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

[Sithlord]

No, you come out and tell me.

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

No you tell me.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That's just not true. Nomadic people didn't stay for long periods in one spot, so the wouldn't have mining for iron, gold and other metals. For those they would need to trade or take. Along with that, they wouldn't have other things that exist in a settled area and would need those as well. It's not laziness or a lack of creativity. It's simply a different lifestyle.

 

[Faolyn]

No you tell me.

If that race had worked to better their society by meeting everyone's needs and treating everyone well, then the answer would be no, that's not racist. The fact that you refused you answer twice shows to me that you know that the actual answer is "no, they're just better than the other races" which is, in fact, very bigoted.

 

[Maxperson]

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."

There is no superiority or inferiority in the language describing orcs. The killing of orcs is also not based on a belief or doctrine about differences. In D&D, orcs as written ARE savage killers of humans. The humans killing the orcs also kill humans that kill humans.

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?

Other than it's not racism.

 

[Sithlord]

If that race had worked to better their society by meeting everyone's needs and treating everyone well, then the answer would be no, that's not racist. The fact that you refused you answer twice shows to me that you know that the actual answer is "no, they're just better than the other races" which is, in fact, very bigoted.

Yes. I am saying that the fictional race in a made up setting not resembling the real world that has eliminated poverty and is good only acts to better themselves without harming others is better than the fictional made up race that is evil and wants to take what others have earned and kill them in the process. Not that hard of a decision of which society any sane person would want to live in.

 

[Faolyn]

That's just not true. Nomadic people didn't stay for long periods in one spot, so the wouldn't have mining for iron, gold and other metals. For those they would need to trade or take. Along with that, they wouldn't have other things that exist in a settled area and would need those as well. It's not laziness or a lack of creativity. It's simply a different lifestyle.

That assumes they actually need those materials. Stone and bone make for decent enough weapons. Coupled with what you might find in a magical world--or make or shape with magic--and they might not have any particular need to either trade or steal from anyone else.

 

[Faolyn]

Yes. I am saying that the fictional race in a made up setting not resembling the real world that has eliminated poverty and is good only acts to better themselves without harming others is better than the fictional made up race that is evil and wants to take what others have earned and kill them in the process. Not that hard of a decision of which society any sane person would want to live in.

"Worked to better themselves" is not the same as "inherently better."

So yes, "inherently better" and "inherently evil" are both very racist takes.

 

[Maxperson]

That assumes they actually need those materials. Stone and bone make for decent enough weapons. Coupled with what you might find in a magical world--or make or shape with magic--and they might not have any particular need to either trade or steal from anyone else.

Stone and bone work unless the people around you are using iron or steel. Then they don't work well enough at all. I suppose they might have some sort of steel beetle with a carapace as hard as steel, but it's unlikely and up to the DM. If so, then that lack is taken care of. Otherwise, they need to trade or take.

 

[Faolyn]

Stone and bone work unless the people around you are using iron or steel. Then they don't work well enough at all. I suppose they might have some sort of steel beetle with a carapace as hard as steel, but it's unlikely and up to the DM. If so, then that lack is taken care of. Otherwise, they need to trade or take.

Again, there's magic. And possibly dragonbone.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

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

Capacity, certainly - it is hard to settle down into towns and cities without land that can support large scale agriculture but knowledge? That was never the case. Building shelters and growing crops is no beyond the intellectual capacity of any group. The reason historically the steppe regions produced so many nomadic groups is because it was unsuitable for most agriculture apart from horse-rearing and sheep herding - as contrasted to the fertile river valleys where sedentary civilisation began. Nomadic lifestyle though, cannot manufacture refined goods, especially luxuries, which is what sets up most sedentary/civilised clashes, since generally nomadic military power was superior. Agriculture requires a lot of labour to work, however, whereas the sheep herds could be left to the women, children and elderly while the men in their prime raided their sedentary neighbours.