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

[Chaosmancer]

Do what makes sense for your campaign.

Does repeating this for the thousandth time help?

Nope, WoTC isn't running games at individual tables. Their lore writing can't be considered in doing what is right for my table. It has to reach beyond that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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?

FR did it for a while, what with the Wall of the Faithless and no gods rebelling against Ao.

 

[steeldragons]

Orcs are evil.

They were created by an elder deity in the ancient ages. It was a deity of the beasts who created many of the "bestial" species in existence today, and more that have been long forgotten. The elder god fell to the depredations of Evil and went mad, infusing a great deal of madness, anger, cruelty, and other violent passions into his later creations, which would become his army with which to drown the world in blood.

When the elder gods were overthrown, most of them and their demonic progeny destroyed or banished from the world of mortals, the armies of wild beastmen were also, largely, defeated and destroyed. Those that survived were scattered through the lands to claw together an existence in their violence and bloodlust, plagued by a thirst for dominance over and suffering of others, that will never be purged from the tainted shriveled spirit at the core of their creation.

The most widespread of these species of evil still to be found in a variety of lands, lurking in the dark places of the world, are the Orc. From roving bands of murderous marauders to cudgelled together tribal groups held together by powerful leaders or cruel masters, some orc tribes can form quite large communities. Thankfully, this only tends to happen far removed from the realms of goodly peoples. But all civilized nations keep furtive watch for any incursion of Orcish raiders or soldiers in the service of some iron-fisted warlord or other servant of Evil.

NOTE: NOT MY ART, but love this rendition and pretty spot on for my conception of what an Orc would look like and be equipped. My setting's are more medium olive to dark green, with black (like full inky black) and "blue" (more of a slate or dull grey) sub-varieties.

 

[Oofta]

This is where you go astray from what other people are actually saying.

It’s not “raised by non-Orcs”, it’s “raised by orcs that aren’t evil”. That’s it.

Well, that and you’re still treating it like a change that occurs in-world, as if orcs will go from evil to non evil from one generation to the next within the canon lore. That is not what is being proposed.

I'm also certain that the people that wrote about half-orcs living in "Tribes and Slums" didn't mean anything by it either. I agree that multiple generations could be different under your interpretation (I meant to add that and did not). However, I think saying a group is evil because of their cultural and religious practices are evil is not any better than making them supernaturally created and influenced to be evil. There are talking heads on TV right now who will tell you that people are evil because of where they come from, what religion they follow, what cultural practices they adhere to.

Listen. If you want your orcs to be malleable on alignment and personality as humans that's fine. It's perfectly 100% okay. I don't know how many times I can repeat that. I'm just stating preference and the way they have pretty much been depicted in every MM to date. My preference is that they stand out and have a clearly defined role. If orcs can have that flexibility then I personally do not see why every creature with human levels of intelligence would not all have that flexibility. However, I want creatures that have always been and will always be monsters whether they have 2 legs, 2 arms and a head roughly in the form of a human or they a floating ball with eye stalks.

I think switching from species/race to culture/religion just changes the goalpost from racism to religious and cultural bigotry. There is no perfect answer which is why I prefer orcs that look and act less human, not more.

 

[Oofta]

So we keep going round and round on this. I state, this is what I do and why I think it's better. Other's respond saying "well why can't we". I respond that you can. Then it's "but we aren't talking about your game".

I'm just giving my preference and I think the way orcs are currently depicted is fine. Off the top of my head the direction for 6E would be:

1. Keep the same basic lore
2. Expand out the side-bar in the MM a bit and talk about alternatives
3. Have a section in the DMG that talks about making orcs, and making all entries in the MM your own with suggestions including an emphasis on alignment being just the default option for monsters used as adversaries.
4. While you're at it fix some of the problematic wording in the PHB and either bring back ability score penalties for all non-human races or never apply them to any playable race.
5. Make the flexible ability score/proficiency stuff an option (but I'd keep the current default).

I don't know how you can talk about what the game should be without talking about what the game is and how I personally use the tools we're given to construct an engaging and relatable fantasy world. Beyond that, it's apparently pointless to discuss why and how I came to my conclusions.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

FR did it for a while, what with the Wall of the Faithless and no gods rebelling against Ao.

Yeah FR is kind of a cosmological mess, in general.

I'm also certain that the people that wrote about half-orcs living in "Tribes and Slums" didn't mean anything by it either. I agree that multiple generations could be different under your interpretation (I meant to add that and did not). However, I think saying a group is evil because of their cultural and religious practices are evil is not any better than making them supernaturally created and influenced to be evil. There are talking heads on TV right now who will tell you that people are evil because of where they come from, what religion they follow, what cultural practices they adhere to.

Listen. If you want your orcs to be malleable on alignment and personality as humans that's fine. It's perfectly 100% okay. I don't know how many times I can repeat that. I'm just stating preference and the way they have pretty much been depicted in every MM to date.

That's fine.

My preference is that they stand out and have a clearly defined role.

So do I. Them having free will doesn't challenge that.

If orcs can have that flexibility then I personally do not see why every creature with human levels of intelligence would not all have that flexibility.

I don't personally get how you could not see the difference between fiends and humanoids, but it is what it is.

In my own system, demons (the common term for the kind of creature that dnd calls fiends) have a sort of free will, because they have chosen to be what they are in order to not serve a higher power that they were made to serve, or have become demons via attaining power by way of "evil" acts and trafficking with existing demons. There are demons, though extremely rare, who value mortal lives and want to help, or who wish to make amends for their evil and become something else, but they become, as they do that work, something separate from other demons, and eventually might become a wholly different kind of creature, up to and including returning to a past form, or reincarnating in a mortal frame.

But in DnD, a Devil can no more stop being Lawful Evil without becoming something else than a Djinn can become a being of water without becoming a Marid. Grazzt isn't a devil anymore, but Zariel is, because both of them are external beings made of the cosmic ideals of alignment, and changing their morality and priorities and methodologies changes the type of creature they are.

I hope that at least helps you understand what other people are talking about with fiends being fundementally different from humanoids.

However, I want creatures that have always been and will always be monsters whether they have 2 legs, 2 arms and a head roughly in the form of a human or they a floating ball with eye stalks.

Cool. Pretty much everyone else does, too. They just don't want orcs and gnolls and bugbears and drow to be that, because they have been playable for ages, and they are depicted as people in too much media for it to not be squick for a lot of people to then see them depicted as "always evil monstrous savages".

I think switching from species/race to culture/religion just changes the goalpost from racism to religious and cultural bigotry.

How? How is having good and evil cultures for one more race among many races that have good and evil cultures somehow indicative of religious and cultural bigotry? Does having an evil human empire equal cultural bigotry?

There is no perfect answer which is why I prefer orcs that look and act less human, not more.

I really wish I could figure out what the underlying disconnect is here. Why/how does "not always evil" = "basically evil"?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't know how you can talk about what the game should be without talking about what the game is and how I personally use the tools we're given to construct an engaging and relatable fantasy world. Beyond that, it's apparently pointless to discuss why and how I came to my conclusions.

I want to narrow in on this, because this is the point I feel like that keeps tripping the conversation up.

You can't talk about changing what is, and not be able to talk about anything outside of what is. If someone is talking about redesigning silverware, and you say "there are forks, spoons and knives, and that is all there is, so I don't know how you can design beyond that" then you are shutting down the conversation.

Yes, we are talking about changing the default lore of Orcs in Dungeons and Dragons. Making something new. Maybe with a lot of the old pieces, there is good stuff there to work with, but the very process of changing something means that we have to look beyond what currently exists.

It doesn't matter that you can make an engaging and relatable fantasy world with the things that exist, sure, that's great, but you can make an engaging and relatable fantasy world with the new material too. Or you can do something else entirely. The point is what should WoTC put in the books. And, despite the decades and decades of DnD, despite the fact that there are DnD worlds without violent murderous orcs as the default, that default is what people see. That is all that is in the MM, that is all that is in the PHB, and that is all that is in Volo's Guide. Which, while the old guard might see Volo's guide as setting specific, the newer players who don't know that Volo only lives in the Forgotten Realms, don't see it that way. They see Volo's and Mordekainen's as general books, not setting specific.

So, I don't think can just expand the sidebar saying alignment is optional and put non-violent orc options in the DMG. Not if we are going to have Half-Orcs in the PHB. We need to go beyond what currently exists if we want to change what currently exists, and there are more than a few of us that want that for the game.

 

[Oofta]

How? How is having good and evil cultures for one more race among many races that have good and evil cultures somehow indicative of religious and cultural bigotry? Does having an evil human empire equal cultural bigotry?

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. It's not like a group of hobbits (who are typically depicted as northern European) is suddenly going to start worshipping Gruumsh and turn evil.

Besides, I want some variety other than the evil cult of the week. Can't really get away from it, but at least orcs are a slightly different spin.

I really wish I could figure out what the underlying disconnect is here. Why/how does "not always evil" = "basically evil"?

Monsters serve a purpose in the game. If orcs have the same flexibility as humans, I have no reason to use them since the half dozen or so "standard" races is already too many for my tastes.

I think if every monster in the book can be any alignment there are lore issues as well as monsters no longer fitting various niches. I think it's easier to add happy-go-lucky tree hugging orcs into your campaign if that's what you want than to take them out. I have a group of happy-go-lucky tree hugging goblins (well, actually they'd probably try to figure out how to use the tree sap to make explosives, but still) in my campaign because it makes sense with my lore.

While it should be emphasized more, the entries in the MM just depict orcs that you are likely to encounter as adversaries. Since I have no use in my campaign (queue the "we're not just talking about your campaign complaint) for non-evil orcs they don't exist. The variations on orcs that are not adversarial should, IMHO, be left to individual campaigns.

 

[Oofta]

I want to narrow in on this, because this is the point I feel like that keeps tripping the conversation up.

You can't talk about changing what is, and not be able to talk about anything outside of what is. If someone is talking about redesigning silverware, and you say "there are forks, spoons and knives, and that is all there is, so I don't know how you can design beyond that" then you are shutting down the conversation.

Yes, we are talking about changing the default lore of Orcs in Dungeons and Dragons. Making something new. Maybe with a lot of the old pieces, there is good stuff there to work with, but the very process of changing something means that we have to look beyond what currently exists.

It doesn't matter that you can make an engaging and relatable fantasy world with the things that exist, sure, that's great, but you can make an engaging and relatable fantasy world with the new material too. Or you can do something else entirely. The point is what should WoTC put in the books. And, despite the decades and decades of DnD, despite the fact that there are DnD worlds without violent murderous orcs as the default, that default is what people see. That is all that is in the MM, that is all that is in the PHB, and that is all that is in Volo's Guide. Which, while the old guard might see Volo's guide as setting specific, the newer players who don't know that Volo only lives in the Forgotten Realms, don't see it that way. They see Volo's and Mordekainen's as general books, not setting specific.

So, I don't think can just expand the sidebar saying alignment is optional and put non-violent orc options in the DMG. Not if we are going to have Half-Orcs in the PHB. We need to go beyond what currently exists if we want to change what currently exists, and there are more than a few of us that want that for the game.

Sounds like the ship of Theseus to me, I like orcs as they are even if I think some wording should change. You don't. What else is there to discuss?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Besides, I want some variety other than the evil cult of the week. Can't really get away from it, but at least orcs are a slightly different spin.

We have a lot of terrible jackholes in real life and few are cultists.

And the entire spectrum of religious bad guys is artificially narrowed due to alignment (specifically gods being aligned) where you can't have clerics who are... wrong. Like a fanatic Pelorite that wants to sunlaser all non-Peolrites for not being Perlorites, Or a group of Melora worshippers who go full-on animal wrongs group.

There's a lot you can do that isn't 'they are evil because of how they are born or because the writer is too lazy and they are a monoculture'.