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

[Mecheon]

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.

Orcs have been playable in D&D longer than I have been alive. Dozens upon dozens of people have played as orcs as anything raging from "Chill warrior" to "Very angry wizard". We have so, so, SO many examples of orcs having free will that its ridiculous. Hell, even the 'Oh Gruumsh won't let them' arguments are null and void because of the existence of Many Arrows in FR, which Gruumsh was against.

Its possible to say it, but its also doesn't match up with the history of the game or make things more interesting.

OF COURSE they are. It's what Goblins DO. Why? Oh right, because Goblins are EVIL. So, yeah, they are "engaged in Evil." If they weren't why would you be encountering them at all?

Goblins do mischief, not necessarily evil. So there's plenty of reasons. Maybe you need a reagent but nowhere you can find sells it, so you've gotta go down, down to Goblin Town and deal with whatever they want to trade for it (which isn't going to be anything normal, but not anything you can't afford). Maybe the Queen of the Elves has kidnapped a human princeling against his will to serve as her concubine and you've gotta infiltrate the Royal Palace to get him back and avoid a diplomatic incident, so who better to get in than the sort-of-fey with a massive chip on their shoulder against elves to begin with?

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

The lore has, at times, said that the evil of orcs, and the other creatures you mention, is not innate or homogeneous.

The Roger Moore article Half-Orcs in Dragon #62 (June 1982) gives an environmental explanation.

Orcs are like this [evil] because of the influence of their deities… and because of their own past. Sages have uncovered much evidence showing that orcs developed in regions generally hostile to life; survival was difficult​

"Influence of their deities" in this case means religious instruction – "This attitude [short-term thinking] is reinforced in their religious ceremonies".

The Complete Book of Humanoids (1993), for 2e AD&D, provides rules to play humanoids, such as goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs, as PCs. PC humanoids can be of any alignment. The entries also suggest that alignment is not homogeneous even for NPC monsters as they merely "tend toward" the listed alignment. The entry for goblins is typical: "Goblins tend toward lawful evil. PC goblins may be of any alignment, but are usually lawful neutral."

The following selection of monster alignments is taken from the 3.5e Monster Manual (2003):

Bugbear	Usually chaotic evil
Drow	Usually neutral evil
Giant, fire	Often lawful evil
Giant, frost	Often chaotic evil
Giant, hill	Often chaotic evil
Goblin	Usually neutral evil
Hobgoblin	Usually lawful evil
Orc	Often chaotic evil

"Usually" and "often" are explained in the Alignment section of the Glossary. Note that there are even occasional exceptions for monsters who are "always" of a particular alignment such as angels and demons.

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.​

Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures’ origin. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian.​

Often: The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40–50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.​

 

[Urriak Uruk]

<shrug>'kay...?

I shouldn't bother using explaining the point because you clearly don't care, but an argument being "They're evil because they're evil! That's why! Just look at them and their evil-ness!" is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I am not interested in anthropomorphizing nonexistant fantasy creatures

Orcs, and similar creatures such as goblins and hobgoblins are already almost completely anthropomorphised. They are flesh and blood. They require food, water, and shelter. They are mortal. They can be injured and die. They feel pain. They are humanoid and of roughly human size. They have opposable thumbs, and use tools. They wear clothing. They construct buildings. They can talk, and have language. They are social. They have culture. They have religion. They live in organised societies. They have children. They give birth to helpless infants that must be cared for.

The main way in which they are unlike humans is, as you say, that they are evil.

In my view there are two reasonable directions in which to take orcs and other evil humanoids -- make them less evil or make them less human.

The latter could involve making them more like demons -- lack normal biological processes, do not bear children (perhaps they are spawned magically in vats or occur 'naturally' in places where evil acts have been committed) -- or beasts -- no societies, language, culture, tool-use, etc.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I shouldn't bother using explaining the point because you clearly don't care, but an argument being "They're evil because they're evil! That's why! Just look at them and their evil-ness!" is pretty ridiculous.

Normally, yes. You're right. If we were talking about any real world associations, you'd be correct. But this is a game after all, and we do have to admit that for a game, it is normal (and OK) to simplify things into clear black and whites, because a lot of people don't want to play a game with the complexities and nuances of real life. They want to escape real life into something less morally ambiguous. There are games I've played where the Allies are the clear good guys, and the Axis are the bad guys, for example.

As long as you're avoiding racial or cultural overtones that impart negative stereotypes to real life peoples, it's OK to have clear cut good guys and bad guys in a game. Just like it's OK to not have any bad guys and every creature is complex and nuanced. It comes down to what you prefer in a game.

I happen to think D&D should support both equally, and thus don't support defaulted alignments because that makes it harder for the latter while the former don't need to change anything. But if you have it null and leave it up to each table, then both latter and former do the same thing without either needing more work than the other.

I just want to caution calling people ridiculous for wanting a game to be without moral complications everywhere. Because it's a game. And it's escapism for a lot of folks

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Normally, yes. You're right. If we were talking about any real world associations, you'd be correct. But this is a game after all, and we do have to admit that for a game, it is normal (and OK) to simplify things into clear black and whites, because a lot of people don't want to play a game with the complexities and nuances of real life. They want to escape real life into something less morally ambiguous. There are games I've played where the Allies are the clear good guys, and the Axis are the bad guys, for example.

As long as you're avoiding racial or cultural overtones that impart negative stereotypes to real life peoples, it's OK to have clear cut good guys and bad guys in a game. Just like it's OK to not have any bad guys and every creature is complex and nuanced. It comes down to what you prefer in a game.

I happen to think D&D should support both equally, and thus don't support defaulted alignments because that makes it harder for the latter while the former don't need to change anything. But if you have it null and leave it up to each table, then both latter and former do the same thing without either needing more work than the other.

I just want to caution calling people ridiculous for wanting a game to be without moral complications everywhere. Because it's a game. And it's escapism for a lot of folks

Nothing you've written here is wrong. But you can do everything you've written, all the escapism, all the black-and-white good vs. evil, without tying being evil directly and universally to race.

 

[Oofta]

Nothing you've written here is wrong. But you can do everything you've written, all the escapism, all the black-and-white good vs. evil, without tying being evil directly and universally to race.

If you leave all the fluff text on orcs alone, they would still be evil without the alignment note. If you have multi-cultural orcs, how do you do it so that it works with multiple campaigns?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Nothing you've written here is wrong. But you can do everything you've written, all the escapism, all the black-and-white good vs. evil, without tying being evil directly and universally to race.

Don't disagree. In fact, I do agree and apply as such at my own table. On the same token, for a game at their table, all the justification they need is to say "they're evil". They don't need any further justification. I mean, we've spent the last several threads on this topic saying we don't care what they do at their own table. So if their table is "goblins are evil cuz I said so", then OK. I don't need any more info.

 

[Faolyn]

If you leave all the fluff text on orcs alone, they would still be evil without the alignment note. If you have multi-cultural orcs, how do you do it so that it works with multiple campaigns?

"Some orcs are peaceful, existing as hunters, farmers, and trappers. Others are vicious raiders, performing vile acts for evil gods and spirits. Still others are just boisterous bruisers, enjoying a good fight without any need for it to end in death. In general, orcs tend to have strong emotions and are often reactionary, taking strong umbrage to perceived or actual slights which sometimes has lead to battle when they couldn't be pacified."

 

[Chaosmancer]

OF COURSE they are. It's what Goblins DO. Why? Oh right, because Goblins are EVIL. So, yeah, they are "engaged in Evil." If they weren't why would you be encountering them at all?

I'm really pretty done here. Let's just agree to be thankful neither of us have to play at the others' table.

Enjoy your "D&D is a place for enacting real world social justice, unlimited possibilities for all, everything can be anything, thus mean nothing, and resolve amicably. Who amongst us can say what Evil really is?" Good times.

I know you seem to find this entire conversation amusing, but there is something I just cannot work my head around.

We have no problem, zero issues, not even an eyeblink about humans who are murdering, enslaving, and hurting other people. This isn't even contreversial, it happens in every game. We also have humans who are not murdering, enslaving, and hurting others. Again, this isn't an issue.

We have entities of pure evil, whose very existence is evil. They are incapable of not murdering, enslaving or hurting others. We have names for these entities. Demons, Devils, Abominations, Hags. These creatures from other worlds are made of evil. There is no issue with this.


Goblins and Orcs are not Fiends. They are not evil Fey. They are not Abominations. They could be, if that is the story you want to tell, you could totally do so, but DnD chose not to make them so. In the case that they are not those things, that they are not evil incarnated into flesh... why is it so hard to imagine having orcs or goblins that are not murdering, enslaving or hurting others? We have giants like that, we have drow like that, we have chromatic dragons like that. Why not orcs and Goblins? Why are orcs and Goblins MORE evil than Drow or Chromatic dragons? Why is this a step to far and so impossible to do?

You laughed at my last post, but I'm serious. You seem to have this vision of DnD that none of these characters who are good from an evil race exist, but they do. So, why is what we are asking so impossible as to destroy the game as we know it?