Okay, so there's one thing I'm still not quite clear about....

Is "Mandalorian" a race or is it just a culture? 

Quote from TaynOfDarkwood >>

Okay, so there's one thing I'm still not quite clear about....

Is "Mandalorian" a race or is it just a culture? 

 yes

A race at first, but now a culture and group of armor wearing Awesomes.

Quote from RangerTwoBlades >>

A race at first, but now a culture and group of armor wearing Awesomes.

 Yeah, they're a culture of warriors that wear beskar armor and are super loyal to their people.

Quote from Thauraeln_The_Bold >>

Quote from RangerTwoBlades >>

A race at first, but now a culture and group of armor wearing Awesomes.

 Yeah, they're a culture of warriors that wear beskar armor and are super loyal to their people.

 and to their ideals

This is the Way.

Quote from ghoststalker1 >>

Quote from Thauraeln_The_Bold >>

Quote from RangerTwoBlades >>

A race at first, but now a culture and group of armor wearing Awesomes.

 Yeah, they're a culture of warriors that wear beskar armor and are super loyal to their people.

 and to their ideals

 Yeah, they definitely stay true to their ideals as well.

Quote from RangerTwoBlades >>

This is the Way.

 No. No it is not.

How is it not? 

Quote from RangerTwoBlades >>

How is it not? 

 Because it is not.

Fine.

Mandos are both a race and a culture, with those born from the original inhabitants of Mandalore and those who adopted the culture.

Quote from Yeenoghu9000 >>

Mandos are both a race and a culture, with those born from the original inhabitants of Mandalore and those who adopted the culture.

 Yeah, both me and possibly Ranger are Star Wars geeks.

Yes. I am DEFINITELY a Star Wars geek. Also, best character is the Clone named 99.

 Rest in piece, brave soldier.

Quote from RangerTwoBlades >>

Yes. I am DEFINITELY a Star Wars geek. Also, best character is the Clone named 99.

 Rest in piece, brave soldier.

 I say it is Kal Skrata who defined mandos actually.

I like the OPs take on Hobgoblins and would definitely support the case for having their 'canon' depiction changed to reflect this. That said here was one of my takes on a Hobgoblin society. 

In a homebrew I was in the DM really liked the Hobgoblin faction I'd come up with and decided to implement it. Basically their core creed, if you will, revolved around identifying weakness and either exploiting it (in others) or overcoming it (in oneself). Exactly how this manifests is largely left up to individual interpretation, but there were some key commonly held beliefs that were shared among the numerous clans, namely; to abhor wastefulness, weakness is inherent to all, weakness in oneself must be addressed and overcome, and pain is weakness leaving the body (they quite literally believe this one). It's a philosophy of constant self improvement they ruthlessly adhere too. So lets say there's two hobgoblins from the same clan are having an argument and one of them gets angry with the other one and looses his temper, this leads into a fight, and the initiator who'd lost his temper looses. He could and some would say should be killed, but his opponent can and does choose to spare him. Why? Well for one to kill over a mere disagreement would be wasteful and might just show they value their own sense of satisfaction over the good of the clan as a whole. That could be seen as a weakness. Instead they let their opponent live and this gives them the chance to learn and better themselves and thus the clan as a whole improves for it. If it happened again with that same individual then they'd be killed. I'm summarizing this heavily but I think I'm getting the main point across.

Quote from UlricKessler >>

I like the OPs take on Hobgoblins and would definitely support the case for having their 'canon' depiction changed to reflect this. That said here was one of my takes on a Hobgoblin society. 

In a homebrew I was in the DM really liked the Hobgoblin faction I'd come up with and decided to implement it. Basically their core creed, if you will, revolved around identifying weakness and either exploiting it (in others) or overcoming it (in oneself). Exactly how this manifests is largely left up to individual interpretation, but there were some key commonly held beliefs that were shared among the numerous clans, namely; to abhor wastefulness, weakness is inherent to all, weakness in oneself must be addressed and overcome, and pain is weakness leaving the body (they quite literally believe this one). It's a philosophy of constant self improvement they ruthlessly adhere too. So lets say there's two hobgoblins from the same clan are having an argument and one of them gets angry with the other one and looses his temper, this leads into a fight, and the initiator who'd lost his temper looses. He could and some would say should be killed, but his opponent can and does choose to spare him. Why? Well for one to kill over a mere disagreement would be wasteful and might just show they value their own sense of satisfaction over the good of the clan as a whole. That could be seen as a weakness. Instead they let their opponent live and this gives them the chance to learn and better themselves and thus the clan as a whole improves for it. If it happened again with that same individual then they'd be killed. I'm summarizing this heavily but I think I'm getting the main point across.

 I like this take on hobgoblins.

Quote from ghoststalker1 >>

Quote from UlricKessler >>

I like the OPs take on Hobgoblins and would definitely support the case for having their 'canon' depiction changed to reflect this. That said here was one of my takes on a Hobgoblin society. 

In a homebrew I was in the DM really liked the Hobgoblin faction I'd come up with and decided to implement it. Basically their core creed, if you will, revolved around identifying weakness and either exploiting it (in others) or overcoming it (in oneself). Exactly how this manifests is largely left up to individual interpretation, but there were some key commonly held beliefs that were shared among the numerous clans, namely; to abhor wastefulness, weakness is inherent to all, weakness in oneself must be addressed and overcome, and pain is weakness leaving the body (they quite literally believe this one). It's a philosophy of constant self improvement they ruthlessly adhere too. So lets say there's two hobgoblins from the same clan are having an argument and one of them gets angry with the other one and looses his temper, this leads into a fight, and the initiator who'd lost his temper looses. He could and some would say should be killed, but his opponent can and does choose to spare him. Why? Well for one to kill over a mere disagreement would be wasteful and might just show they value their own sense of satisfaction over the good of the clan as a whole. That could be seen as a weakness. Instead they let their opponent live and this gives them the chance to learn and better themselves and thus the clan as a whole improves for it. If it happened again with that same individual then they'd be killed. I'm summarizing this heavily but I think I'm getting the main point across.

 I like this take on hobgoblins.

 I do too.

Quote from RangerTwoBlades >>

Yes. I am DEFINITELY a Star Wars geek. Also, best character is the Clone named 99.

 Rest in piece, brave soldier.

 Canon or non-canon? IMO, the best canon character is Captain Rex, and the best non-canon character is Grand Admiral Thrawn, though Ben Skywalker is a close second. 

Quote from Thauraeln_The_Bold >>

Quote from RangerTwoBlades >>

Yes. I am DEFINITELY a Star Wars geek. Also, best character is the Clone named 99.

 Rest in piece, brave soldier.

 Canon or non-canon? IMO, the best canon character is Captain Rex, and the best non-canon character is Grand Admiral Thrawn, though Ben Skywalker is a close second. 

 99 is canon. He was one of the first few clones, and he had several genetic defects. He died trying to bring more supplies to Echo and Fives during the battle of Kamino. Actually, the best characters are 99 and Domino Squad.... Also, Thrawn is Canon now.