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

[steeldragons]

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?

If every Goblin can mull over its conscience and search its soul/nature to determine how it wishes to behave...If every Drow is CAPABLE of being "redeemed" from their society's "evil ways" (and the "source" of their evil is really just a cultural/religious affiliation thing) then all those adventures...

All those PCs who went through the layer after layer of dungeon, room by room, hacking and slashing their way across the battlefield/stronghold/cavern complex, to get to the treasure, rescue the prince, save the kingdom/world/multiverse... if all of those monsters have will and the capacity for rehabilitation and acting toward/for the Good, with no set nature contained in their [slimy corrupted] hearts and souls...what does that make the PCs?

If ANYthing they encounter COULD be or become Good, then PCs truly are just murder hobos...emphasis on the murder-ers.

I would submit, particularly for a game for children, that is NOT ok.

That's all there is to it. Every creature of a certain intelligence in the game COULD be Good. MIGHT not be Evil. Well, then, nothing to see here, folks. Everyone put down the dice and go home.

Those monsters and their "enslave the world demon cultist necromancer masters," they're really just misunderstood. Deep down, they're really people of conscience and "good faith." We shouldn't be too hard on them. Let them just "do them" and their potential to benefit society can blossom...ya know, after we've all been enslaved and our cities sacked and razed. But you can't hold THAT against them.

D&D 6e, "Diplomacy & Dispensation."

 

[Faolyn]

If every Goblin can mull over it's conscience and search its soul/nature to determine how it wishes to behave...If every Drow is CAPABLE of being "redeemed" from their society's "evil ways" (and the "source" of their evil is really just a cultural/religious affiliation thing) then all those adventures...

All those PCs who went through the layer after layer of dungeon, room by room, hacking and slashing their way across the battlefield/stronghold/cavern complex, to get to the treasure, rescue the prince, save the kingdom/world/multiverse... if all of those monsters have will and the capacity for rehabilitation and acting toward/for the Good, with no set nature contained in their [slimy corrupted] hearts and souls...what does that make the PCs?

If ANYthing they encounter COULD be or become Good, then PCs truly are just murder hobos...emphasis on the murder-ers.

I would submit, particularly for a game for children, that is NOT ok.

So that's when you focus on what the goblins et all are doing. Are these goblins trying to kill you? Are these goblins engaging in slavery, kidnapping, torture, or breeding vicious monsters to set loose on an unsuspecting population? Yes? Then kill them. Or, give them a chance to surrender first. The DM can always say they refuse to surrender.

But just killing goblins because they're existing while green... Dude, really.

So, options:

Don't have goblins as your bad guys. Undead, fiends, and constructs (as well as fey and celestials) make good options for monsters that can logically not have free will--and it makes a hell of a lot more sense that one of those types to be "programmed" to act in a certain way than it makes for a flesh-and-blood creature to be like that. Or use true monsters like chimeras, manticores, or even dragons, which can easily be written as being more animal than person, no matter their intelligence.

Have goblins as the bad guys, but--especially if you're playing with kids--have their villainy be able to be thwarted with cleverness or diplomacy.

Have the goblins as the bad guys, but not because they're goblins. If humans can be bandits, slavers, cultists, or just jerks, then so can goblins. And also have humans, elves, dwarfs, etc., as bandits, slavers, cultists, and jerks.

But if the only reason you have your goblins and drow and orcs as Always Evil is so you can kill them without feeling bad--then maybe you should reevaluate your game.

And honestly, nothing about this hurts setting lore.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I don't disagree with any of this.

Creatures that are the literal embodiment of EVIL are called "Fiends" you also have a few Fey that follow this like Hags. I'd also say Abominations hit that note.

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."

I find it incredibly hard to have Evil without Free Will. Sure, if you are a literally embodiment of EVIL your nature doesn't allow a choice, but once you leave that realm, being Evil involves a choice. So, if you aren't a literal embodiment and you don't have a choice, I struggle to see how you are evil.

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.

I disagree. And DnD disagrees.

Drow don't have a choice? They chose to follow Lolth, and they can choose to follow Elistraea instead. Driz'zt literally is an example of choosing to be good.

Giants follow Blue/Orange Morality according to DnD. They get interpreted as good and evil, but to the Giants they are Mot or Mog.

So, clearly, these races have free will and have choice. Thus, Evil isn't baked in. It can't be and the lore presented still make sense.

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.

I'll note that most serial killers don't want the option to not be like they are either. The ability to introspect isn't limited like that

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.

Sure, it would have been possible.

But DnD didn't do that. They try and sort of claim that they did that, but the evidence is simply not there. Once you move away from Fiends, Abominations and Evil Fey, you really are in the realm of beings having the free-will to choose their own way.

EDIT:
RE: D&D doesn't have a "canon."

Yes it does. That is why I can say Gruumsh is the God of the Orcs. Or that Demogorgon is the Prince of Demons. DnD has had a Canon for decades.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

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.

This is just dumb and inaccurate to the lore. Like, there are several instances of drow being non-evil and even good. I can pick out modules as well where an individual in the other monsters you list is good. So yes, these races do have choice!

The idea that being evil is in your DNA is one of the most racist tropes in existence.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If every Goblin can mull over its conscience and search its soul/nature to determine how it wishes to behave...If every Drow is CAPABLE of being "redeemed" from their society's "evil ways" (and the "source" of their evil is really just a cultural/religious affiliation thing) then all those adventures...

All those PCs who went through the layer after layer of dungeon, room by room, hacking and slashing their way across the battlefield/stronghold/cavern complex, to get to the treasure, rescue the prince, save the kingdom/world/multiverse... if all of those monsters have will and the capacity for rehabilitation and acting toward/for the Good, with no set nature contained in their [slimy corrupted] hearts and souls...what does that make the PCs?

If ANYthing they encounter COULD be or become Good, then PCs truly are just murder hobos...emphasis on the murder-ers.

I would submit, particularly for a game for children, that is NOT ok.

That's all there is to it. Every creature of a certain intelligence in the game COULD be Good. MIGHT not be Evil. Well, then, nothing to see here, folks. Everyone put down the dice and go home.

Those monsters and their "enslave the world demon cultist necromancer masters," they're really just misunderstood. Deep down, they're really people of conscience and "good faith." We shouldn't be too hard on them. Let them just "do them" and their potential to benefit society can blossom...ya know, after we've all been enslaved and our cities sacked and razed. But you can't hold THAT against them.

D&D 6e, "Diplomacy & Dispensation."

First of all, DnD has never been "a game for children".

Secondly, this something that literally happens in all of fiction and every major franchise In existence

Star Wars, Halo, Elder Scrolls, Lord of the Rings (the orcs during the Age of Man become more neutral in one of the notes for the setting, meaning that they were always capable of it), Call of Duty.

Literally any game where you ever fight something that isn't an animal, a robot or a demon.

Superhero Games. Legend of the Five Rings. On and On and On and On.

So, no need for the hand wringing "but if Orcs can be good, then DnD is about MURDER and we can't morally justify that. Better if they can't possibly be good. Oh, by the way, human bandits are attacking you and being manipulated by an Elven Vizier to bring conflict between the Elves and Humans." We've handled this issue just fine in fiction since the invention of fiction.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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

Nuanced, no. Fun, yes, if you find pretend nuance and moral quandaries less fun than pretend fighting.

So, if it makes the game more fun for some people, why shouldn't those people be able to do that?

 

[Faolyn]

Nuanced, no. Fun, yes, if you find pretend nuance and moral quandaries less fun than pretend fighting.

So, if it makes the game more fun for some people, why shouldn't those people be able to do that?

Well, yeah, finding innovative, non-violent solutions to problems is a lot of fun.

It's not that people can't have always-evil races, as weird as that is--it's when you say "you can't have them not be always-evil because then it's murder and oh no the game lore!" when those are things that are easily changed with just a little thought and effort on the part of the people playing the game.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Well, yeah, finding innovative, non-violent solutions to problems is a lot of fun.

For you. Not for everyone. Fun is subjective.

It's not that people can't have always-evil races, as weird as that is--it's when you say "you can't have them not be always-evil because then it's murder and oh no the game lore!" when those are things that are easily changed with just a little thought and effort on the part of the people playing the game.

I haven't seen anyone describe the game they actually run in a way that I find unacceptable. There's a ton of strawmen, but so what?

 

[steeldragons]

But just killing goblins because they're existing while green... Dude, really.

Nooo, not "really, Dude." Nobody said anything about -nor is there the slightest relevance to- their skin color. But way to miss the whole point.

You're killing goblins because "they're existing while EVIL." which -I am submitting- is a perfectly reasonable innate state of being for certain [not real] creatures in a [not real] magical fantasy world.

Some folks need to really back up and do some examination of all the "that's racist/racism" shlock they're trying to, both, infuse to the game and accusing others where it is entirely unwarranted.

I am not interested in anthropomorphizing nonexistant fantasy creatures...and then getting all worked up pretending these are some kind of real world analogue for racial strife, inject racism into my game and demand social justice debates in the fantasy game/world of make-believe. It's a game of heroic adventure in a world of magic for crying out loud.

 

[Wolf72]

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?

I guess I'm really old school, it was much easier to have a legitimate group to hate.

To much flavor + humans with green plates stapled to their heads: The point here is that humanity, imo, loses some of its uniqueness as humanoid races become more and more similar (ironically through differences) in their breadth of flavor.

You are absolutely right, in my campaign this is how it is etc. -- but that's true no matter what during an era of D&D.

I am totally cool with some races being very gray in their uses (the some bad, some good, some neutral, etc).

I, however, do like having some races that are iconic whether they be good or evil. There is no question in my mind that in Tolkien's books that orcs are utterly evil -- they aren't simply fighting over resources and tradition and what-have-you.

I know it's probably just nostalgia and perhaps a bit of short cut in a campaign, I just like it 'old-school' for many things.