What is it that makes goblinoids different from non-goblinoids?

[Guang]

So many different ways of looking at what makes a particular creature a goblinoid and a particular other creature not - and the our collective answer is.....because the gods, or magic, or common decent, or DM fiat says so.

So let me try something. Using the "goblin dog" I think from PF as an example, I'll take the most unlikely ancestry - say a dwarf. And try to make it goblinoid. Because if the gods or magic or the DM can do it with one arbitrary creature, they should be able to do it with any creature. Everyone can be goblinoid.

So......dwarves would first need an unnatural skin color. Bright neon blue. And their faces need to be even more exaggerated to make them uglier. With warts. And maybe a bad case of acne. Their beards should be lopsided and patchy, and their bodies even more barrel-shaped, with longer arms with twisted, bulging muscles. Without changing anything else about dwarf lifestyle, religion, etc......have I made them goblinoid? Surely there's something to the goblinoid archetype beyond "weird looking hateful ugly people"? If so, what is it? What did I miss?

 

[Bill Zebub]

As far back as my BECMI days I've always treated goblins, hobgoblins and bugbears as related to elves while orcs were not.

As @Guang says, this makes them sort of fey-ish. I like that. It kind of fits.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

@Cadence linked the post I made a couple of months ago that discusses a lot of things about how Goblinoids are defined in D&D 5e, as well as their overall backstory and lore in it.

Basically, Goblinoids are defined as the 3 races of fey that Maglubiyet conquered and warped into his servants. This lore differs from campaign setting to campaign setting, but that's 5e's official stance on them. They're Fey-descended humanoids (like Elves) united under a tyrannical god that changed their nature so much that they barely have any of their Fey nature in them.

The reason that Orcs, Gnolls, Kobolds and the rest of similar races don't count is because Maglubiyet hasn't conquered them (yet).

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I use kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, and bugbears to represent the various void-corrupted peoples which dark lords have from time to time raised up in their image to overwhelm, enslave, and replace the free elves, halflings, humans, gnomes, and dwarves of the world. They are differentiated from the free peoples by their loathsome unnatural appearance, horrible repulsive manners, and fondness for darkness and shad

So many different ways of looking at what makes a particular creature a goblinoid and a particular other creature not - and the our collective answer is.....because the gods, or magic, or common decent, or DM fiat says so.

So let me try something. Using the "goblin dog" I think from PF as an example, I'll take the most unlikely ancestry - say a dwarf. And try to make it goblinoid. Because if the gods or magic or the DM can do it with one arbitrary creature, they should be able to do it with any creature. Everyone can be goblinoid.

So......dwarves would first need an unnatural skin color. Bright neon blue. And their faces need to be even more exaggerated to make them uglier. With warts. And maybe a bad case of acne. Their beards should be lopsided and patchy, and their bodies even more barrel-shaped, with longer arms with twisted, bulging muscles. Without changing anything else about dwarf lifestyle, religion, etc......have I made them goblinoid? Surely there's something to the goblinoid archetype beyond "weird looking hateful ugly people"? If so, what is it? What did I miss?

I don’t see any difference and since I started my campaign world in the late 80s, Orcs and goblinoids have all been part of the same humanoid species. I don’t see the need for them to be separate.

 

[Guang]

@Cadence linked the post I made a couple of months ago that discusses a lot of things about how Goblinoids are defined in D&D 5e, as well as their overall backstory and lore in it.

Basically, Goblinoids are defined as the 3 races of fey that Maglubiyet conquered and warped into his servants. This lore differs from campaign setting to campaign setting, but that's 5e's official stance on them. They're Fey-descended humanoids (like Elves) united under a tyrannical god that changed their nature so much that they barely have any of their Fey nature in them.

The reason that Orcs, Gnolls, Kobolds and the rest of similar races don't count is because Maglubiyet hasn't conquered them (yet).

Recent related thread:

D&D 5E - Goblinoids in D&D 5e: Their Origin, Story, and Tragedy (+)

For much of D&D's history, it has had plenty of races whose whole identities and stories basically revolved around them being always-evil villainous humanoid mooks that the players can kill without having to deal with any sort of moral ramifications for mass-murdering them (Point 1 of evidence)...

www.enworld.org

I was hoping this thread wouldn't get sidetracked into that. But by all means, if anyone hasn't read it, go read it - it's an interesting read, but specific to one edition of D&D, rather than an overall consideration of goblinoids across settings, editions, and products. Maglubiyet's conquests are only relevent to the Forgotten Realms (and whichever homebrews want to also use that lore).

Mechanically goblinoids filling the evil alignment is also a good point, but my question is more of a philosophical or worldbuilding bent. After all, if a goblin is neutral good, he doesn't stop being a goblin. So mechanics aren't the essence of goblin-ness, any more than typical drow being evil making them "lose" their elf-ness.

An interesting, well put-together take, which I enjoyed reading when you posted it, but like I said before, kind of off topic. It only works with one god of one setting for one edition. It doesn't apply to all the other settings, editions, and homebrews in which the goblinoid archetype is equally strong. This thread is in TTRPGs general, not d&d 5e.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It only works with one god of one setting for one edition.

That's technically incorrect (the worst type of incorrect). Maglubiyet is present in the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk (and maybe a couple of other older settings that I'm not familiar with), but his role is filled by a different god in quite a few other settings. In Nentir Vale (4e's main setting) and Exandria, Bane is the tyrannical conquest god that rules over Goblinkind, and this backstory can be pretty easily transplanted to those settings. For all intents and purposes, Maglubiyet and 4e's version of Bane might as well be the same god (in role, I know they're not actually the same entity).

And it technically can also be applied to more than one edition, even if it wasn't the official stance. It could easily work for 4e's Goblinoids, for example. And while the Feywild didn't exist when Maglubiyet was first created, the Goblinoids did have the whole "used to be different peoples until Maglubiyet conquered them"-thing and the Demiplane of Faerie and Fey creatures both existed way before 4e did.

(Sorry to slightly derail this. You are absolutely not obligated to use the current lore for Goblinoids in D&D, I was just trying to explain the current take on the identity of the Goblinoids in D&D.)

---

For a more non-D&D specific answer? I'd classify Goblinoids as creatures from the Folklore that shared enough common traits and themes with the Goblins that they might as well be considered relatives. Boggles, Gremlins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Boggarts, Redcaps, Puckwidgie, and maybe even Hobs, Imps, Trolls, and Brownies could all fit the classification of "Goblinoid" or "Goblinkin".

It really depends on the game (and edition thereof), setting, and culture in question.

 

[Guang]

That's technically incorrect (the worst type of incorrect). Maglubiyet is present in the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk (and maybe a couple other older settings that I'm not familiar with), but his role is filled with.....

A great answer. Very useful info too, thank you - I didn't know the lore of gobinoid gods was so similar in so many different editions. I only started paying especial attention to goblinoids as an entire group rather than individual monsters when Keith Baker's Exploring Eberron came out - I absolutely love what he did with the Muut/Akha shared dream of goblinoid places in the Dhakaani Empire and have been trying different things to make the Dar a going concern in my own worldbuilding.

And for the record, your article is amazing. You should get people to pay money for it.

For a more non-D&D answer? I'd classify Goblinoids as creatures from the Folklore that shared enough common traits and themes with the Goblins that they might as well be considered relatives. Boggles, Gremlins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Boggarts, Redcaps, Puckwidgie, and maybe even Hobs, Imps, Trolls, and Brownies could all fit the classification of "Goblinoid" or "Goblinkin".

It really depends on the game (and edition thereof), setting, and culture in question.

Which is fascinating - and makes me think "what is the actual definition of goblinoid, independently from which creatures the term includes?" It turns out to be a surprisingly difficult question to answer, without relying solely on magic or the power of a god. They definitely share traits from folklore - but which traits, specifically? Just the fact that we recognize them from folklore and fairy tales? the goblinoid subtype in pf just says that they all speak goblin and they have stealth. I haven't been able to find templates or subtypes from other systems yet. (i.e. This template can be applied to any humanoid or monstrous humanoid - like they do for Fey and other groups/types)

And is my dwarf example goblinoid now? After all, dwarves also made regular appearances in the old fairy tales.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

A great answer. Very useful info too, thank you - I didn't know the lore of gobinoid gods was so similar in so many different editions. I only started paying especial attention to goblinoids as an entire group rather than individual monsters when Keith Baker's Exploring Eberron came out - I absolutely love what he did with the Muut/Akha shared dream of goblinoid places in the Dhakaani Empire and have been trying different things to make the Dar a going concern in my own worldbuilding.

I love Eberron's take on Goblinoids, too (and Orcs, Elves, Gnomes, and most of the other standard D&D races). Even if "Fey Goblinoids" don't really make sense in the setting, they're still one of my favorite versions of the races.

And is my dwarf example goblinoid now? After all, dwarves also made regular appearances in the old fairy tales.

Like I said, it depends on the culture. The Norse Dvergr (which heavily inspired Tolkien's Dwarves, which heavily inspired D&D's Dwarves) or Snow White's Seven Dwarves (which are more accurate as D&D's Gnomes)? No, they're absolutely not "Goblinoids". But the Egyptian God of Dwarves, Bes, or more trickster-type Dwarves from Germanic folklore? Maybe. It depends on where you draw the line. Real-world taxonomy is confusing enough when we have actual creatures to categorize. Fantasy taxonomy for made-up definitions to made-up creatures from dozens of different folklores that share similar elements with each other and hundreds of other folklore and mythological creatures from across the world makes things even more complicated. That's probably why I just prefer 5e's simpler definition of "if they were conquered by Maglubiyet, they're Goblinoids".

It's up to you, the GM, and how the different similar fantasy creatures are depicted in the campaign. There's not really a "one-size fits all" solution to this question, as the term "Goblinoid" has been applied fairly arbitrarily to different D&D monsters across the decades.

 

[Haiku Elvis]

Goblinoid = A loose vague and changeable definition for a group of violent antagonist humanoid creatures inpired by or can trace their lineage back to Tolkien's Gobins and Orcs. This includes the misapprehention that these were different creatures rather than a change in nomenclature between the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, leading to the common fantasy idea of Goblinoid meaning a family of similar species with differing features (size, organisation etc).
Common tropes are cruelty, affinity for the dark/dislike of the Sun and in apprearance twisted ugly faces and long arms and bow legged, although these are far from universal.
Most fantasy settings that use these creatures use the Goblin - smaller and sneakier, Orc - larger and more warlike divide as popularised by the Warhammer range of games. D&D went a different route having Orcs as a non Goblinoid species but adding Hobgoblins to fill the larger more militeristic and organised niche. Bugbears a D&D self invention were added as an even larger and stronger version filling a similar position occupied by Uruk-hai and Black Orcs or even Trolls in other settings.
As these creatures were mainly established haphazardly often borrowing back and forth from different settings without an organised plan, no coherent set of rules establishing what is or isn't a Goblinoid exists.
Definitions retroactively imposed to give meaning to the definition, include but are not limited to, species corrupted by and following the same mad God, shared corrupted fey ancestry and made of fungus but like all things related to the Goblinoid idea no definitive answer exists.

PS Bugbear is still a stupid name.

 

[IvyDragons]

What is the essence of goblinoid?

In my book, it has goblin in the name. So "goblin" and "hobgoblin" are goblinoid. Nothing else.

 

[Cadence]

As an aside, my view of the goblinoids has forever been corrupted/formed/influenced by the art in 2e. I especially find the later more bestial bugbear pictures unrelatable.

On the other hand, I have no particular memory of the goblin:

 

[RuinousPowers]

I really liked Birthright's way of combining goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears into one goblin species that just had a large size variation. To me that gave it a more of a fey feel before 5e started to double down on it.

Pre-Birthright, I just considered all the humanoids to be separate species, other than goblin and hobgoblin, which seemed to be D&D's take on Tolkien's Orcs more so than actual D&D pig faced orcs.

 

[Haiku Elvis]

Pre-Birthright, I just considered all the humanoids to be separate species, other than goblin and hobgoblin, which seemed to be D&D's take on Tolkien's Orcs more so than actual D&D pig faced orcs.

I'd agree with this 100%. I don't know if there is anone here more up on their Ye Olden days of D&D of yore lore but I wonder if avoiding the Tolkien legal department ringwraiths was a motivation for mixing them up a bit at some point. I'm not sure when D&D Orcs settled into their known form.

I know the Tolkien estate can be a bit ban happy these days but I don't know if that was true back then. I believe Balrogs and other direct borrowings were a thing in the early days of D&D too so maybe not.

 

[Tonguez]

I'd agree with this 100%. I don't know if there is anone here more up on their Ye Olden days of D&D of yore lore but I wonder if avoiding the Tolkien legal department ringwraiths was a motivation for mixing them up a bit at some point. I'm not sure when D&D Orcs settled into their known form.

I know the Tolkien estate can be a bit ban happy these days but I don't know if that was true back then. I believe Balrogs and other direct borrowings were a thing in the early days of D&D too so maybe not.

Hobbit, Ent, and Balrog were successfully sued by Tolkien forcing a change in the names. However the use of the name Orc for a humanoid monster predates Tolkien (even though the particular presentation was LotR inspired)

 

[Guang]

I really liked Birthright's way of combining goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears into one goblin species that just had a large size variation.

I didn't know that Birthright did this. I'm not all that familiar with the setting. Is goblin info spread throughout the birthright sourcebooks, or is it concentrated in one or more of the "secrets" books?
I'm interested to see how they handle it.

 

[RuinousPowers]

I didn't know that Birthright did this. I'm not all that familiar with the setting. Is goblin info spread throughout the birthright sourcebooks, or is it concentrated in one or more of the "secrets" books?
I'm interested to see how they handle it.

I would just google goblin (cerilia) and look at the Monster Manual entry. There is an entry on birthright.net, that gives mostly the same information but with a lot more "goblins are really uncreative and can't figure out farming" while still having several kingdoms.

 

[Guang]

I would just google goblin (cerilia) and look at the Monster Manual entry. There is an entry on birthright.net, that gives mostly the same information but with a lot more "goblins are really uncreative and can't figure out farming" while still having several kingdoms.

Thanks. Not much detail, after all.

Seems like there is no answer available to my main question - but the process has been very interesting. Thank you all

 

[GMMichael]

Which is fascinating - and makes me think "what is the actual definition of goblinoid, independently from which creatures the term includes?"

It's totally meta:

Goblinoid (adj): the term used by D&D adventure designers for low-level mooks used as opponents in introductory or low-level adventures.

Note that orcs and kobolds are actually goblinoid, though most monster manuals don't state so explicitly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In modern D&D? Size and personal appearance. That's it folks.

 

[Hriston]

I don’t see any difference and since I started my campaign world in the late 80s, Orcs and goblinoids have all been part of the same humanoid species. I don’t see the need for them to be separate.

Agreed, I tend to default to an "all one species" approach to my fantasy races and use the monsters as variations of similar types of people. I consider elves, goblinkin, halflings, humans, kobolds, and orcs to be one race, for example, but I also think there are differences just as there are differences between real life groups of people. I think the majority of the differences are due to history, but there is also the natural variation present in the larger group and, because it's fantasy, historical associations of certain groups with divine beings, etc.

Since you seem to be focusing on the differences between goblinoids and orcs, I tend to think of goblins (and kobolds) in particular as the group into which all the ancient races of corrupted elves devolved and which forms the base of new attempts to breed armies of super goblins, of which hobgoblins are the prime example, as well as providing an underclass of servants for said armies. Orcs, on the other hand, I think of alternatively as feral overgrown goblins or as a variation on hobgoblins, bred for destruction, perhaps by some mad wizard and with possible human strains added to the mix. So, yeah, it's all pretty muddled.