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

[Bohandas]

Yeah, no. Culture (and more importantly) how people are raised by their parents has a huge impact on folks' thoughts and behavior. If this wasn't true, psychologists and therapists would behave radically differently than they do.

What I meant was that all of that gets encoded into the brain, and processed by the brain, and the mere fact that all that can be learned is a function of the brain. Learning and thinking are biological functions.

 

[Bohandas]

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).

There's a difference between knowing that something is forbidden or frowned upon by society and knowing that it's wrong.

Plus, by your definition, the original matter is a non-issue as the intrinsically evil orcs would know right from wrong
EDIT

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

I just had another insight into this. People here seem to be arguing that the occasional non-evil orc is incompatible with the "orcs inherently evil" thing, but it could be argued, by applying your line of reasoning, that they actually legitimize it. It would show that they can technically break out of this pattern but the vast majority don't.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

There's a difference between knowing that something is forbidden or frowned upon by society and knowing that it's wrong.

Plus, by your definition, the original matter is a non-issue as the intrinsically evil orcs would know right from wrong

There is, however serial killers typically have mental illnesses that ramp up their own self-importance in such a way so that they think "Murder is wrong, but not when I do it. Because I'm great!" Having a lack of empathy isn't the same as knowing the different between evil and good. Murderers are literally put on trial, and defenses often include things like "he's insane so didn't know what he's doing." Sometimes that's true and works as a defense (people sometimes commit murder because they feel like they have no choice), other times it is not successful. It's almost never successful for serial killers. Notably, the Nuremberg Trials did not use such a defense (or if they did, it didn't work).

3 things 'You' gets right about serial killers, and 2 things it gets wrong

Serial killers do tend to use their wit and charm to manipulate others, but not all are motivated by love or sex.

www.insider.com

EDIT: Wasn't actually my point on orcs, I think you can have two types of evil; people who understand morality and just don't care when they themselves break the rules. And then those who don't understand morality at all. The latter really applies more to things like robots, elementals, constructs, and fiends as opposed to anything biological. IMO, LotR orcs are more similar to fiends or gnolls than actual biological humanoids.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Things like art and social norms certainly are important. But first of all we have canonical examples of orcs making art in The Hobbit and can presume they made more art we don’t see, and second of all, even a culture without an artistic tradition is still a culture. They still have social norms, taboos, beliefs, rituals, practices, etc. etc.

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).

No. In the Peter Jackson movies we see Uruk-Hai being spawned out of mud pits, but canonically, the Orcs “multiplied in the manner of the children of Illúvatar,” meaning they had sex and babies just like humans do. And even in the films, Gandalf says Sarumon created Uruk-Hai by “crossing orcs with goblin-men; he’s breeding an army.” In the books they’re a cross between orcs and humans, and Morgoth created the first orcs by corrupting elves through some unspecified process that probably involved torture, forced breeding, and yes, probably magic.

It’s worth noting that Tolkien was never entirely comfortable with this explanation because he rightly realized that it was pretty yikes to say a race of people is inherently evil because their ancestors were the victims of atrocity. But he didn’t come up with an alternative explanation in his lifetime. He just wasn’t able to reconcile his desire for orcs to be inherently evil with his desire for evil to be incapable of creation ex nihlo. If evil can only corrupt the creations of good, evil can’t be inherent to the nature of any created being, and try though he did, Tolkien never managed to resolve this dilemma.

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.

I don’t see why the method of their creation story matters. In a lot of real-world myths humans were originally created from mud or clay, but we accept that humans aren’t immutable. So what if gnolls were created when some hyenas ate some demon flesh, if they’re sapient beings they should be capable of understanding right and wrong, shouldn’t they? And if they’re not sapient beings, why are they humanoids instead of beasts or fiends?

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.

Yeah, if you make them fiends, fine. I don’t think they should be fiends, they’re native to the material plane and seem to exhibit humanoid thought processes, but if you really must have evil gnolls, then make them fiends. I’d say the same of orcs.

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.

Biology is a red herring here. We’re talking about a fantastical world where gods provably exist and regularly meddle in mortal affairs, magic is real, and most myths are literally true. Biology as we understand it probably isn’t even a thing. The issue is the implication that evil is an inherent trait, passed along bloodlines. That the information is not passed by genes is completely irrelevant.

If we say gnolls in this depiction are problematic, that would make fiends themselves problematic, and then... well, I won't go into that.

Gnolls aren’t fiends though. If they become fiends in 6e or in a mass errata, I’ll begrudgingly accept that they’re always evil, but unless and until that happens, it’s exactly the same problem as always-evil orcs.

As to whether or not fiends being always evil is problematic, I don’t think they are personally, but I concede that there are some pretty strong arguments one could make that they are. But, I think they’re fine because the nature of outsiders is that their natures are defined by their alignment, rather than the reverse. If a devil stops being evil, it stops being a devil.

 

[Charlaquin]

EDIT

I just had another insight into this. People here seem to be arguing that the occasional non-evil orc is incompatible with the "orcs inherently evil" thing, but it could be argued, by applying your line of reasoning, that they actually legitimize it. It would show that they can technically break out of this pattern but the vast majority don't.

Right, that’s exactly the argument I’m making. The possibility for orcs to be good would validate that evil orcs are actually evil, instead of just predatory animals or mindless things programmed to kill. But it would also mean it couldn’t be a product of their nature, it must be a product of their environment. And evil being a product of nature is the thing I’m saying is problematic.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Things like art and social norms certainly are important. But first of all we have canonical examples of orcs making art in The Hobbit and can presume they made more art we don’t see, and second of all, even a culture without an artistic tradition is still a culture. They still have social norms, taboos, beliefs, rituals, practices, etc. etc.

No. In the Peter Jackson movies we see Uruk-Hai being spawned out of mud pits, but canonically, the Orcs ‘multiplied in the manner of the children of Illúvatar, meaning they had sex and babies just like humans do. And in the films, Gandalf says Sarumon created Uruk-Hai by “crossing orcs with goblin-men; he’s breeding an army.” In the books they’re a cross between orcs and humans, and Morgoth created the first orcs by corrupting elves through some unspecified process that probably involved torture, forced breeding, and yes, probably magic.

It’s worth noting that Tolkien was never entirely comfortable with this explanation because he rightly realized that it was pretty yikes to say a race of people is inherently evil because their ancestors were the victims of atrocity. But he didn’t come up with an alternative explanation in his lifetime. He just wasn’t able to reconcile his desire for orcs to be inherently evil with his desire for evil to be incapable of creation ex nihlo. If evil can only corrupt the creations of good, evil can’t be inherent to the nature of any created being, and try though he did, Tolkien never managed to resolve this dilemma.

I think we should stop arguing about LotR orcs, as I've said a couple times now I was refferring specifically to the orcs in the books, not depictions of them later in the movies. For example, I'm pretty sure the line "Look's like meat's back on the menu boys!" isn't in that book... which doesn't make sense, as how would orcs know what a menu is... do they run restaurants?

 

[Charlaquin]

I think we should stop arguing about LotR orcs, as I've said a couple times now I was refferring specifically to the orcs in the books, not depictions of them later in the movies. For example, I'm pretty sure the line "Look's like meat's back on the menu boys!" isn't in that book... which makes sense, as how would orcs know what a menu is... do they run restaurants?

My dude, I was talking about the books. It is only in the movies that they are shown to come out of mud pits (and even then it’s referred to as “breeding.”) In the books they “multiply in the manner of the children of Illuvitar.”

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I don’t see why the method of their creation story matters. In a lot of real-world myths humans were originally created from mud or clay, but we accept that humans aren’t immutable. So what if gnolls were created when some hyenas ate some demon flesh, if they’re sapient beings they should be capable of understanding right and wrong, shouldn’t they? And if they’re not sapient beings, why are they humanoids instead of beasts or fiends?


Yeah, if you make them fiends, fine. I don’t think they should be fiends, they’re native to the material plane and seem to exhibit humanoid thought processes, but if you really must have evil gnolls, then make them fiends. I’d say the same of orcs.


Biology is a red herring here. We’re talking about a fantastical world where gods provably exist and regularly meddle in mortal affairs, magic is real, and most myths are literally true. Biology as we understand it probably isn’t even a thing. The issue is the implication that evil is an inherent trait, passed along bloodlines. That the information is not passed by genes is completely irrelevant.


Gnolls aren’t fiends though. If they become fiends in 6e or in a mass errata, I’ll begrudgingly accept that they’re always evil, but unless and until that happens, it’s exactly the same problem as always-evil orcs.

As to whether or not fiends being always evil is problematic, I don’t think they are personally, but I concede that there are some pretty strong arguments one could make that they are. But, I think they’re fine because the nature of outsiders is that their natures are defined by their alignment, rather than the reverse. If a devil stops being evil, it stops being a devil.

You're right that it is not really the original creation that matters here, it is for me the continual creation. So dwarves are originally made out of stone by Moradin, but then continually propogate through reproduction, so making them all evil is pretty problematic to me. The idea of gnolls only being able to exist if a hyena eats corrupted flesh seems very, very different to that, as it has nothing to do with biology, it's all magic.

And to be clear, I agree biology is a weird thing to bring up in D&D, but you brought it up not me by saying that having an entire race that is biologically evil is morally wrong. I'm arguing gnolls aren't biologically a race at all. They don't pass anything through bloodlines, they are made essentially individually; there is no common ancestry (unless the hyenas themselves are related I guess).

I totally agree btw that fiends really shouldn't be considered humanoid at all, and Jeremy Crawford has said that was a mistake based on how they classify monsters, and they really should be fiends. It's one of the reasons gnolls are not playable in Volo's when other races do have that. That said, just because the label says "humanoid" instead of "fiend" doesn't change any of their 5E lore, and I don't see why changing a label suddenly makes them ok to be entirely evil. Alignment is different as that is tied directly to behavior, while the "monster category" doesn't really.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

My dude, I was talking about the books. It is only in the movies that they are shown to come out of mud pits (and even then it’s referred to as “breeding.”) In the books they “multiply in the manner of the children of Illuvitar.”

I misread your comment, sorry. Then yes, I agree that if LotR orcs are breeding and have ancestry, this is problematic.

 

[Charlaquin]

You're right that it is not really the original creation that matters here, it is for me the continual creation. So dwarves are originally made out of stone by Moradin, but then continually propogate through reproduction, so making them all evil is pretty problematic to me. The idea of gnolls only being able to exist if a hyena eats corrupted flesh seems very, very different to that, as it has nothing to do with biology, it's all magic.

And to be clear, I agree biology is a weird thing to bring up in D&D, but you brought it up not me by saying that having an entire race that is biologically evil is morally wrong. I'm arguing gnolls aren't biologically a race at all. They don't pass anything through bloodlines, they are made essentially individually; there is no common ancestry (unless the hyenas themselves are related I guess).

Are all gnolls created from hyenas eating demon flesh in 5e? I thought that was just how the original gnolls were created.

Either way, it doesn’t much matter to me whether they reproduce sexually or not. The issue is that evil is a part of their nature rather than something they do, and can theoretically choose not to do.

I totally agree btw that fiends really shouldn't be considered humanoid at all, and Jeremy Crawford has said that was a mistake based on how they classify monsters, and they really should be fiends.

I disagree with his assessment. Their origin story is one of natural beings (beasts) uplifted by consuming the flesh of fiends. That’s not how fiends are created in D&D canon. Classifying them as humanoids was a correct choice, and I believe Crawford is trying to rationalize his desire for gnolls to be always evil, just as Tolkien struggled to rationalize his desire for orcs to be always evil.

It's one of the reasons gnolls are not playable in Volo's when other races do have that. That said, just because the label says "humanoid" instead of "fiend" doesn't change any of their 5E lore, and I don't see why changing a label suddenly makes them ok to be entirely evil. Alignment is different as that is tied directly to behavior, while the "monster category" doesn't really.

The label isn’t the issue. The issue is the nature of the being the label describes. Fiends’ (and all outsiders’) nature is defined by their alignment, whereas humanoids’ alignments are defined by their nature. If an evil human stops being evil they become a neutral or good human. If a devil stops being evil it becomes a different type of outsider. Gnolls function more like the former, or at least I think they should. A gnoll that becomes good shouldn’t become an angel or whatever, that would be silly.