from a mundane life and become heroes, while others may have had some special improbable occurrence that led them to where they are today, like being bitten by a radioactive spider or raised by wolves.

And this really doesn't make someone a freak of nature, it just means that you've got a unique background.

In a word, no. But if you're coming from a culture that disdains missile weapons, "I'm special." is not good enough to justify ignoring it. We know you're special. What's your point?

I really don't think you do.

There's a distinct difference in being different from your race, and being some odd three headed freak of nature. Nobody is trying to play "an orc that looks entirely like an elf, except he has green skin and talks in a really deep voice."

That'd be a freak of nature.

But just because your orc happened to be book smart instead of focusing on his Axe smarts isn't some freak of nature. Sure it's weird, but people can hear the story and believe it. I mean would you be so shocked to meet someone from a primitive African tribe who had somehow went to a more civilized part of the world and received a college education and became an erudite scholar?

Is that so improbable that you'd lump it in with six headed mutant mummies from outer space?

I stated it before, and I think Frank did as well. In whatever system you used to generate attributes, you just favor strength, and dump intelligence. Much as you'd tend to represent an orc in GURPS. Instead of buying IQ with your points, you buy physical stats. Since you're the DM and you make the NPCs, you get to make them into any stereotype you want. So if you want all the NPC orcs to be dumb. Then so be it.

That doesn't make "orcs as a race" dumb. That makes "all orcs the DM creates" dumb.

Which is fine...if you don't mind having orc PCs ignore this for any reason whatsoever.

The subgroups aren't exactly cultural. Statistics say otherwise.

Depends on which subgroups. Point is, "Chinese" obviously does not exclude the genes that produce tallness.

And this really doesn't make someone a freak of nature, it just means that you've got a unique background.

Superman is a hard example to take seriously, and "parents are wizards" is pretty unnatural. Or supernatural, if you prefer. "Very, very different than normal." In a RPG where everyone is a wizard, that's not important, because that kind of thing is normal.

I really don't think you do.

I really don't think you're happy with the idea that being an orc or anything else is a limit on ANYTHING a player can imagine that could POSSIBLY exist.

There's a distinct difference in being different from your race, and being some odd three headed freak of nature. Nobody is trying to play "an orc that looks entirely like an elf, except he has green skin and talks in a really deep voice."

That'd be a freak of nature.

"I'm an orc that entirely ignores the fact that orcs are limited in Intelligence because I'm special." is a freak of nature. If its purely cultural that orcs don't develop brainpower, then see below, at worst. If its a part of what makes orcs orcs...its still freakish.

I mean would you be so shocked to meet someone from a primitive African tribe who had somehow went to a more civilized part of the world and received a college education and became an erudite scholar?

Is that so improbable that you'd lump it in with six headed mutant mummies from outer space?

No. But the odds of that happening are still low, and a smart orc doing so is even less likely.

There's the kind of improbable that could happen if things add up right, and the kind that is improbable because of how unlikely it is that they would.

So here is my question.

Assuming orcs as presented in D&D (with mechanics converted to the best way to represent the fluff)..

What, if anything, is hardwired about "orc traits" to you that a player will have whether or not he wants it?

Okay, that's it, I give up. I was starting to have hope for you, too.

There is nothing in this post that hasn't already been answered many times. You might go back and read it.

Elennsar wrote: That doesn't make "orcs as a race" dumb. That makes "all orcs the DM creates" dumb.

Which is fine...if you don't mind having orc PCs ignore this for any reason whatsoever.

Which, as has been made clear, is what we do not mind. What we actively advocate, actually.

Elennsar wrote: That doesn't make "orcs as a race" dumb. That makes "all orcs the DM creates" dumb.

Which is fine...if you don't mind having orc PCs ignore this for any reason whatsoever.

The DM makes 99.999% of the orcs in the gameworld. That's more than enough to set a stereotype of orcish stupidity. That's what being "dumb as a race" pretty much means.

And no, I really don't mind PCs ignoring it when they make their character, because PCs are special.

Superman is a hard example to take seriously, and "parents are wizards" is pretty unnatural. Or supernatural, if you prefer. "Very, very different than normal." In a RPG where everyone is a wizard, that's not important, because that kind of thing is normal.

Kind of like an RPG where people are playing adventurers instead of farmers?

The PCs by default are playing special people who decided to go out and slay monsters instead of just becoming some average citizens.

No. But the odds of that happening are still low, and a smart orc doing so is even less likely.

There's the kind of improbable that could happen if things add up right, and the kind that is improbable because of how unlikely it is that they would.

If you admit that it's merely improbable, and not impossible, then honestly why not let your PC be special. As a DM you still control 99.999% of the orcs in your game world so if you want them all to be stupid, you can very well do that.

So what if a PC is playing the one smart orc in the world? And do you seriously care if he has 18 int instead of 16? Is that even a big difference from a flavor point of view?

Assuming orcs as presented in D&D (with mechanics converted to the best way to represent the fluff)..

What, if anything, is hardwired about "orc traits" to you that a player will have whether or not he wants it?

Mechanically, I'd say orcish blood would be hardwired, as would the basic orcish appearance and darkvision. Aside from that, not much else.

Orc physical and mental characteristics are going to run the gamut. You're going to have really strong orcs, and some orcs are going to be more agile than others, or more wise than others. The stereotype of an orc is a hulking brute, but that's not necessarily going to be true for every orc.

What is important is that orcs see in the dark, they're considered orcs as far as game mechanics are concerned and they look like orcs.

Elennsar wrote: Assuming orcs as presented in D&D (with mechanics converted to the best way to represent the fluff)..

What, if anything, is hardwired about "orc traits" to you that a player will have whether or not he wants it?

For Orcs:
Darkvision
Light Sensitivity

For Half Orc
Darkvision
Orc blood

I love how you keep banning the interesting viable concepts put forth by yourself (i.e. female pope-to-be). Also, banning Rurouni Kenshin's its own form of offense. And it seems Date Masamune's another character that shouldn't have existed, as well as, OMGWTFBBQ, the travel to Europe - I mean, everyone knew the Japanese wouldn't ever go farther than China and Korea, and only for war, right?

But could people stop this "PCs are special and not subject to setting rules" crap? The unlikely should happen on both sides as often as appropriate (which's likely "about all the time for protagonists and antagonists"), and the actually impossible should happen ... actually never.

The thing is ... much that's called impossible isn't ... even IRL.

Mr. Anderson: told ya so.

There is nothing in this post that hasn't already been answered many times. You might go back and read it.

There's nothing that hasn't been "and we don't want PCs to be limited by any general truth of anything. Hell, we'd probably be okay with a three armed mutant human if we could balance it." 'answered'.

The DM makes 99.999% of the orcs in the gameworld. That's more than enough to set a stereotype of orcish stupidity. That's what being "dumb as a race" pretty much means.

And no, I really don't mind PCs ignoring it when they make their character, because PCs are special.

Kind of like an RPG where people are playing adventurers instead of farmers?

The PCs by default are playing special people who decided to go out and slay monsters instead of just becoming some average citizens.

No, kind of not. There are plenty of "adventurers" who could be NPCs unless the setting is set up so that only Hercules and Theseus types do so (which does not appear to be the case, though it would be better if it was for your arguement).

If you admit that it's merely improbable, and not impossible, then honestly why not let your PC be special. As a DM you still control 99.999% of the orcs in your game world so if you want them all to be stupid, you can very well do that.

Because I vociferously disagree that you have to be strongly unlike 99.999% of orcs to still be special and interesting.

And if -2 isn't a big deal, then stop protesting it existing. Either its big enough to be worth adding, or its not big enough to protest PCs being subject to it because it doesn't hurt very much.

I'm not sure which arguement people are making here...that its too serious or too unimportant.

What is important is that orcs see in the dark, they're considered orcs as far as game mechanics are concerned and they look like orcs.

That is an extremely small list of traits. And also...

If "considered orcs so far as game mechanics are concerned" is important, than what makes being an orc so all fired different? Cosmetic changes and darkvision are not enough to stand out from anyone in terms of say, an orc bane weapon, particularly darkvision.

I love how you keep banning the interesting viable concepts put forth by yourself (i.e. female pope-to-be). Also, banning Rurouni Kenshin's its own form of offense. And it seems Date Masamune's another character that shouldn't have existed, as well as, OMGWTFBBQ, the travel to Europe - I mean, everyone knew the Japanese wouldn't ever go farther than China and Korea, and only for war, right?

I really do, because PCs are still orcs, and still subject to what makes an orc an orc. Not being good at Intelligence related things, all thigns being otherwise even, is one of those (in my write up, in yours apparently not).

I love how you assume that if you're not entirely atypical, you're boring. You have to be entirely contrary to the overwhelming majority in order to be interesting. Nevermind what the majority actually is including, there's not enough room if you're not a female pope or the like.

The unlikely should happen on both sides as often as appropriate (which's likely "about all the time for protagonists and antagonists"),

That's not appropriate unless you're specifically running/writting a campaign/story about People Who are Freaks, in which case the freaks are the norm for purposes of the set up and the fact most people are Muggles has nothing to do with anything because you're at Hogwarts, 100% wizards.

A game about the X-men kind of people should have a percentage of PC mutants as close to 100% as desired. A game about adventurers should have 100% adventurers.

A game about smart orcs, clumsy elves, and paranoid kender should not be mistaken for #2.

Elennsar wrote: No, kind of not. There are plenty of "adventurers" who could be NPCs unless the setting is set up so that only Hercules and Theseus types do so (which does not appear to be the case, though it would be better if it was for your arguement).

Um.. So what? Again, you get to choose what orc adventurers exist as the DM. If you don't want NPC orc wizards, then you just don't make them, or deliberately make them inferior. Again, you can do that, because you're the DM.

And if -2 isn't a big deal, then stop protesting it existing. Either its big enough to be worth adding, or its not big enough to protest PCs being subject to it because it doesn't hurt very much.

-2 is a minor concern from a flavor standpoint. It's something you'd probably not even notice flavor wise. But from a mechanical standpoint it's a major flaw. Flavor wise how do you really even accurate determine the difference between int 16 and int 18? Why do you even care? IQ is hard to measure anyway. And seriously int 16 is still "smart." So what's your problem? You can still make a smart orc even with the penalty, it's just that your smart orc is still inferior to a human from a mechanical point of view, and thus nobody does it because they use race as a min/max tool.

Um.. So what? Again, you get to choose what orc adventurers exist as the DM. If you don't want NPC orc wizards, then you just don't make them, or deliberately make them inferior. Again, you can do that, because you're the DM.

The point was, "adventurer" is special, but not so special as to be one a generation anyway. So you're special in a sense not unlike huscarls were "special". Maybe more so, maybe less so. But not like how oh, Jeanne D'Arc (picked as something historical that really seems to be bordering on "God did it.") was special.

And seriously int 16 is still "smart." So what's your problem? You can still make a smart orc even with the penalty, it's just that your smart orc is still inferior to a human from a mechanical point of view, and thus nobody does it because they use race as a min/max tool.

Darn. And here I was thinking I was going to have something I have a problem with disappointing.

No, seriously. I can understand and appreciate "Hey. You gimped my cool idea." and look for ways to balance it out that are equally useful overall (even while certain things suffer, you get better in other areas not directly related to what your lower Int hurts).

When its "I want to be a powerful wizard, so guess being an orc is out."...then I'm not sorry in the least.

As to telling the difference, depends. If the difference is big enough to have a different modifier, it will be apparent at least some of the time. That's my theory.

Elennsar wrote:

What is important is that orcs see in the dark, they're considered orcs as far as game mechanics are concerned and they look like orcs.

That is an extremely small list of traits. And also...

If "considered orcs so far as game mechanics are concerned" is important, than what makes being an orc so all fired different? Cosmetic changes and darkvision are not enough to stand out from anyone in terms of say, an orc bane weapon, particularly darkvision.

That's one of the problems with D&D orcs: they suck. They don't have any cool, unique mechanics like an elf's detect secret doors, or a dwarf's stonecunning.

I thought one of the things we were aiming for was to give orcs racial abilities of their very own.

I love how you assume that if you're not entirely atypical, you're boring. You have to be entirely contrary to the overwhelming majority in order to be interesting. Nevermind what the majority actually is including, there's not enough room if you're not a female pope or the like.

No.
It's possible to be entirely typical and be a cool and fun character. IME, most people want to run a somewhat atypical PC.

"Orc geniuses should be possible" =/= "All PC orcs must be freaks."

The unlikely should happen on both sides as often as appropriate (which's likely "about all the time for protagonists and antagonists"),

That's not appropriate unless you're specifically running/writting a campaign/story about People Who are Freaks, in which case the freaks are the norm for purposes of the set up and the fact most people are Muggles has nothing to do with anything because you're at Hogwarts, 100% wizards.

A game about the X-men kind of people should have a percentage of PC mutants as close to 100% as desired. A game about adventurers should have 100% adventurers.

A game about smart orcs, clumsy elves, and paranoid kender should not be mistaken for #2.

Adventurers are can often be freaks. Frodo was a freak. Gimli was a freak. Most of your fantasy protagonists are strangely atypical in one manner or another.

Adventurers are, almost by definition, atypical for their kind. As atypical people with atypical mindsets, the relative proprition of freaks to normals is much higher in the adventurer population. Hell, most of them became adventurers because they were freaks.-

That's one of the problems with D&D orcs: they suck. They don't have any cool, unique mechanics like an elf's detect secret doors, or a dwarf's stonecunning.

I thought one of the things we were aiming for was to give orcs racial abilities of their very own.

Correct. And they don't get useful enough modifiers that mean that they don't need unique and cool anymore than humans (which personally ticks me off...humans as "anyman" is not doing justice to the ways our species is interesting relative to any possible alien race at all for either humans or the other race)

No.
It's possible to be entirely typical and be a cool and fun character. IME, most people want to run a somewhat atypical PC.

"Orc geniuses should be possible" =/= "All PC orcs must be freaks."

No, but if orcs are capped at Int 14 (I'd say 18 if humans are 20, however), an orc genius (16+) is a freak.

The you is primarily towards those protesting me saying that female popes are out. Those "you" are insisting that typical is boring, or appearing to.

Adventurers are can often be freaks. Frodo was a freak. Gimli was a freak. Most of your fantasy protagonists are strangely atypical in one manner or another.

The problem is that there's freakish in the sense of "freakish next to Joe Average", which can describe any Basketball Superstar relative to any of us (I know that I find the idea of someone a foot and a half taller than me to be at least somewhat strange by nature...speaking as a 6' footer, for reference. Whatever subgroup. Its that uncommon.) and then there's freakish as in three arms, one of a kind talents, and other things that are surprising exist at all.

Atypical as in huscarls and the knights of the Round and atypical as in X-men, three armed mutants, and Drizzt are two different kinds of atypical.

Where "orc genius" is says a lot about orcs, and saying that a PC should be permited to play him without it mattering is missing that.

So, here's my request for anyone who intends to seriously argue with what orc PCs should be able to adjust as part of "not normal, but still within what happens here"

What's a list of orcish traits that all orcs should have, and what disadvantages would you balance the advantages out with? (because having a +4 to Strength and no penalties is much worse than "+1 with bows" for balance).

"Social stigma" for "mechanical benefit" is a bad trade unless the danger of pissing off society is pretty high and pretty harsh.

Trades normal physical Gremlin attributes for a higher Intelligence score.
Still a gremlin by all standards.

Discuss.