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

[Mirtek]

Certainly it is from WotC’s perspective.

And that's apparent in how WotC is acting.

Orcs have become more and more de-villianized from 2e onward. Only for the Sundering leading up to 5e to reverse all of this.

Razing the Kingdom of Many-Arrows to the ground and having Cattie Brie re-incarnate with what's basically a divine verdict from Mielliki (of all deities) stating that all orcs and goblionoids are evil and should be put to the sword, including babies (yes that was actually mentioned in one of the Drizzt novels).

Then they published Volo's and make them even more into relgious fanatics. Yes, all those orc deities existed before, but that's all they did. They were introduced in Monster Mythology, received a few sentences in passing here and there, but otherwise never were really prominent.

Until WotC chose to pull them to the front. "Orcs: The Godsworn" that's certainly a new direction as before they never really mentioned anyone but Gruumsh and even him not that feverishly.

Obviously WotC thought the "tamed orcs" were disliked by people and turning them back into "kill on sight beasts" would sell better.

Then they noticed that they may have misscalculated and now just do the exact opposite.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And that's apparent in how WotC is acting.

Orcs have become more and more de-villianized from 2e onward. Only for the Sundering leading up to 5e to reverse all of this.

Razing the Kingdom of Many-Arrows to the ground and having Cattie Brie re-incarnate with what's basically a divine verdict from Mielliki (of all deities) stating that all orcs and goblionoids are evil and should be put to the sword, including babies (yes that was actually mentioned in one of the Drizzt novels).

Then they published Volo's and make them even more into relgious fanatics. Yes, all those orc deities existed before, but that's all they did. They were introduced in Monster Mythology, received a few sentences in passing here and there, but otherwise never were really prominent.

Until WotC chose to pull them to the front. "Orcs: The Godsworn" that's certainly a new direction as they never really mentioned anyobe but Gruumsh and even him not that feverishly before.

Obviously WotC though the "tamed orcs" were disliked by people and turning them back into "kill on sight beasts" would sell better.

Then they noticed that they may have misscalculated and now just do the exact opposite.

It goes back even further than that.

Many have noticed that the language going between the 4e MMs, which did a lot of world and culture building and was generally careful about using problematic terms when talking about the 'monster' races (see especially: Gnolls) and the 4e Monster Vault became a lot more... colorful. Like the authors' voice in the Vault has the same palpable sneering hatred for non demi-humans that Volos has without the conceit of being written in-universe.

 

[Minigiant]

You might want to go back and read your AD&D lore again. Orcs had societies, villages, were capable of being craftsmen, etc.

Doesn't make them humaniod people if players, author's, and DMs force them all to be mind controlled to evil.

 

[Azzy]

Doesn't make them humaniod people if players, author's, and DMs force them all to be mind controlled to evil.

Huh? The authors certainly didn't, nor did any of the players or DMs that I've known.

 

[Faolyn]

I just have the night elves be drow

I prefer to go full fey. I rather like the sith and shee, although I combined them into a single species since the idea of one arak fey per alignment was just silly.

 

[Wolf72]

In closing, YES to evil pig-faced orcs!

That is all.

Agreed.

Drow as good is a mostly FR thing. OR once in a great while thing if you are using the 1e Unearthed Arcana and you have your Longsword two-weapon wielding Ranger a short few years before Crystal Shard hit the shelves. (Mine made it to 8th level, had a permanent limp and lost 2 points of con due to being resurrected twice ... I got my a** handed to me a few times ... stupid black dragon!)

Well, on second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place. -- Not sure how that fits, but it's what I was feeling over the last few threads.

 

[Wolf72]

I don't think you really understood my play there; I was saying that the Scarlet Brotherhood (who are Suel) would say much of the same things SD said about goblins, but they would say it about Baklunish (a different group of humans). So I was attempting to point out that the words SD was using were extremely similar to race supremacists.

Oh, I got that. As SD pointed out before (someone correct me if I'm under/overstating something) it's a fantasy setting that originally did not have as much social realism as many are introducing now. Many of us are happy that way, woot. Many want to change it, woot. But don't claim that it was something that it was not.

I don't think it fits. I feel like you'll be telling me that the orcs in LoTR really weren't that bad and it was the Elves who were evil ones. Switch a few words and you can easily go down that rabbit hole.

Or that's how the Scarlet Brotherhood would justify their actions. It's not like there is a history of goblins turning out the way they did from centuries of persecution and mistrust. I mean, they could have been if that's the way you want them. But that is not how they were originally introduced. They really were evil and meant to be the targets of the heroes.

For a lighter hearted version: Read the real story of the 3 little pigs ... The Wolf was framed, it was all the pigs fault (one of the more fun kids books).

 

[Oofta]

I think the ideal default is the one that sells better.

I also think that "villain humanoid species" is a tenet of older gamers (dare I mix threads and call it a grognard-notion?). These are folks who are aging out of the market. The winner in this will ultimately be what the next generation of gamers is apt to like better.

Funny. Saying that you believe it's okay for orcs to be evil in some campaign settings that shouldn't be an issue and it's verboten. Have an age bias and it's not a big deal.

I currently game with several 20 somethings. We've discussed it, none of them have an issue with all orcs they will ever encounter in our campaigns being evil. They accept that it's just a game, and it's a game that uses monsters. So saying it's "only" old timers that want evil orcs is simply not true. It's not like everyone of any group will agree on any topic in the first place.

Obviously a survey a half dozen millennials gen Xers isn't comprehensive. Depending on how you word the survey, you may even get different results. Just relaying that it's not "just" older gamers.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

I think the ideal default is the one that sells better.

I also think that "villain humanoid species" is a tenet of older gamers (dare I mix threads and call it a grognard-notion?). These are folks who are aging out of the market. The winner in this will ultimately be what the next generation of gamers is apt to like better.

Ehh maybe but I was introducing lawful and chaotic good orcs into my games in 1981 and yes that means I am godawfully oldish now (50). My point is that this concept does not strike me as new. Just rediscovered.

In general, I think there's a lot of story potential around "evil race forged by demons/evil gods/old ones/mean wizards" turn out to be inherently no more evil than anyone else, but rather have been manipulated by the Big Bad to be such is a fun direction to explore in gaming.

That said....I have a campaign setting where orcs are seething spawn of chaos with few redeemable qualities (and they all look like AD&D 1E pig faced orcs), another campaign where orcs are noble and independent people who have a bad rap because they are believed to have been born from the blood of a chaos god (these orcs look like WoW orcs), another campaign where they are cunning warlords descended from elves who seek to dominate the world (these orcs match the Tolkien look seen in the movies), and still another campaign where they are actually closely related to humans and descend from neanderthal stock, and are generally only regarded as bad because they backed the wrong king in a war a century ago.

I do the same thing with Drow, and even have a campaign where there are now drow at all, and elves are just as multiethnic as humans depending on location and climate and the evil elves are actually high elves who were enslaved by goblins and whose descendants turned the tides on their slavers around, becoming the masters of goblinoid society in turn....but they are not dark elves. In another campaign however the dark elves are actually shadowspawn created by Old Ones as a mockery of fair elves. And in another campaign the dark elves are actually the dock-alfar of the Feywild, dedicated to the unseelie court.

This is the deal with D&D: no matter what the default campaign or Forgotten Realms say, you can (and should) make it your own.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Oh, I got that. As SD pointed out before (someone correct me if I'm under/overstating something) it's a fantasy setting that originally did not have as much social realism as many are introducing now. Many of us are happy that way, woot. Many want to change it, woot. But don't claim that it was something that it was not.

I don't think it fits. I feel like you'll be telling me that the orcs in LoTR really weren't that bad and it was the Elves who were evil ones. Switch a few words and you can easily go down that rabbit hole.

Or that's how the Scarlet Brotherhood would justify their actions. It's not like there is a history of goblins turning out the way they did from centuries of persecution and mistrust. I mean, they could have been if that's the way you want them. But that is not how they were originally introduced. They really were evil and meant to be the targets of the heroes.

For a lighter hearted version: Read the real story of the 3 little pigs ... The Wolf was framed, it was all the pigs fault (one of the more fun kids books).

I mean, you seem to miss the point. I won't deny that Greyhawk or Lord of the Rings were made with races of goblinoids or orcs that are meant to be evil through-and-through. They were made that way.

What I am saying, is that this as a concept reinforces some of the beliefs that real-world supremacists believe. They believe that some races are superior (genetically, culturally, whatever excuse they invent) than others. They'll even cite classic fantasy, and point out things like how Tolkien was partly inspired by Mongolians when devising the look of orcs.

So no, I don't think orcs as presented in either Greyhawk or LotR are meant to be "not that bad" or something. But I do think that this trope is overused in classic fiction and one that real-world racists love to see circulated.

That doesn't mean I don't think you can create an enemy that is meant to be "kill-on-sight." Warhammer orks (a fungus) or Tyranids (a hive-mind) or even 5E gnolls (a fiendish curse) are good examples. But a race that has tribes, gender, raises children? This is something that shouldn't be continued.