D&D General In 2025 FR D&D should PCs any longer be wary of the 'evil' humanoids?

[Umbran]

Yes, this! It is so simple. I am always flabbergasted how people feel they need to have always evil things to have conflict in their stories. We don't have those here on Earth, but there hasn't exactly been scarcity of conflict!

I don't know that's what they feel they need.

What I have seen stated is not that they need to have always-evil things to have conflict. It is that they want conflict and its resolution to be simple, unambiguous, and stress-relieving. The real world is complex, and nuanced, so they want to be able to just punch people n the face without worrying about it so much in their entertainment game.

 

[Burnside]

No, it’s a fair point. I would not have thought to include the mind flayer romance option in the game because it would not have occurred to me that anyone would actually try it. That probably speaks to what I bring to the table and reveals that I would assume as a designer a range of actions in the game narrower than those actually included.

Playing the game, it 100% would never have occurred to me to have sex with the mind flayer UNTIL the game put the option on the table, at which point I immediately was like "Well, let me just save right here because obviously I have to know."

 

[The Sigil]

I don't know that's what they feel they need.

What I have seen stated is not that they need to have always-evil things to have conflict. It is that they want conflict and its resolution to be simple and unambiguous.

Hence Matt Colville’s suggestion that when you need unambiguous enemies, use zombies. No will, no moral ambiguity, you aren’t going to convince them to change their minds, just a simple and unambiguous threat.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not sure I'd call humanity "ascendant" in the Third Age of Middle-Earth, primarily due to machinations of Sauron and his servants. Arnor had gotten split into three different kingdoms and then eaten piecemeal by the forces of Angmar, and Gondor had steadily lost both land and power. Fourth age, sure, but not third.

Lost a word there apparently. I meant to say "end of the third age". As in, Lord of the Rings being beginning of humanity ascending as the other races diminish. LotR kinda happens at the fulcrum. Humanity isn't strong enough yet but the other great races (elves and dwarves) are declining. But that's a specific time frame in a specific mythology and doesn't belong as the default method of handling world design in D&D. Not every world need resemble the cusp of the fourth age.

 

[Gradine]

Wary? Always. Immediately violent? Never.

 

[Laurefindel]

This community feels like the right place to get a little insight into how the broader D&D community feels about the topic.

My feeling on the topic; WOTC is giving an opportunity for players to create settings where species and races live together in relative harmony.

Giving this choice is good, but my opinion is that it shouldn’t invalidate settings where enmity and rivalry were previously established based on segregated and clashing cultures. Moving settings forward in time to an era where racism is less rampant is praiseworthy and can lead to many new story opportunities.

At the same time, I think there is a way to use sensitive subjects in a setting through modern lenses too. I think we’re past the « kill baby orcs because they will become evil orcs later! », and play in a setting where the PCs attack orcs not because they are evil, but because they are raiders armed to the teeth gathering loot for their tribe. And in turn, orcs attacks PCs not because they are humans, but because they are adventurers armed to the teeth who ignored the warning signs at the edge of the woods. Humans and orcs of region X are two warring nations, and not necessarily particularly homogenous nations in themselves. It does not make orcs evil, but it does make diplomacy and cohabitation next to impossible on a large scale.