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

[S'mon]

Personally I think it's evil to go out and kill other sentient creatures just because they're evil. IME most players agree too, and will frequently spare surrendered orcs etc. They also don't go out hunting orcs in the wilderness, they only fight orcs who threaten the people & places they care about.

In a recent game the PCs attacked a ruined fortress held by orc brigands. They killed most of the orcs, but they were happy to negotiate with the last orc, who handed over a prisoner & departed peacefully along with a wounded ogre.

 

[S'mon]

I did a few different things.

One of them was that I took bugbears out of the Mortal Races equation. I could never get them to fit with the Goblins in a way that felt right to me. So, instead, they are the fey foot soldiers of The Queen of Air and Darkness. Big, shaggy, monstermen who are stealth predators? It fits so many winter fey themes that I almost felt silly when I realized it.

That just left Goblins and Hobgoblins, which fit much neater. Though, now, I'm playing with Goblinoind biology being a bit different, and having Goblins "grow up" to be Hobgoblins, who then go through a potential "second puberty" to become something like Ogres. Basically, take an ogre, make them smart, and have a couple of decades of hobgoblin military training, possibly magic. I think I'm going to keep calling them ogres, and just get rid of the big stupid brutes, because these things are TERRIFYING to consider. (Also, not an original idea, I stole it)

I often (in more adult themed campaigns) make hobgoblins 'half goblins', the offspring of goblins & humans. Goblins often breed them deliberately to make some decent soldiers.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I apologize if my statement was taken that way, it is not what I meant, nor was there any attempt to imply anything along those lines. In many wars some soldiers believe in the cause, some are ignorant of all the implications of the cause, some are conscripts that were drafted with little choice.

In the Star Wars movies, Fin was just a conscript that had minimal choice on being there. Just because he wore the uniform of an evil regime does not mean that he was himself evil. That's all I was trying to say.

I never even thought to interpret your point that way. The picture I posted was a character from The Mandalorian who was an ex-stormtrooper with a redemption arc.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think it's a complex issue and one that has been discussed to death. I've explained what I do and why on other threads.

It's also quite possible my position is coloured by my experience. Although I started out playing D&D in the 1980s, I quickly moved onto Traveller, Golden Heroes, and FASA Star Trek, and have only fairly recently returned to D&D. And what do all those RPGs I played for 30ish years have in common with each other? None of them have alignment. I'm very used to delineating good guys and bad guys (or perhaps more accurately protagonists and antagonists) without using an alignment flag.

 

[S'mon]

I never even thought to interpret your point that way. The picture I posted was a character from The Mandalorian who was an ex-stormtrooper with a redemption arc.

Some people like to go by the uniform - it's ok to kill anyone in that uniform, even if they're not threatening you. After all, they're wearing that uniform, so they MUST be evil.

A hero is constantly asking themselves "am I doing the right thing?" A villain doesn't. A villain knows they are doing the right thing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Some people like to go by the uniform - it's ok to kill anyone in that uniform, even if they're not threatening you. After all, they're wearing that uniform, so they MUST be evil.

A hero is constantly asking themselves "am I doing the right thing?" A villain doesn't. A villain knows they are doing the right thing.

Killing people based only on their uniform, or because they are flagged as evil in some other way, always seems like as an immoral act to me.

In The Baldur's Gate computer game there is a LG paladin who will try to kill you if any of your party members are of evil alignment, irrespective of if they have done anything wrong or not.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I often (in more adult themed campaigns) make hobgoblins 'half goblins', the offspring of goblins & humans. Goblins often breed them deliberately to make some decent soldiers.

And it was exactly the potential problems with that which led to a friend asking me to axe half-orcs and just make them all orcs.

Plus, Goblins are amazing soldiers as is. I'm not saying this to say that Hob's aren't better or that you shouldn't go this route, but so many people underestimate how terrifying goblins are if you just play them with higher mental stats.

Max hp for a goblin is 12, an npc guard is 18. So, a difference of 6 hp. And they get darkvision, expertise in stealth, and the nimble escape feature to hide or disengage as a bonus action. Give the goblins decent armor, and you have some truly terrifying guerilla soldiers. Hobgoblins are better in straight up formation fighting, for things like sieges or holding territory, but for things like urban or wilderness warfare, goblins are scary.

 

[Sithlord]

And it was exactly the potential problems with that which led to a friend asking me to axe half-orcs and just make them all orcs.

Plus, Goblins are amazing soldiers as is. I'm not saying this to say that Hob's aren't better or that you shouldn't go this route, but so many people underestimate how terrifying goblins are if you just play them with higher mental stats.

Max hp for a goblin is 12, an npc guard is 18. So, a difference of 6 hp. And they get darkvision, expertise in stealth, and the nimble escape feature to hide or disengage as a bonus action. Give the goblins decent armor, and you have some truly terrifying guerilla soldiers. Hobgoblins are better in straight up formation fighting, for things like sieges or holding territory, but for things like urban or wilderness warfare, goblins are scary.

I actually did in my campaign that goblins were more magical. On par with elves. And there was a process where goblins took another goblin normally against his will and performed a ritual where they threw the goblin in the fire. When they came out they were hobgoblins. Bigger and stronger and no spellcasting ability. They were also incapable of attacking and harming a goblin as a process of this ritual.

 

[Bohandas]

I've always avoided using orcs at all. Even from my earliest days playing D&D (in the late '70s!!!), I felt like they belonged to Tolkien.

Same here, and the same sentiment regarding halflings as well (in fact, even more for them than for orcs)

 

[Faolyn]

I simply don't see why it's okay that effectively all fiends can be evil but creatures with other origins cannot. Have a good one.

I will say that effectively accusing me of racism (that I base evil on skin color) is insulting.

There's a difference between evil and Evil.

Fiends are generally assumed in D&Dland to be distilled out of actual, pure evil. Whether this evil is pumped out by the universe or made out of the souls of dead evil people, fiends are that evil's embodiment. They are literally made of Evil.

If you want that to be different for your personal setting, that's fine, but this is the standard D&Dism.

Humans, orcs, elves, halflings, goblins, whatever--they are not literally made out of evil. Whether you say they evolved from something else, were created or uplifted by the gods, or something else, they're still flesh-and-blood creatures. Some of them may be evil, yes, but those will be individuals, not entire species.