Faolyn
(she/her)
Agreed. And why would any creature want to live in filth? Why do they like it? Do they not run the risk of infections and sickness due to filth?
D&D 5E D&D Races: Evolution, Fantasy Stereotypes & Escapism
- Thread starter DarkMantle
- Start date
Filthy Lucre
Adventurer
Do you believe the word 'primitive' can be properly ascribed to any culture or people, ever?
Faolyn
(she/her)
Rewrite it completely.
A question: is it that you want orcs to be an Always Evil Kill On Sight monster, or just that you want there to to be an AEKOS monster in your game. If it's the latter, why not use fiends? Maybe in "an age before history," some relatively low-level fiends (which don't have to have anything to do with Blood War politics and have no connection to more powerful fiends, unless you want there to be one) got loose on the Prime and have been reproducing. It doesn't have to be through making babies the old fashioned way, if you don't want that. It could be spontaneous generation, through fission or budding, implanting larvae into victims, stealing and transforming souls, or any number of other things.
Or it could be that, in that age before history, certain places or substances became corrupted (fiendish or Far Realms touch, or something else entirely), and beings who are exposed to the place or substance become corrupted as well, transforming into AEKOS beings, and there's no known cure beyond certain very high-level magics.
But if you still want it to be orcs, why do they need to be AEKOS? They can be "bad guys" in other ways. Humans farm and ranch. Orcs hunt. Orcs don't care about or don't understand fences and damage farms and ranches in the process of hunting; maybe they even hunt human-raised animals when wild game is scarce. This leads to humans wanting revenge, either through wars, raids, bounties, or just propaganda. Orcs retaliate against that. And so on.
Switching back to your idea for a moment. Even if you, the DM, have decided that the true identity of the Unknown Evil is, in fact, unknown, other people in the world aren't going to be satisfied by that. They're going to decide that some evil god or demon in the pantheon is responsible--or some not-evil god did it, as a punishment for something humans did at the time. Or decide that it was actually wizards or elves.
Describing a people or culture as "primitive" in the real world? No, unless I suppose you are talking about pre-homo-sapien groups of humans. But what would it mean to describe a contemporary person or culture as "primitive"--that something about their minds and ways of associating with each other and organizing society are less "advanced"? That's a completely arbitrary value judgement.
Some people characterize the tools, technology, or art of contemporary people as "primitive," ie as associated with an earlier "stage" of technological evolution, but in doing so make the mistake that nineteenth and early twentieth century Euro-American social scientists made, which is to assume that human-produced technology "develops" in teleological fashion from "primitive" to "advanced" such that contemporary people can be characterized as "survivals" of a previous age. Contemporary anthropologists wholly reject this line of thinking as having no real explanatory or descriptive power.
Filthy Lucre
Adventurer
Contemporary anthropologists also embrace cultural relativism vis a vis morality.
Let’s suppose that the terms primative and savage a
useful and have “real descriptive and explanatory power” (in contrast to the ASA’s assertion about primitive).
What do those words mean to you (the general you)? What are you intending to convey? What blanks are you counting on your audience to fill in for themselves?
As an exercise, imagine a lizard folk culture that you’re inclined to describe as primitive and savage. Identify three to five specific aspects of the culture that you feel are covered by those descriptors.
Here’s one list:
1) They use but do not forge weapons. Crafting is limited to simple weapons, typically spears and clubs. They are scavengers, though, and some among them earn respect by using forged weapons taken from fallen prey.
2) They appease ancient and withered gods of foul intention with bloody sacrifices, not to gain power but to convince the old Unnamed Ones from interfering in lizard folk affairs.
3) They communicate via spoken language and have a limited array of symbols (usually etched into trees or painted on stones) but with no alphabet or complex written language.
4) Property is held communally. Useful objects are distributed based on need and and on benefit to the village as a whole. Lizard folk do not recognize the value of coins, and so far no outsiders have successfully conveyed the benefits of trade.
5) Lizard folk have no conception of an afterlife. They make use of the bodies of fallen community members — the hides, bones, and teeth — and eat the flesh.
In just a few minutes, you can have a useful, specific, descriptive summary of a culture that means a lot more to any DM than just primitive and savage.
[Excuse typos please. I’m using a phone with a primitively small screen.]
useful and have “real descriptive and explanatory power” (in contrast to the ASA’s assertion about primitive).
What do those words mean to you (the general you)? What are you intending to convey? What blanks are you counting on your audience to fill in for themselves?
As an exercise, imagine a lizard folk culture that you’re inclined to describe as primitive and savage. Identify three to five specific aspects of the culture that you feel are covered by those descriptors.
Here’s one list:
1) They use but do not forge weapons. Crafting is limited to simple weapons, typically spears and clubs. They are scavengers, though, and some among them earn respect by using forged weapons taken from fallen prey.
2) They appease ancient and withered gods of foul intention with bloody sacrifices, not to gain power but to convince the old Unnamed Ones from interfering in lizard folk affairs.
3) They communicate via spoken language and have a limited array of symbols (usually etched into trees or painted on stones) but with no alphabet or complex written language.
4) Property is held communally. Useful objects are distributed based on need and and on benefit to the village as a whole. Lizard folk do not recognize the value of coins, and so far no outsiders have successfully conveyed the benefits of trade.
5) Lizard folk have no conception of an afterlife. They make use of the bodies of fallen community members — the hides, bones, and teeth — and eat the flesh.
In just a few minutes, you can have a useful, specific, descriptive summary of a culture that means a lot more to any DM than just primitive and savage.
[Excuse typos please. I’m using a phone with a primitively small screen.]
Scribe
Legend
Ironic, as this immediately can generate an evocative image in my mind, in just a few short words.
I know, right? I chose that word carefully to do just that!Ironic, as this immediately can generate an evocative image in my mind, in just a few short words.
Scribe
Legend
Then you can understand the utility words like primitive, and savage, can provide, without the need for longer, more detailed description.
Not that there is any issue with your longer description, but sometimes, a succinct description is enough to accomplish ones goals.
If it does meet your goals. The questions I posed are real ones, not rhetorical.
What do those words mean to you (the general you)? What are you intending to convey? What blanks are you counting on your audience to fill in for themselves?
In the context of smartphones, I expected primitive to convey something a few years later old with a screen and keyboard too small for my elderly eyes and hands.
In the context of lizard folk, I’m not sure it conveys much at all.
Similar Threads
