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

[Oofta]

Mod Note:
@Oofta If you thought an argument based in Nazi-apology was going to fly, you were extremely wrong.

Don't go there again.

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

The timeline doesn't fit. Uruk-Hai where not unleashed until the War of the Ring. If Bilbo had been the in-fiction author of that part of the Red Book of Westmarch he might have used the word "hobgoblin" to describe them. But he used the word to describe large goblins he encountered 77 years earlier.

Cant argue with that. But, also, Tolkien did say it was possible that was what he was talking about, so

 

[Bacon Bits]

I just get tired of the idea that only fiends can be evil.

That's not the idea.

The idea is that the concept of free-willed, sapient creatures conflicts with the concept of moral and ethical nature being pre-determined by species you are. Further, we should not consider creatures "good" or "heroic" if they regularly make value judgements about other free-willed, sapient creatures based solely on their species because that's actually evil. Dehumanizing others through alterity is the foundation of human exploitation and abuse. Why would we want to portray moral and ethical cultures as glorifying or rewarding that behavior?

In practice, what this means is your game will change as follows:

Old version: "You stumble upon a group of orcs. Roll initiative."

New version: "You stumble upon a group of bandits. Roll initiative."

Notice that what you do with the new version is what you already do when you want your PCs to fight a group of human bandits: you tell them what role they play and not what species they are. That's all you have to do to make it clear that it's those creatures' choice to act they way they are.

It's certainly okay to portray evil cultures or evil organizations. It's fine to have individuals in those cultures or organizations be evil. It's okay for cultures or organizations to be paranoid, bigoted, or xenophobic. However, it's not correct to portray being xenophobic or bigoted as something that a good culture, good organization, or good creature does. Hatred, xenophobia, and bigotry are not Good. It's not even Neutral. It's Evil. The paranoid, bigoted xenophobes should be the evil ones!

Further, I would argue that it's poor or at least questionable worldbuilding if you make all members of a given free-willed, sapient race members of an evil culture. It doesn't make sense that all high elves are like X, all dwarves are like Y, all orcs are like A, and all drow are like B. It does make sense that there might be cults or offshoots which are evil (cult of Gruumsh or cult of Lolth) just as what happens with humans, but the idea of race-as-culture is grossly flawed on it's face. It's a crutch.

It's certainly easy to imagine a world where humans are colonizing wilderness land and creating agricultural areas to grow more food, and wilderness cultures -- elves, gnomes, and orcs -- who may have their own ways of life might come in to conflict with that kind of destruction of their habitation (for lack of a better term). Now you have two groups of people, culturally opposed and causing conflict because of that. You don't need orcs to be evil to have conflict. You don't need orcs to be evil to have open hostility.

 

[Oofta]

That's not the idea.

The idea is that the concept of free-willed, sapient creatures conflicts with the concept of moral and ethical nature being pre-determined by species you are. Further, we should not consider creatures "good" or "heroic" if they regularly make value judgements about other free-willed, sapient creatures based solely on their species because that's actually evil. Dehumanizing others through alterity is the foundation of human exploitation and abuse. Why would we want to portray moral and ethical cultures as glorifying or rewarding that behavior?

In practice, what this means is your game will change as follows:

Old version: "You stumble upon a group of orcs. Roll initiative."

New version: "You stumble upon a group of bandits. Roll initiative."

Notice that what you do with the new version is what you already do when you want your PCs to fight a group of human bandits: you tell them what role they play and not what species they are. That's all you have to do to make it clear that it's those creatures' choice to act they way they are.

It's certainly okay to portray evil cultures or evil organizations. It's fine to have individuals in those cultures or organizations be evil. It's okay for cultures or organizations to be paranoid, bigoted, or xenophobic. However, it's not correct to portray being xenophobic or bigoted as something that a good culture, good organization, or good creature does. Hatred, xenophobia, and bigotry are not Good. It's not even Neutral. It's Evil. The paranoid, bigoted xenophobes should be the evil ones!

Further, I would argue that it's poor or at least questionable worldbuilding if you make all members of a given free-willed, sapient race members of an evil culture. It doesn't make sense that all high elves are like X, all dwarves are like Y, all orcs are like A, and all drow are like B. It does make sense that there might be cults or offshoots which are evil (cult of Gruumsh or cult of Lolth) just as what happens with humans, but the idea of race-as-culture is grossly flawed on it's face. It's a crutch.

It's certainly easy to imagine a world where humans are colonizing wilderness land and creating agricultural areas to grow more food, and wilderness cultures -- elves, gnomes, and orcs -- who may have their own ways of life might come in to conflict with that kind of destruction of their habitation (for lack of a better term). Now you have two groups of people, culturally opposed and causing conflict because of that. You don't need orcs to be evil to have conflict. You don't need orcs to be evil to have open hostility.

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.

 

[BookTenTiger]

On a side note, I really like to have my goblins with no two looking alike - like the goblins from Labyrinth, which many are based on 60’s and 70’s art from a few artists whose names I cannot recall.

View attachment 135352

I fully agree with this, I think more variety is fun!

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

You could always go more folkloric with hobgoblins (a la Dragon Warriors) and have them be slightly fey creatures with magic puffballs and possibly two heads. Transfer the whole ‘soldier goblins who fight in formation well’ be a goblin trait, instead. That’ll surprise people; finding out ‘Bree-Yark’ actually means ‘Shield Wall!’.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I deal with the niche problem by merging goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, orogs et al as a diverse population called "Orschans" (who are mechanically represented by the aforementioned D&D stat blocks). They tend to have a culture that produces a number of "evil" raiders and the like, but much of it is more racism and stereotypes foisted at them from humans, elves and dwarves. (In my homebrew, "Orc" is a racial slur). Most the antagonism is because the orcs are a steppe culture and their is historical prejudice between that sort of culture and the settled, sedentary folk.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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)


For orcs.. I bascially just made them a playable race, folded them and half-orcs together and just moved on. I've got a lot of cultural detail work I'm trying to do with them, but that is the broad strokes

 

[Don Durito]

I still can't really see the point of Orcs in your average D&D setting. It's been many years since I used them. I usually just replace them in adventures with humans raiders or bandits which tends to work better.

Now in a particular kind of setting I can see Orcs working. I made some notes a while ago for a campaign set on a planet where the day night cycle had slowed down to a year per day and a year per night. In this setting I imagined civilisation all being mobile, on great mechanical steampunk vehicles moving around the planet and with the coming of the night are the Orcs, creatures of the night, antithetical to all things that live during the day.

I think you need something like that to make Orcs feel scary enough to actually work.

 

[Sithlord]

I still can't really see the point of Orcs in your average D&D setting. It's been many years since I used them. I usually just replace them in adventures with humans raiders or bandits which tends to work better.

Now in a particular kind of setting I can see Orcs working. I made some notes a while ago for a campaign set on a planet where the day night cycle had slowed down to a year per day and a year per night. In this setting I imagined civilisation all being mobile, on great mechanical steampunk vehicles moving around the planet and with the coming of the night are the Orcs, creatures of the night, antithetical to all things that live during the day.

I think you need something like that to make Orcs feel scary enough to actually work.

i kinda agree. I like orcs in adventures on the border of civilization. I see no need for orcs in a major established empire in one of their major cities. Unless I am doing something like the sacking of rome.