Can orcs even compete with hobgoblins?

Why even have orcs? I dislike the pigeonholed races of fantasy.

In dick size?

Orcs are just as cunning as goblins. The weakest orc slave can easily kill 3 goblins. Goblins don't reproduce three times as fast as orcs. Orcs win.

Depends on setting.

WRE beat itself for the most part. Germans taking over parts was just a sympthom.

>german tribes beat roman legions
>who is
>Caesar
>marcus Aurelius
miss me wit dat gay shit

>Be orc
>Gets entire village wiped out by a party of level 1 humans
Orcs are weak and dumb, goblinoids are just weak

Funny how all the arrows hit his pauldrons.

Teutoburg Forest happened, but by the time the empire fell the 'legions' were most made up of germanic tribesmen in anyway.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm really makes me think

Depends on the setting.

choose the most well known setting you know of that has hobgoblins and orcs and answer with that setting in mind.

So this thread has given me weird ideas.

Suddenly I want Chronicles of Riddick but humans replaced with Orcs and Necromongers replaced with Hobgoblins

depends on the setting

It really depends.
The goblins of Isengard are essentially better hobgoblins, the uruks of Mordor are better organized, and the orcs of the Misty Mountains were reduced to small warbands by attrition rather than choice.
I'm gonna have to go with orcs if that's the one in the picture over what I assume you mean are DnD hobgoblins since the orcs can call upon troll allies and depending on where they are lack little of the discipline of the hobgoblins.

If you wipe orcs at level 1, your DM is incredibly generous.
You fight Kobolds at 1 and goblins at 2

Quintili Vare, legiones redde!

Any topic that can answered with “it depends on the setting” should be deleted and result in 48hour ban

Drizzt is already a thing.

But that's a faggot mary sue elf. i want Orcs fighting hobgoblins but I also want space ships, baroque armor and weapons and guns

They already have. Hobgoblins are bastardised D&D wankery, confined to that game. Orcs are everywhere.

>orcs aren't barbarians or germanic tribes
They pretty much are.

>WoW

> But that's a faggot mary sue elf.

I don't know why you picked Riddick if that bothers you about him.

I already said "orcs are weak and dumb", if your DM doesn't have the goblin lair full of traps and other surprises he's not doing them right

I despise heavily DND 5Es interpretation of Hobgoblins and “goblinoids” as a whole. I can’t really transcribe my thoughts into text, but it feels like they created a race with archetypes already established and done better, and gave it an artificial setting based without much context.

Yes I know it’s fantasy, none of its real, Tolkien’s orcs have no direct mythological correlation too, etc. But when I was reading Volos and they gotten to the part of the hobgoblins, I just could not be sold on them.

tldr: I prefer Orcs extremely.

>Orcs are weak and dumb

Doesn't describe orcs at all, and if your orcs are this, they're shit.

This.

Having not read Volo's past the new races and having looked at the monster manual, I was very confused with the Goblins and Hobgoblins especially. I didn't get why they were shriveled-cat-nosed, and I didn't get why they were red, and I really didn't get what the fuck the difference is.

What's the rundown on them? Why isn't it so great, why doesn't it sell you?

Speaking of which what the fuck is with the Tolkien Orcs vs Uruks vs Goblins vs Hobgoblins because I have never quite grasped it

Well I should first say my experience with DND only runs with 5E. However I’ll try my best to explain.

The Goblinoid family was not always related in current lore, as Volos goes on to say that Goblins, Bugbears, and Hobgoblins were once racially distinct species with separate pantheon of deities. This would change when the head war god for the Hobgoblins would conquer the other two races deities and assume their specific races protector. Said war god would have conquered the Orc god Gruumsh too if not for reasons. I don’t like the concept of divine death in settings to be fair, and even less for another god to just absorb other races into his fold like some blob.

Another thing I dislike is that the fact these three races are wholly separate from Orcs. Maybe it’s my preference for Tolkien and Warhammer, but I like when Orcs and Goblins are two races in the species. Though it is fiction, it just feels like window dressing. I understand this was probably done to give Faerun/DND it’s own take on the concept but it doesn’t mesh with me.

Another I don’t like is the bugbears relation to goblinoids. I may not have a strong grasp of folktales or myths so maybe that’s why I can’t see how Bugbears are goblinoids. They seem like the poor goblins version of a troll, that in other settings (again, Tolkien and Warhammer) already lump together with orcs and trolls.

Finally, the Hobgoblins. I just don’t like their concept. They give me this feeling of Roman/Prussian militarism with their talk of legions and squads. They have as you said this strange cat head appearance with weird color palettes of orange and red. I feel as if they were better off as some weird version of Oni or bakemonos(?), like oriental goblins given their art design seen in Volos. As it stands they are this ugly hybrid in terms of visuals, setting history, and culture.

It’s just a whole slew of things that don’t click with me that are wholly subjective.

This.

Hob goblins are weak and shrimpy and their armies are not something that orcs themselves can't learn in time. There's a reason Orcs have spread across the world in most settings where hobs are unknown in certain regions.

Yeah, that doesn't sound great. I'm on the same train and think Goblins and Orcs should be related somehow. I'm somehow even more confused; if Hobgoblins were already distinct, or distinct as compared with Bugbears being lumped in, what the hell are they? Why do Goblins look so similar, what's the difference? None of that particularly makes sense.

>Appearances
I agree there, too. I'm fine with something like a Goblin not having to be short skinny green folk, but the particular 5e designs don't seem to draw from any specific influence or have any point for such well-known, widely-used fantasy creatures. They almost look like something I'd see in Dark Sun, which is fine, except that makes no sense sitting next to everything else. It just felt generic and weirdly unsatisfying. It doesn't feel like there's much of a cohesive idea there at all.

What is the point of hobgoblins as a narrative device?

>Orks
enemy brutes and/or degenerates

>Goblins
enemy thieving cowards and/or smaller, more cunning orcs

>Hobgoblins
fill in this blank

Goblins are zerglings
Orcs are roaches
Hobs are hydralisks

NARRATIVE device, NARRATIVE

Your words confuse me

Hobgoblins are fascist analogues.

Also Teutoburg Forest happened and then Romans proceeded to kick some Gemranic ass in retaliation. Sometimes Germans beat Romans, sometimes Romans beat Germans. Funny how it goes.

Very well.

Narrative as in what the thing is meant to do as a story telling device. So what purpose do they have in telling a tale.

Elves are meant to be perfect, yet aloof and not capable of doing the important things that only men can do in a setting. They have to retreat to grey havens, or their souls can't X the Y properly or something. They're admirable but arrogant and not grounded like men.
Dwarves are meant to be hardy, calculating, avaricious creatures that can be good or bad, but are generally selfish and stubborn. You can have good and bad dwarves.
Orcs in the Tolkien mold are basically degenerates that destroy and pervert things and can't feel goodness or percieve beauty.
Orcs in the Warcraft mold are barbarians, basically also a stubborn race that can be good or bad, but more honourable rather than monetary or calculating.
Regardless, enemy orcs are meant to be an intimidating horde.
Goblins are meant to be untrustworthy, sneaky and prone to thieving, fraud or betrayal.

That covers the core stuff. What do hobgoblins do that isn't done above?

...

>what’s the difference?

Goblins are goblins. They are sneaky cunts that are craven, malicious, and will serve the strong but will strike back in their variously petty ways.

Bugbears are bears with a goblins face and a slightly different body structure to give a very crude distinction. They are related because the hobgoblin war god conquered their respective deity, and thus they serve him. They are big bruisers capable of killing multiples of goblins and are dumb as a bag of bricks. HOWEVER, they are intelligent to some degree and are capable of taking orders in the Hobgoblins legion.

Hobgoblins are goblins but better in all regards. You know how in Lotr, orcs mixed with human blood creates the Uruk-Hai? A creature stronger, smarter, tougher, and able to go toe-to-toe with a Gondorian soldier. That is what a Hobgoblin is to his regular kin minus the human blood bit.

I see what they are doing to be honest. Where goblins in most fantasy match their description to a T, the Hobgoblin is supposed to be their opposite in all regards. But I feel that was already done with Orcs AND Goblins.

See Hobgobs are humans who are evil.

It's because the armor around his shoulders is thinner than the extra fat in his belly.

I don't see it

Shadow the Hedgehog

So are orcs and goblins. You're using overly abstract and vague categories. Talk specifics - HOW are hobgoblins "evil humans"?

I mess with my players by using the terms interchangeably

Hobgoblins only exist as an old remnant way back at the dawn of Dungeons and Dragons, Gary Gygax wanted to have a distinct monster with distinct stats at every early Challenge Rating (1-7).

Because they're like humans, except warlike with a value system alien and maybe even revolting to the common man.

>orks
Force of nature, green tide
>goblins
ever present nuisance, minor threat
>hobgoblins
coordinated assault, militarized threat
>bugbears
special forces assassination (dnd), skirmish scale threat

>Goblins are goblins
>Bugbears are bears with a goblins face
>Minus the human blood bit

That's my point. If the idea is "They're magical things I ain't gotta explain shit," then whatever. My point is, if there is some blood or evolutionary reason, why are there these things with goblin faces that are otherwise bears? Are Goblins just inferior, blood-diluted, mutated Hobgoblins? Are Hobgoblins the spawn of Goblins and Orcs or something? Why do they all have the same visual traits and faces if there's no genetic relation?

I don't know, maybe I'm reading too far into it. I do have the inkling of my own setting where most of the races are synthesized off of just Humans, Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, and Halflings, if that, and DnD inherently has Half-Elves and Half-Orcs, so maybe that influences my thinking. But I really wonder what the fuck Hobgoblins have to do with Goblins, and "some god took them all and controls their races now or something" isn't enough an answer for me.

I think, in D&D lore, bugbears and goblins both come from hobgoblins.

More like sometimes germans beat romans, most of the time romans beat germans. At least while Rome was a functioning state.

In the setting I created I used the following:
There are different families (in the biology tree sense) or Fae, Human, and Goblin.

Fae diverge at the genus level to include Elf, dwarf, orc, merfolk, and assorted others
Human diverges at the species level for humans and halflings
goblins diverge at the species level to include gobs, hobs, and bogs.

The species level divergence means they look very very similar (neanderthals, halflings, humans, etc) with the goblinoids being mostly categorized based on their skeletal size.

Orcs, being fae, end up being extremely different biologically, but similar in character.

you are missing the point but I don't expect Veeky Forums being even remotely reasonably good at the game

>Orc
Fictional race of brutal yet mechanically adept proto-Nazis created to oppose the races of Man, Dwarf and Elf, even with elves in the setting being semi-immortals of incredible power

>Hobgoblin
From myth and folklore, literally "house-goblin," these guys are similar to brownies, doing chores while people sleep and playing pranks unless you leave them offerings

Yes, orcs could take them.
Or did OP mean stuff from DnD 3.0 and onward, where orcs became CE to show off the new barbarian class? And of course, DnD has always done hobbos as militant types, just now they were actually different from orcs. I suppose Tolkien did describe a very big orc as "one of the great hobgoblins of the mountains" before, seeing as orc and goblin are the same in his works.

Orcs and goblins represent the soldier vs warrior ideal

hobgoblins are organized tactical, and fight best as a group with team work.

orcs are hordes of disorganized, but near endlessly brave maniacs who value individual strength,

hobs are more dangerous on the whole, buit i would much greater preffer fighting a lone hobbo than a lone orc

>Why do they all have the same visual traits and faces if there's no genetic relation?
The player character races do the same thing. Dwarves, humans and elves all come from distinctly different sources and have different gods covering them. It's just a quirk of overall DnD.

Are you in any way familiar with Eberron's Goblinoids?

I mean, that's fair, but it's more implicit. Humanoid bias makes sense, since we're all human beings, and our "imaginary" races will share traits of that. But to do that with a "beast" race that has shared names seems odd. I'd have the same qualm if Dwarves were "Shortmen" or "Half-humans" but they aren't. Hobgoblins and goblins have way more in common and it's just confusing.

Hobgoblins are civilization conquering the savages, except the "savages" are YOU so obviously they have to be evil.

Take note that the beast races that do it are all humanoid monsters, and that Halflings (as close to half-human as any name ever could be) are also separate from humans.

That's fair. And I know that on Halflings, but I excuse that in some sense because of the obvious Tolkien reference there and the fact they can't just call them (And don't necessarily want them only to be) Hobbits. They occupy a slightly different space in my head. And, in that sense, that's where the problem comes from. I can put Hobbits somewhere else by defining characteristics and reasons; I can do it with gobs and hobs, but only by characteristics and not as reasons. It's more like if I was told about Homo Erectus and Homo Sapien, and then told "But there's no actual relation to these things necessarily." I want to know why they're like that. If the answer is Hobgoblins just evolved up or that Goblins just evolved from them because they were in small caves or whatever, sure, fuck it, but that's what I'm missing here.

Evolution doesn't really explain most of the races in D&D, but by your halfling bit I think you mean reasons why in terms of outside the game's lore? I can't really answer that, outside of that hobgoblins are there to be a goblinoid threat long after the little conniving sneaky bastards lose their intimidating aura. They're good I think as the iconic monster race that's the real bridge between human and monster, even moreso than orcs. While orcs are vicious and primitive, they tend to be seen as a legitimate people who are just held hostage by a dark whisper in their ear. Hobgoblins stand like men, talk like men, and reason like men. They can even organize and form something resembling society and alliances. But at their core, they're still monsters. They still want to hurt and hunt people down, not because of a god controlling their thoughts or to escape a curse, but because that's what their whole civilization is founded on. While orcs are humanity giving in to base impulses, hobgoblins are humanity going on bloody crusades without even considering that their victims are worth anything more than their loot. I love that cold, ruthless Roman sensibility to them. Hobgoblin warlords are something I love to use as evil's "paladins" because of that. And their god and their subraces mostly reflect that "monstrous conquering human" aspect, they're a batch of only slightly similar races that band together only because one went and dominated the other two so thoroughly they became a "single" army, as if humans, elves or dwarves had decided to simply take over the other two's lands and won.

You're responding to two different points and it's impossible to tell what you're saying as a result.

So in other words, hobgoblins are just Lord of the Rings Orcs.

Frankly pointless, it's just an example of a redemption conveyor belt.

>Orcs are a race of congenitally nasty people
>"But what if there are some good orcs?!"
>"Alright, we'll let you play as a good orc"
>loads of people play as good orcs
>loads of justifications made for orcs being neutral
>"Why do we always fight orcs all the time when they're half bad anyway? It's not fair!"
>Orcs become a neutral race
>Without any bad races, games become awkward and stale
>People want a straightforward game with some uncomplicated villains
>"Let's create a race of purely evil hominids, and call them an old unused term... hobgoblins!"

Just watch, it'll happen again.

>orcs as nazis
Lol

Anyway, this is a workable definition of hobgoblins. Mischievous but not treacherous like full goblins.

>"Let's create a race of purely evil hominids, and call them an old unused term... hobgoblins!"

They've been a thing in D&D as long as orcs, though

Orcs/Goblins/Hobgoblins being distinct in LOTR is just fanfic, Tolkein used the term interchangeably. There are differences between standards orcs and urruk's though

I remember a time when you could assume people on Veeky Forums had read Dragon Lance.

This whole confusion over Hobgoblins shows you clearly haven't.

They didn't miss out on much besides the Draconians.
Even in middle school I could recognize it as some ol' shit.

Marcus Aurelius was the sorry ass emperor who got his ass beat at the Teutoburg Forest motherfucker

Caesar who, plebian? Julius? Augustus? Claudius? Miss me with your pathetic understanding of history.

>goblins
>Minor threat

>if your orcs are this, they're shit.
Yes, orcs are in fact shit. They are but a mere nuisance to the big boys and cowards who only target defenseless peasants. Humans don't give a shit about them, they're too busy fighting against themselves, elves and dwarves have friendly competitions between their races to see who can kill the majority of orcs, all while having a laugh and some banter.

I got the point, that's whay I said that storming through the orc village is much easier than the goblin village

I’m sorry, I am not familiar. How do they do it?

humans are definitely smarter and more social than orcs.

orcs are definitely more brutal, resistant, and don't give-a-fuck than humans.humans are literal pansies in comparison.

>Yes, orcs are in fact shit. They are but a mere nuisance to the big boys and cowards who only target defenseless peasants.

That's stupid as hell.

>That's stupid as hell.
Hey, they serve a purpose. Amateur adventurers need to get XP from somewhere, right?

Why can't Orcs provide a threat at all tiers of play?

Well, they can. You just need a lot of orcs

Sounds like it'd get tiresome, honestly.
Tribal thugs just aren't mythic threats.

Settings where Orcs that CAN become that powerful and threatening are the ones where they're intended to be PCs and generally they aren't exp bait in the first place.

You do know that Caesar was HIS FUCKING SECOND NAME originally, right? The other Caesars adopted his name because of the weight it carried, because of what it evoked on those who heard it.
They didn't let any dude with some salad on his head rule Rome, dude.
His name BECAME a title, so yeah, the other guy wasn't talking about Claudius, you pleb, he was talking about the OG, the big man,the closest thing we'll ever get to a living god, the Messiah of Civilization, Dictator of Rome and ruler of the greatest Empire in all history.
So before you get you tiny, non-roman bitchboy brain rustled up by the superiority of my gladius, fuck off.
The gall of you people, to dare talk about history without even knowing simple facts like that, let alone having a modicum of reading comprehension

Augustus was emperor in 9 AD. Marcus Aurelius didn't rule until 161 AD. It took less than a minute to validate that.

>win one battle
>snowniggers and krautfags think that means some savage filth defeated Rome
Rome fell for economic reasons, m8
The pax romana killed it. They couldn't expand more and that meant no new slaves. No new slaves meant growth went down. Growth going down means plebs starving.
Bread and circus was an attempt to distract the plebe with entertainment and cheap food, so they wouldn't fuck things over because they didn't have jobs or food or safety or anything at fucking all. Mostly because the slaves replaced them on everything. But when you cut the slaves out of the equation, things start to get funny. And when bread and circus fails, things get really fucked up. Slave revolts, plebs getting buttmad(as per usual), economic collapse, barbarians invading Rome to escape from even worse barbarians.
Mix all that with a stagnant, corrupt, hedonistic state and you have what destroyed Rome.
Sure the germanics were a thing, but they were just that, a thing. Not the only thing, they contributed and thats it. If you don't look at the other contributing factors, it can look like you're saying they're the only factor. And thats as silly as saying the wheels are the only important part on a car. Sure, it won't move without them, but it won't move without an engine either.
But you probably knew all this already, just saying that it feels wrong to see people say "germans took down rome". Too many people think like that already, don't need Veeky Forums going dumb too

>Tribal thugs

There's your problem right there. Maybe the lowest rungs are this, but Orcs can have a great and powerful variety, and a formidable enemy.

If your "mooks" are 12th level barbarians with pimped saves in a 20 level game, they still can be.
Gotta find an explanation for that, I guess

>I got the point, that's whay I said that storming through the orc village is much easier than the goblin village
>I got the point
Jesus Christ I give up

orcs? homo

>breed like orcs
>fast like elves
>strong like dwarves
>adaptable like humans

slave races go home, you can't play on this level