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]

True: they have a god of strength and loyalty, a god of strategy and tactics, and a god of fertility, healing, and hearth and home. And their evil gods are seen more as boogeymen to be feared than as gods to be worshipped.

Indeed. It is interesting as well that Gruumsh as head of the pantheon is Chaotic Evil, and although the other orc gods are listed as evil (which I think is dumb, but whatever), they're not all Chaotic. Luthic is Lawful!

And Goblinoid deities are even stranger, as it is implied that goblins, hobgoblins and bugbears are not the same species, but that Maglubiyet defeated and enslaved the other goblin gods and forced the three races together.

 

[Charlaquin]

But ... "orcs are raised, who raises them, their beliefs, their superstitions, their symbology, their tools, their myths and ect ect, that some orcs are good" sounds to me exactly like the justification used for the boarding schools that had the goal of reeducating "savages".

Right, that’s weird why is the first place your mind goes to in response to orcs having diverse cultures “guess they need to be civilized”?

I really don't understand why you don't acknowledge that the idea that in order to reform someone you have to get them to reject their heritage and culture is bad.

I do think that idea is bad. I just don’t think it’s a logical extension of not all orcs being evil.

 

[Wolf72]

Wow, it's a long thread!

I prefer my orcs Tolkien/1e (maybe MERP too) ... Evil, then Evil again. Grummsh? Still Evil, perhaps with a valid complaint ... or a totally skewed point of view. Orcs, Ogres, Goblins+, Gnolls, et. al.; I like the bad guys to bad. (my first experience was the Basic set then AD&D, never thought of a good Orc until 3x then WoW.)

Counterbalancing that, I really, really like WoW Orcs. But I feel they become another version of Humans: Some good, many bad, some neutral -- they gain a lot of depth and flavor, maybe too much for me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Wow, it's a long thread!

I prefer my orcs Tolkien/1e (maybe MERP too) ... Evil, then Evil again. Grummsh? Still Evil, perhaps with a valid complaint ... or a totally skewed point of view. Orcs, Ogres, Goblins+, Gnolls, et. al.; I like the bad guys to bad. (my first experience was the Basic set then AD&D, never thought of a good Orc until 3x then WoW.)

People like what they like. Feel free to do what you like in your own games, but I think it would be best for WotC to move away from inherently evil races as a default.

Counterbalancing that, I really, really like WoW Orcs. But I feel they become another version of Humans: Some good, many bad, some neutral -- they gain a lot of depth and flavor, maybe too much for me.

The notion of “too much depth and flavor” is alien to me. I like depth and flavor, I would like my games to have more of it if possible. I’m also still not clear how “some good, many bad, some neutral” equates to “another version of humans.” Why, in so many people’s minds, can fictional races not have diverse cultures without being human?

 

[Mecheon]

The notion of “too much depth and flavor” is alien to me. I like depth and flavor, I would like my games to have more of it if possible. I’m also still not clear how “some good, many bad, some neutral” equates to “another version of humans.” Why, in so many people’s minds, can fictional races not have diverse cultures without being human?

The irony is Warcraft of all things has done a good job at making a group of varied orcs with diverse cultures.

I mean, 90% of said varied orcs were enemies to us due to the time-travel business of Warlords, but they were all there for different reasons, and we did get them allied to us in the end!... Where they removed all of the interesting cultures

(of course the RPers didn't take that well and just brought back the interesting stuff)

 

[Tonguez]

People like what they like. Feel free to do what you like in your own games, but I think it would be best for WotC to move away from inherently evil races as a default.

The notion of “too much depth and flavor” is alien to me. I like depth and flavor, I would like my games to have more of it if possible. I’m also still not clear how “some good, many bad, some neutral” equates to “another version of humans.” Why, in so many people’s minds, can fictional races not have diverse cultures without being human?

With the WoW Orcs though its not that they were diverse, its that their relationships, emotional reactions behaviours and their appearance was almost identical to humans. You could tell exactly the same story using Humans instead of Orcs - at which point, are they really Orcs or

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Well that’s unfair to Mercer. That isn’t even accurate, really. Orcs aren’t inherently bloodthirsty in Exandria. They’re aggressive and prone to violence, but I don’t think that’s the same thing as bloodthirsty, and “inherently” implies they can’t escape it, which they can.

He’s building on ideas from 4e lore regarding minotaurs and Gnolls, where the influence of the demons who marked their history is a set of impulses they have to fight against and train to control.

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

Campaign One, IIRC.

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.

Well no, I think most of us don’t want Gnolls to be as they are in Volos guide because it is a total change to what Gnolls have ever been before, that removes a wide swath of story options for Gnolls.

I also suspect you have a different definition of evil than a lot of people.

nah I think it’s a fairly standard definition.

The logical conclusion to your suggestion is reeducation boarding schools for young orcs so that they can be "civilized".

No, it isn’t.

No, see the default lore is awesome, because Gruumsh had a right to be pissed. It adds nuance to the conflict. Gruumsh isn’t just evil for the sake of being evil, he’s seeking justice for the wrong that was done to him and his people - perhaps overzealously so, but perhaps not wrongfully so. It makes orcs infinitely more compelling characters, instead of just mindless servants of irredeemable evil. It also makes the other gods less unambiguously good. Maybe Corellon is as flawed as Gruumsh. Maybe there is no right side in war.

In a game with cosmic good and evil, it does bother me a bit when the good gods aren’t really good.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well that’s unfair to Mercer. That isn’t even accurate, really. Orcs aren’t inherently bloodthirsty in Exandria. They’re aggressive and prone to violence, but I don’t think that’s the same thing as bloodthirsty, and “inherently” implies they can’t escape it, which they can.

He’s building on ideas from 4e lore regarding minotaurs and Gnolls, where the influence of the demons who marked their history is a set of impulses they have to fight against and train to control.

Yeah, I was being hyperbolic. I don’t much care for Mercer’s takes on orcs, goblins, or gnolls, but there is more nuance to it than “orcs are bloodthirsty because of a curse.”

In a game with cosmic good and evil, it does bother me a bit when the good gods aren’t really good.

I’m not a fan of “cosmic good and evil,” so this doesn’t really bother me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, I was being hyperbolic. I don’t much care for Mercer’s takes on orcs, goblins, or gnolls, but there is more nuance to it than “orcs are bloodthirsty because of a curse.”

Alright.

I’m not a fan of “cosmic good and evil,” so this doesn’t really bother me.

Okay that’s fine, but i assume you can see the issue with a world that does have cosmic good and evil, and then has good gods that aren’t really good? Like, you needn’t like that worldbuilding element to understand it, right?

 

[steeldragons]

I'm not wading through 20 pages of "pig faced orcs are from here/aren't from there/weren't/were pig-faced in 1e" or "weren't pig-faced in the modules" [which is not true]. So I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet or not...But "Orcs," as opposed to "Goblins," were larger and pig-faced because they were coming/being envisioned by the game originators from THIS work by the Brothers Hildebrandt. Note the "snouts," not just on the little pink guy (No doubt one of those peasly "Moria goblins") but on the big bruisers.

THOSE are where D&D orcs came from [and, at least at my table/settings, never left].