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

[Charlaquin]

He's technically, maybe correct here... hobgoblin is mentioned only once in the Hobbit, as a larger form of orc, and there is some assumption they are similar to Uruk-Hai. It is a throw-away line though, and nothing is actually confirmed one way or another.

Hobgoblins

Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places [in The Hobbit] but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds)J.R.R. Tolkien, Preface to The Hobbit Hobgoblins were stronger, larger, and more menacing than other Orcs. They are mentioned only once, by Gandalf, in...

lotr.fandom.com

Yeah, I realized I was oversimplifying and edited my post. Canonically, the use of Hobgoblin probably refers to Uruk-Hai. But it’s hard to say for sure.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think the issue with any generically evil creature (let's call them Blargs) is that at some point someone is going to start identifying with them because Blargs are outcasts from normal society that are feared and some people feel like they don't fit in. Then they want to play a Blarg so we come up with stats. The next thing you know, it's a bad thing that Blargs are a representation of people that are prejudiced against. Since we can no longer have generically evil Blargs we come up with something completely different called Blurgs. The cycle continues.

So I don't think we can change this. For some people having a generic bad guy monster that someone can identify with will be considered wrong. Other people just want something for generic bad guys.

For me? It's just a game and I think people read too much into this. I just finished playing Half-Life Alyx after getting a new VR headset (awesome game by the way) and I have no qualms about mowing down the enemy in this or any other video game I've ever played. Is that over-simplified, not realistic? Absolutely. It's a game.

In any case, I'm assuming this thread will be shut down soon, but I don't think changing the imagery of orcs or introducing Blargs (humanoid or not) will change anything. I'll just continue using orcs in the role that makes sense for my world.

Hence the popularity of zombies and nazis as video game bad guys.

 

[S'mon]

I have traditional 1e style pig-faced orcs in my 5e FR campaign as a weaker but better organised breed alongside the stronger, more barbaric 3e-5e 'mountain orcs'.

Pig Orc Guard
CR 1/4 (50 XP) PB +2
AC 14/16 (ringmail or scale, shield) HP 13 (2d8+4)
ST +2 DE +0 CO +2 IN -1 WI +0 CH -1
Battle Axe or Longsword ATT: +4 Damage: 1d8+2
Lance (long spear) (2h) ATT+4 Damage 1d12+2, reach 10', disadvantage within 5'
Javelin (4) ATT +4 Damage 1d6+2 range 30'/120'
Aggressive: As a Bonus Action, the orc can move up to its speed toward a Hostile creature that it can see.

 

[jmartkdr2]

When I worldbuild, I usually make orcs pig-people, for two reasons:

1. There's already too many Blargs, so I want the ones I include to have a distinct hat.
2. I always include a generic "animal-folk" origin, as that covers a lot of bases, and making orcs a common variant of that gives me a good general-use bad guy, a good intro to that concept, and gives orcs a 'hat' in them being pig-like. 1 orc horde = 30-50 feral hogs, arriving in about five minutes.
3. IMO: Planet of the Hats isn't a bad trope unless you stop at the hat and don't think about what's underneath. But a clear hat makes the new cultures easy to name and identify, which makes the world less confusing.

But that's just me, and I never get annoyed by other interpretations.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I like pig faced orcs just because of my nostalgia for DiTerlizzi's AD&D monster manual. I used to study that thing endlessly as a kid!

I don't currently use orcs or hobgoblins in my game because I filled in the peoples of the world based on the player races my players picked. So almost all the bad guys have been humans, tieflings, tortles, and gnomes. Particularly gnomes, those little guys are nasty enemies.

 

[RealAlHazred]

I've never really thought about it but now that the question is asked, I've never really used orcs in my home games subconsciously for the same reason given by @ART! -- they seemed like they belong to Tolkien. I used them in my Middle Earth games, and I'd have no trouble using them in a video game-based setting (because of WoW, probably), but in my own games I usually use "Beastmen" or goblins (definitely inspired by fairy tales) or whatever.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is a crime that pig orcs aren't called 'porcs'.

Also that a group of them isn't called a 'Gannon'.

 

[Stormonu]

It is a crime that pig orcs aren't called 'porcs'.

Also that a group of them isn't called a 'Gannon'.

According to the Stoakes-Whibley article on my wall, a group of orcs is officially known as a rage.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Personally, I lean towards one-eyed orcs, based on a picture I saw once (can't think where).

I feel like that's a euphemism.

 

[Tonguez]

Personally I’d drop Hobgobolins entirely. Just being bigger stronger goblins is naff and while I do like the concept, I don’t want to explain how a stronger, tougher, intelligent race with an organised expansionist militant society hasnt already conquered the neighbouring nations.

I do like more pig nosed Orcs and Star Wars Gamorreans have been the standard image in my head.

But really if I was going for a complete redesign based on the Great Sea Orc, I’d do something like Bathos the Walrus Pirate