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

[Urriak Uruk]

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 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.


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.

I'll have to check my Volo's Guide to Monsters, but my memory was that yes new gnolls are made exclusively by the hyenas eating flesh, that are following the gnoll pack. I know that isn't consistent with earlier editions, and that gnolls used to have even gender, but I don't believe in 5E that has remained. I definitely don't remember anything mentioned about gender in Volo's.

Anyway, my opinion is that in 5E gnolls may technically have choice, but because of their fiendish origins they are always going to pick from a narrow range of violent options. So I don't really think they're truly sapient creatures at all.

UPDATE: I have checked my copy of Volo's, and it is pretty unequivocal that gnolls are made by hyenas consuming corpses killed by other gnolls or Yeenoghu the Demon Lord. I encourage you to read it, as I find it hard to spin that this 5E canon for gnolls is anything close to redeemable, or even a creature capable of non-evil choice.

As for the humanoid label, I'll add it is by far the least well-defined category of monster (monstrosity is pretty vague too). For example, werewolves are humanoids when 5E lore is pretty clear that the curse of lycanthropy tilts people towards evil (though weirdly werebears are normally good, so it's weird). Deep Scions are humanoids, and I find it hard to imagine people who make deals with evil underwater monsters as good. Heck, Nagpas are humanoids!

Anyway, it seems to be that mechanically humanoid is meant to be something used for mechanics (spells, feats etc) and is not tied well to sapience, freedom of choice, or alignments.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

This isn’t true. Gnolls in Exandria are a race, and can be good.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Also, the Volo’s Gnoll lore is utter garbage that completely changes the nature of the race to absolutely no benefit.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This isn’t true. Gnolls in Exandria are a race, and can be good.

They absolutely can be good. A zine I'm working on now has a recurring character (similar to Volo's role) that is a gnoll explorer. Their name is Fleabag, and they are neutral (caring only about knowledge)

 

[Urriak Uruk]

This isn’t true. Gnolls in Exandria are a race, and can be good.

My mistake. I haven't caught up to the point that morally good gnolls were introduced.

Also, the Volo’s Gnoll lore is utter garbage that completely changes the nature of the race to absolutely no benefit.

You can disapprove of it as much as you'd like, and settings like Eberron (and I suppose Wildemount as well) don't use the lore Volo's does so that gnolls are more morally ambiguous. That said, the Volo's lore for gnolls I think provides a justification for how they are pretty unambiguously evil (if you want to use that lore).

Anyway, I believe on the gnoll topic we are starting to get to the point where people are just saying "Well I don't want all gnolls to be evil in my game," which is totally fine. But that topic is one I don't care much to engage in.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, the Volo’s Gnoll lore for every race is utter garbage that completely changes the nature of the race to absolutely no benefit.

FTFY.

 

[Charlaquin]

My mistake. I haven't caught up to the point that morally good gnolls were introduced.



You can disapprove of it as much as you'd like, and settings like Eberron (and I suppose Wildemount as well) don't use the lore Volo's does so that gnolls are more morally ambiguous. That said, the Volo's lore for gnolls I think provides a justification for how they are pretty unambiguously evil (if you want to use that lore).

Anyway, I believe on the gnoll topic we are starting to get to the point where people are just saying "Well I don't want all gnolls to be evil in my game," which is totally fine. But that topic is one I don't care much to engage in.

Nah dude, even with the Volo’s Guide lore, I think the notion that they’re incapable of being good to be bollocks. “They’re hyenas mutated by eating demon-tainted flesh” doesn’t explain why they wouldn’t be able to be good. Either they’re driven by instinct (in which case they should be Unaligned), or they’re capable of rational thought (in which case they should be capable of Good.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is the thing where gnolls are fast zombies with ears and flind bars?

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Nah dude, even with the Volo’s Guide lore, I think the notion that they’re incapable of being good to be bollocks. “They’re hyenas mutated by eating demon-tainted flesh” doesn’t explain why they wouldn’t be able to be good. Either they’re driven by instinct (in which case they should be Unaligned), or they’re capable of rational thought (in which case they should be capable of Good.)

I don't why you really need an explanation for why "hyenas that eat demon-tainted flesh can't be good," it seems pretty self-explanatory to me. If you don't like that fine, change it for your game. But I don't see why that concept is racist either.

Anyway I've said my piece, I think we've hit the wall here.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Yeah, it seems to me that the goal would be to remove that curse in some way (you want a high-level campaign idea; well, here it is), not to use it as an excuse to just slaughter orcs indiscriminately.