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

[Faolyn]

They're evil because they were made to be evil, they don't have a choice.

They were made to be part of a religion (Gruumsh); therefore, their religion makes them evil. It's no different than a child being indoctrinated into a religion by their parents, only in your case, the orcs' parent is actually the god.

You can't go around saying that "If a specific group that has, let's say non-caucasian looks, is evil only because of their religion and culture I see a very close tie to real world religious bigotry that is sadly far too common" but do the exact same thing in your campaign and not acknowledge the hypocrisy.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

They're evil because they were made to be evil, they don't have a choice.

Except, they weren't. Gruumsh only sent them to war after the race already existed, they weren't made warlike or evil. Also, if they have agency to choose their actions and choose to worship their deities, they aren't naturally evil because evil is a choice not a nature.

 

[Oofta]

I'm talking about groups too, just not races and with actual philosophy instead of alignment because that's just generally icksome to me and I'd like D&D to knock that crap off.

You do you, I've stated my opinion.

 

[steeldragons]

Evil, in Dungeons & Dragons (and most fantasy rpgs) is an objective, independent force. It exists. Period. There are creatures that are, literal, embodiments of Evil. There are deities who do the same. There is Magic that, again, objectively, IS Evil. It merely IS. Like Good. Like Neutrality. Everyone with their situational ethics and desires to annul Alignment as a game element, let alone mechanic, seems to have a real problem with wrapping their heads around this.

There is OBJECTIVE Evil, as a force, as an "energy" (if you prefer), a magic, and, yes, creatures (and deities which are simply bigger/immortal/more powerful "creatures"). They ARE Evil.

HUMANS "choose" to be Evil because humans CAN choose. They have free-will. Other species who one fluffs (r lore states) are "free-willed" can CHOOSE to be Evil or not. NOT any/all creatures have this freedom of will, the option of "choice."

There is zero reason to assert that, because humans can, that means all fictional fantastical creatures can or "should be allowed to." Goblinoids? Evil. Drow? Evil. Orcs? Evil. Hill, Frost and Fire Giants? Evil. The Evil is "innate," it's "baked in." For the magically challenged, it's in some added (or removed) DNA. They do NOT have the choice/option.

NOR, importantly, do they necessarily WANT the option. A devil does not WANT to become an angel. An Ettin does not WANT to "be kind" to the halfling about to be its lunch (nor will it feel any remorse about treating it as and having it for "lunch"). They do not philosophize or opine on their "nature" or the Nature of Evil (or Good). Evil IS what they are and know. It is Power. It is what exists in the complete absence of Good. It is to be obeyed, and feared, and exerted over others. Whether you tell yourself it is for "their own good" [LE], pure selfish gain/ends [NE], or because of some inherent cruelty and destructive nature that "just likes to watch things squirm and suffer" [CE], Evil exists in and of itself. It is simply not in the "spirits" (or "souls" if you give such creatures "souls") of certain beings.

It is entirely possible, and ridiculously simple, to say "Orcs are one of those innately evil species." Giving EVERYthing in a world a conscience and free-will is counter to the adversarial and heroic nature of the game...and, well, impractical to a setting's internal consistency, in addition to everything else.

 

[Oofta]

describe what the material evil is? describe pure sociological evil if that would work better?
give us a description a definition so we can at least have ground for the topic to discuss.
as at the end of the day, it is not about orcs really but can we make a pure evil species?

I think the role of monsters in D&D and fiction (fantasy fiction in particular) is a bigger topic.

It's just a general descriptor of outlook. In the case of orcs, a very warlike disposition of destroying the enemies of Gruumsh.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There is zero reason to assert that, because humans can, that means all fictional fantastical creatures can or "should be allowed to." Goblinoids? Evil. Drow? Evil. Orcs? Evil. Hill, Frost and Fire Giants? Evil. The Evil is "innate," it's "baked in." For the magically challenged, it's in some added (or removed) DNA. They do NOT have the choice/option.

Except all the canonical characters that prove this isn't the case. Not to mention the playable PC versions.

 

[Faolyn]

There is zero reason to assert that, because humans can, that means all fictional fantastical creatures can or "should be allowed to." Goblinoids? Evil. Drow? Evil. Orcs? Evil. Hill, Frost and Fire Giants? Evil. The Evil is "innate," it's "baked in." For the magically challenged, it's in some added (or removed) DNA. They do NOT have the choice/option.

It is entirely possible, and ridiculously simple, to say "Orcs are one of those innately evil species." Giving EVERYthing in a world a conscience and free-will is counter to the adversairal and heroic nature of the game...and, well, impractical to a setting's internal consistency, in addition to everything else.

Of course it's "simple" to just decide that some creatures are Always Evil. It's simpler because you don't have to think of motivations for a creature to act in an evil manner, even if the motivation is as simple as "has no reason to care about anyone outside of themselves or their immediate friends and family, therefore does things that are accidentally harmful to others."

The question is, is it better? Does it make for a more interesting, nuanced, or fun game?

Also, I don't really see how giving everything a free will--by which I mean, everything intelligent to be able to think about its choices--is "impractical to a setting's internal consistency." Could you explain what you mean?

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think the role of monsters in D&D and fiction (fantasy fiction in particular) is a bigger topic.

It's just a general descriptor of outlook. In the case of orcs, a very warlike disposition of destroying the enemies of Gruumsh.

so they are not made of evil just of a hostile religious sect?

look if you want to prove your point you going to have to do better than that as that is what those who disagree with you think.

 

[steeldragons]

Except all the canonical characters that prove this isn't the case. Not to mention the playable PC versions

D&D doesn't have a "canon."

The only thing I can presume you are referring to is Drizzt...Who is an aberration, by admission of the character's creation and his fiction. The "good drow" is "canon" if you take all things Forgotten Realms/Ed Greenwood and R.A. Salvatore as its own contained universe of irrefutable fact. Which you can/are more than welcome to. That doesn't make it "canonical" to D&D or fantasy rpgs more broadly.

 

[Mind of tempest]

D&D doesn't have a "canon."

The only thing I can presume you are referring to is Drizzt...Who is an aberration, by admission of the character's creation and his fiction. The "good drow" is "canon" if you take all things Forgotten Realms/Ed Greenwood and R.A. Salvatore as its own contained universe of irrefutable fact. Which you can/are more than welcome to. That doesn't make it "canonical" to D&D or fantasy rpgs more broadly.

it kind of does it has settings and what is in the rule books which let you play them.

look can you explain a justifiable reason for an always evil species?