Lore talk:Bestiary O

OgresEdit

Hey, should Ogres have that they are friends to Malacath? — Unsigned comment by 64.35.208.8 (talk) on 4 Aug. 2009

Personally I don't think it is really that important. They are somewhat associated with Malacath, but they are not directly related to him. –Elliot ^talk 05:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OrcsEdit

Should Orcs be here?--Ashendant (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

Orcs were treated as monsters in arena and daggerfall. Jeancey (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

So this bestiary should deal with creatures that were treated as monster by the games?--Ashendant (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

Essentially, yes. Jeancey (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

Shouldn't all the Orc sections be fused into one like the Falmer entry is?--Ashendant (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

I believe that there is a discussion to that effect on the main bestiary talk page. Jeancey (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

Seems dead to me :/. Maybe after I do some more homework I should restart that discussion.--Ashendant (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

Orcs should probably be removed. —Legoless (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2013 (GMT)

I agree with that, the problem with leaving Orcs here is that it kinda force us to consider adding other races here too.--Ashendant (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2013 (GMT)

Hmm, I'm currently trying to categorize the Bestiary a bit, so if a concensus is reached I could bring it in. I personaly would agree to remove them since we're on the lore space where they are already covered by Lore:Orc. They will still be treated as monster in arena and daggerfall namespaces. (Wouldn't the reason that they're monsters in these games force us to also add thieves to the bestiary?) SarthesArai (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2013 (GMT)

(←) I agree with you on both sides. Orcs should be removed from here.--Ashendant (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2013 (GMT)

Since it seems to be universally agreed that orcs shouldn't be here I'm gonna remove them. — Unsigned comment by Ashendant (talk • contribs) at 17:52 on 13 May 2013

I disagree; if they are treated as monsters by some games, they should be represented in the Bestiary as monsters from those games. Can we please stop removing information until a consensus is reached about how to handle this section? If the community decides not to consolidate entries like you're doing, which it very well might, you're making it very difficult to restore the pages to the way they were before data started disappearing. Thanks. ⇠eshe^talk 13:43, 14 May 2013 (GMT)

This is lorespace. Whether games treat them as enemies or not is irrelevant. Daggerfall doesn't even differentiate between creatures and hostile NPCs like later games, so if we're including "Orc Sergeants" we might as well have an entry for "Barbarians". —Legoless (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2013 (GMT)

That's fine—I don't pretend to be a lore expert and it honestly doesn't make that much difference to me. I just don't like that whole sections are disappearing while there's an ongoing discussion about what to do with these pages. It doesn't seem appropriate to go making large changes until a decision comes out of that discussion; that's all I really meant. ⇠eshe^talk 16:18, 14 May 2013 (GMT)

I agree, Orcs aren't beasts, whatever their reputation might be. They don't have their place on a bestiary. Elymdor (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2014 (GMT)

Don't know why these were still here. I've removed them. —Legoless (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2014 (GMT)