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

[Charlaquin]

This reminds me of something someone wrote about the nature of evil. Specifically about Lord of the Rings orcs...

Essentially, the orcs of Lord of the Rings actually do understand morality. They understand that betrayal and backstabbing are bad things, and complain when they believe their enemies do it. However, when orcs do it, they see nothing wrong and encourage it.

Right, so they could reasonably be described as evil. So we must then ask, where does that evil come from? Are they born that way, or do environmental factors create a tendency towards it? Well, in the case of Tolkien’s orcs, he said they were inherently evil but not irredeemably evil - born that way, with the possibility for change. Which makes sense, given that he was Catholic and believed in original sin. But at least among secular folks, original sin is a pretty unsavory idea. I don’t think it would fly too well by modern standards, regardless of what orcs looked like (especially given the fact that, canonically, the “original sin” orcs committed seems to have been... getting tortured and mutilated by Morgoth...)

This is very different than sharks being bloodthirsty or cats killing birds for fun; predation is part of their very nature, and if they had sentience I doubt they would find it immoral if they witnessed other species doing similar behavior.

Indeed.

To close, the problem with the Lord of the Rings orcs isn't their culture (they don't really have one), or their morality (which is hypocrisy), it is that they are given Cockney accents and that Tolkien admitted he based them physically off of Mongolians.

I mean, that is a problem with Tolkien’s orcs, but so is them being an inherently evil race. Also I disagree that Tolkien’s orcs don’t have a culture. I mean, they don’t have just one culture - the orcs of Isengard have a different culture than the orcs of Mordor, have a different culture than the orcs of the misty mountains, etc., etc.

To tie to the thread title, if they looked more like pig-people and talked like pig-people, they'd be much less tied to real peoples and are much more acceptable "generic base guys." Much like how the Trollocs are depicted in Wheel of Time (which really are just pig-people/beastmen).

I disagree. Whatever they look like, the problem is that they are inherently evil, which implies evil is a product of biology. Evil beings are simply born evil, and that’s not an idea that sits well with most modern sensibilities.

 

[Charlaquin]

Technically it is easy to ignore, just like it's easy to ignore anything. I mean, it doesn't take me much effort to just ignore alignments. However, that misses the point, which is where I think you were going (I don't mean to assume). That is, even if an alignment listing is technically easy to ignore, the overwhelming number of players, especially newer ones, will not ignore it because it's presented as a rule and/or attribute of that creature as the default, and people don't tend to ignore rules unless they are explicitly told to ignore it.

Yes and no. It is easy for individual groups to ignore if they want to. But my point isn’t really about what individual groups do. I don’t really care about what individual groups do - have evil orcs, have good orcs, don’t have orcs at all, whatever floats your boat. What I care about is what’s in the rule books and what messages that sends. Not necessarily because individual groups aren’t likely to ignore the rules - again, I don’t really care what individual groups do. But because of the messages the rules express. It doesn’t matter that I can change the rules for my home game, the world’s most popular RPG is still presenting and normalizing a universe where some races are just evil by nature, and that doesn’t sit right with me.

 

[Faolyn]

ALL thought and behavior is a product of biology. They originate as processes in the brain. Change the brain and you change the thoughts. That's why chickens don't act like humans and why stroke victims often have changes in personality and cognitive ability.

Except nurture does make at least some of a difference. Because the things you experience help to shape your biology.

And how is it more troubling than your earlier example about sharks being bloodthirsty? If sharks can be bloodthirsty than why can't orcs?

Orcs, presumably, are capable of self-reflection, just like humans. As a species, at least.

Sharks don't really make a choice as to whether or not they want to be bloodthirsty (which they're not, not really; they're more just messy eaters with sharp teeth and a blood-oriented sense of smell). Orcs, however, do have that choice.

I think you may be implying a link to racism, but that argument doesn't hold because, despite Gary Gygax's abuse of English language, orcs are not a race. They are an entirely different species in EVERY setting I've ever seen that includes orcs. In fact, in the default D&D setting they don't even share a phylogenetic tree with humans; the shark in the earlier example is more closely related to us than the orcs are.

This is incorrect. For starters, orcs and humans both can (canonically) interbreed and produce fertile young, making them about as close to humans as dogs and wolves are to each other. If orcs and humans are a separate species, it's a ring species.

Secondly, since humans in D&Dland aren't imported from the real world, they would share a phylogenetic tree with orcs--unless you assume that there are separate trees for creatures created by separate gods. Which honestly, would be really kind of a cool basis for a setting, although I'd want the different trees to be far more different than just orcs vs. humans.

Anyway, speciesism isn't really any better.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I mean, that is a problem with Tolkien’s orcs, but so is them being an inherently evil race. Also I disagree that Tolkien’s orcs don’t have a culture. I mean, they don’t have just one culture - the orcs of Isengard have a different culture than the orcs of Mordor, have a different culture than the orcs of the misty mountains, etc., etc.


I disagree. Whatever they look like, the problem is that they are inherently evil, which implies evil is a product of biology. Evil beings are simply born evil, and that’s not an idea that sits well with most modern sensibilities.

Well the definition of culture is "the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group." I'm not really confident orcs as depicted in Lord of the Rings (the books) have a culture that fits that definition; they are largely bred for war and they gear most behavior to that. I think other depictions, like Goblin Town in the Hobbit films, is actually closer, but I don't really want to stray off-topic.

I disagree with the sentiment of LotR orcs being problematic because of "biology" as I don't really think orcs are made from biology at all. They are made from dark magics, twisting elves and corrupting them, in the foundries of Isengard by Saruman... whatever the way, they don't procreate by any natural form. I find this very, very different than D&D orcs which function more-or-less by normal natural reproduction like humans do.

How LotR orcs are made is much more similar to how D&D Gnolls are made than D&D orcs, and personally I find gnolls an acceptable "always evil, irredeemable," race in D&D. Even Matt Mercer agrees, and part of the whole concept of Wildemount is that all of the "evil races" are actually not that evil at all. The notable excpetion is gnolls, who don't procreate biologically and instead are born of fiendish magics.

 

[Bohandas]

The notion of evil generally implies knowing better and willfully choosing to do the wrong thing.

Under that definition of evil, evil effectively doesn't exist at all; it implies that serial killers aren't evil, that terrorists aren't evil, that supporters of most evil empires aren't evil...

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Under that definition of evil, evil effectively doesn't exist at all; it implies that serial killers aren't evil, that terrorists aren't evil, that supporters of most evil empires aren't evil...

It's actually not true that serial killers don't know murder is wrong; they do, they just don't care and don't feel bad when they do it. The same applies for many supporters of evil empires; in the case of the Nazis for example, it is telling they felt they needed to keep many of their atrocities secret from other nations (concentration camps being the most notable example).

 

[Charlaquin]

Well the definition of culture is "the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group."

That’s a definition of culture. Another is “the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization.” There are many definitions of culture, but I think it’s clear from context that I’m talking about their social norms, not the art they create.

I'm not really confident orcs as depicted in Lord of the Rings (the books) have a culture that fits that definition; they are largely bred for war and they gear most behavior to that.

So they have a warlike culture.

I think other depictions, like Goblin Town in the Hobbit films, is actually closer, but I don't really want to stray off-topic.

The goblins in The Hobbit sing in the book too, so they definitely do have some sort of musical tradition. It’s just not generally a focus of the story, since they’re the antagonists. We don’t see the Easterlings or the Southrons doing much art either, but they presumably do have artistic traditions.

I disagree with the sentiment of LotR orcs being problematic because of "biology" as I don't really think orcs are made from biology at all. They are made from dark magics, twisting elves and corrupting them, in the foundries of Isengard by Saruman... whatever the way, they don't procreate by any natural form. I find this very, very different than D&D orcs which function more-or-less by normal natural reproduction like humans do.

Yeah, “these people are born evil because someone tortured their ancestors (who were elves” is not a better look than “they’re evil because of genetics.” Either way it’s evil as an inherited trait, which is a pretty disgusting concept.

How LotR orcs are made is much more similar to how D&D Gnolls are made than D&D orcs, and personally I find gnolls an acceptable "always evil, irredeemable," race in D&D.

I don’t. Why shouldn’t a Gnoll be able to behave in a non-evil way?

Even Matt Mercer agrees, and part of the whole concept of Wildemount is that all of the "evil races" are actually not that evil at all. The notable excpetion is gnolls, who don't procreate biologically and instead are born of fiendish magics.

Forgive me if I don’t take Matt “orcs are inherently bloodthirsty because of a curse” Mercer’s opinion on what is or isn’t a problematic depiction of a race too seriously.

 

[Charlaquin]

Under that definition of evil, evil effectively doesn't exist at all; it implies that serial killers aren't evil, that terrorists aren't evil, that supporters of most evil empires aren't evil...

I mean, I’ve said many times in this conversation that I have philosophical issues with the very notion of evil. But I don’t think most would disagree with me that evil implies willfulness. If you want to propose an alternative definition I’m open to hearing it.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's actually not true that serial killers don't know murder is wrong; they do, they just don't care and don't feel bad when they do it. The same applies for many supporters of evil empires; in the case of the Nazis for example, it is telling they felt they needed to keep many of their atrocities secret from other nations (concentration camps being the most notable example).

Also this.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

That’s a definition of culture. Another is “the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization.” There are many definitions of culture, but I think it’s clear from context that I’m talking about their social norms, not the art they create.

So they have a warlike culture.

The goblins in The Hobbit sing in the book too, so they definitely do have some sort of musical tradition. It’s just not generally a focus of the story, since they’re the antagonists. We don’t see the Easterlings or the Southrons doing much art either, but they presumably do have artistic traditions.

Yeah, “these people are born evil because someone tortured their ancestors (who were elves” is not a better look than “they’re evil because of genetics.” Either way it’s evil as an inherited trait, which is a pretty disgusting concept.

I don’t. Why shouldn’t a Gnoll be able to behave in a non-evil way?

Forgive me if I don’t take Matt “orcs are inherently bloodthirsty because of a curse” Mercer’s opinion on what is or isn’t a problematic depiction of a race too seriously.

When I'm talking about culture here, I'm referring to the anthropology sense of the word, not other usages like "workplace culture." So I do find things like art and social norms important.

And no, I don't think it is an inherited trait, as I don't think orcs beget more orcs. At least, reading LotR that's not how it is depicted to me (I could be wrong on this). It's an evil creator that makes orcs, using evil magics. (I am specifically referring to LotR orcs here, D&D ones).

Well, a gnoll is created through fiendish magic. If you read their origin story in the MM;

Demonic Origin. The origin of the gnolls traces back to a time when the demon lord Yeenoghu found his way to the Material Plane and ran amok. Packs of ordinary hyenas followed in his wake, scavenging the demon lord’s kills. Those hyenas were transformed into the first gnolls, parading after Yeenoghu until he was banished back to the Abyss. The gnolls then scattered across the face of the world, a dire reminder of demonic power.

It is hard to imagine a creature born in this way to suddenly realize the different between right on wrong. Gnolls are actually more similar to fiends like demons than anything made through normal reproduction. I'll add as it isn't explicitly said above, more gnolls are made by hyenas feasting on what gnolls have killed.

Eberron runs gnolls a little differently, as they somehow cut off ties from their demon lord. But I see no reason why it is problematic that creatures born of fiendish magic are evil, as it has nothing to do with biology at all. If we say gnolls in this depiction are problematic, that would make fiends themselves problematic, and then... well, I won't go into that.