D&D (2024) bring back the pig faced orcs for 6th edition, change up hobgoblins & is there a history of the design change

[BookTenTiger]

It doesn't meet either definition of racism, though.

I mean, I'm going by the dictionary.com version here:

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others."

When we refer to orcs as a "race" and then say "all orcs are ___" in order to justify killing them... that's racism in practice. It's fantasy racism, but it's still practicing racism.

I don't care if they make them more neutral and leave it to specific settings to change orcs. It's not as if there weren't good orcs living in society along side humans in the Forgotten Realms of 3e, including in positions of authority. In practice, they've already been what you are asking for.

It seems like we agree then? Wizards of the Coast should continue to take steps to remove racism from the game, as it has been doing for a while now. Yeah?

 

[Sithlord]

You're oversimplifying it and keep in mind, you have been raised in the mindset of sedentary civilisation so you're going to have problem adjusting your thought processes to a completely different lifestyle. But it's not true generally, since if they were really envious of that lifestyle they would have settled themselves and lived like that. It's not that simple.

They might not have had the capacity or knowledges to maintain such a civilization.

 

[Sithlord]

That doesn’t map to history at all, as it would rely on nomadic peoples being lazy or uncreative, which is objectively not the case.

I’m sorry but we will have to agree to disagree. But that maps to real world history quite accurately. Not that a fictional history has to be a map of real history. Their history can be an allegory for something else.

 

[Sithlord]

That doesn’t map to history at all, as it would rely on nomadic peoples being lazy or uncreative, which is objectively not the case.

Just maybe we have another race that is an allegory of the noble savage. Which was a also complete fiction.

 

[Faolyn]

I also have entire fictional made up races that have a utopian civilization without poverty as NPC’s. I guess that’s racist too.

Are you saying that they're inherently better than other races?

 

[Sithlord]

Are you saying that they're inherently better than other races?

Um... they created a fictional society without poverty and evil in their society. You do the math.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’m sorry but we will have to agree to disagree. But that maps to real world history quite accurately. Not that a fictional history has to be a map of real history. Their history can be an allegory for something else.

If you believe that nomadic people as lazy, uncreative, greedy, people who just want to steal wealth, you are objectively wrong. There is nothing to “agree to disagree” about.

 

[Faolyn]

They might not have had the capacity or knowledges to maintain such a civilization.

So you're saying that they're incapable of building houses? That they can't farm or raise animals for food? They can't produce any sort of good with which to trade? Neolithic humans could do all these things. Animals can do some of them.

 

[Faolyn]

Um... they created a fictional society without poverty and evil in their society. You do the math.

No, you come out and tell me.

Did they create this society because they are inherently better people?

 

[Sithlord]

If you believe that nomadic people as lazy, uncreative, greedy, people who just want to steal wealth, you are objectively wrong. There is nothing to “agree to disagree” about.

Where did I say all. I said this race. There may be other fictional nomadic races that are used as an allegory for the noble savage.