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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Usually better to have more than one option for any given need.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, I guess you can always have nazis and their analogues. Stormtroopers of an evil tyrant, evil cultists, etc.

Yeah, there's a reason that so many WotC adventures feature cultists, and it's not only that there's a lack in imagination.

 

[roger semerad]

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.

Reading this and thinking about what has been said so far in this thread I realized I probably haven't made it clear why this doesn't work for so many of us. So I'm going to ramble a bit here. I hope people who think this way will follow me on this little journey, and hopefully understand why emotions are high.

I personally sometimes do like simple action focused stories myself, and I don't think you need evil for it. Saying evil doesn't exist doesn't mean you have to think about every opponent you come across. Just because the swordsman in the Indiana Jones movie isn't evil by nature doesn't mean you have to wonder about his motivation and discuss his moral standing. Most human beings enjoy violence to some extent, as long as no one actually gets hurt in the real world. This is a natural part of human nature that can be explored responsibly. It can be escapism pure and simple. This naturally begs the question I'm sure some of you are thinking, if you're not thinking of the implications all the time, what is the difference between an opponent being evil or not?

Let's take a simple example of the stereotypical evil orc game. Zoomed in, viewed encounter by encounter it may look no different weather they're evil or not. Then near campaign's end your party gets a mcguffin that allows you to take care of the orc problem, permanently. You do it... right? By the logic of the campaign, it's the only reasonable conclusion. Orcs are pure evil, they can only hurt everyone in the world and never be redeemed. It is the right decision, you couldn't even argue otherwise. No matter how correct this line of thinking is in the game world, for the people playing the game this can be a disturbing and dark conclusion. This is the disconnect, having true, pure evil species in a game puts you on a dark path.

I think most people can agree it's fine to kill a fly in the real world, but it's a lot less fine if someone traps and tortures the fly. Plucking it's wings off under a magifying glass to prolong it's suffering. Laughing at it and encouraging people around them to watch it twich. Likewise it's fine to have consequence free violence in a game, less fine if someone is enjoying the pain and suffering they are doing in game, and something being evil is the best excuse for this behavior. I'm sure most DM's have a line with this sort of thing and will not let it go too far, but again, having evil in the game puts you on this dark path. Even if you don't follow it yourself, it is there and it encourages you to walk further down it.

And this has some real world implications as well. You can say you understand that this is fiction and not how the real world works, but play can subtly influence how you think. Particularly if the wider culture encourages this line of thinking. It makes it just a little more natural to think in black and white terms. The more you act out good and evil in play, the easier it is to reflexively, instinctively, think in terms of good and evil in the real world as well. Again, you're on a subtly dark path.

The path is always there, it encourages you to walk it, it leads to only one conclusion, and this disturbs those that think about it.

I cannot know for sure how others think about this. Maybe it's completely true that this path doesn't exist for you. That it exists only in my mind. All I can say is it does exist in my own mind, and I cannot unsee the implications. I see the path and it disturbs and repulses me in the most profound way you can possibly imagine.

The other posts I've made in this thread were easy for me to write. This one was not. It is affecting me emotionally, and I have stress that I'm not conveying my thoughts properly. I'm shaking just a little. That's how much this topic means to me, how much it affects me. Even if you will never see the path yourself, I hope you understand where those of us who do are coming from. Why it's a deal breaker. We cannot unsee.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The other posts I've made in this thread were easy for me to write. This one was not. It is affecting me emotionally, and I have stress that I'm not conveying my thoughts properly. I'm shaking just a little. That's how much this topic means to me, how much it affects me. Even if you will never see the path yourself, I hope you understand where those of us who do are coming from. Why it's a deal breaker. We cannot unsee.

Thank you for this post and I am glad that you wrote it.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I'm not caught up on this whole thread, so perhaps someone else has already noted this...

The 2025 FR books will contain stat blocks for evil humanoids. For example, there will be "Drow of Lolth" who are the evil dark elves we all know and love.

 

[TiQuinn]

Reading this and thinking about what has been said so far in this thread I realized I probably haven't made it clear why this doesn't work for so many of us. So I'm going to ramble a bit here. I hope people who think this way will follow me on this little journey, and hopefully understand why emotions are high.

I personally sometimes do like simple action focused stories myself, and I don't think you need evil for it. Saying evil doesn't exist doesn't mean you have to think about every opponent you come across. Just because the swordsman in the Indiana Jones movie isn't evil by nature doesn't mean you have to wonder about his motivation and discuss his moral standing. Most human beings enjoy violence to some extent, as long as no one actually gets hurt in the real world. This is a natural part of human nature that can be explored responsibly. It can be escapism pure and simple. This naturally begs the question I'm sure some of you are thinking, if you're not thinking of the implications all the time, what is the difference between an opponent being evil or not?

Let's take a simple example of the stereotypical evil orc game. Zoomed in, viewed encounter by encounter it may look no different weather they're evil or not. Then near campaign's end your party gets a mcguffin that allows you to take care of the orc problem, permanently. You do it... right? By the logic of the campaign, it's the only reasonable conclusion. Orcs are pure evil, they can only hurt everyone in the world and never be redeemed. It is the right decision, you couldn't even argue otherwise. No matter how correct this line of thinking is in the game world, for the people playing the game this can be a disturbing and dark conclusion. This is the disconnect, having true, pure evil species in a game puts you on a dark path.

I think most people can agree it's fine to kill a fly in the real world, but it's a lot less fine if someone traps and tortures the fly. Plucking it's wings off under a magifying glass to prolong it's suffering. Laughing at it and encouraging people around them to watch it twich. Likewise it's fine to have consequence free violence in a game, less fine if someone is enjoying the pain and suffering they are doing in game, and something being evil is the best excuse for this behavior. I'm sure most DM's have a line with this sort of thing and will not let it go too far, but again, having evil in the game puts you on this dark path. Even if you don't follow it yourself, it is there and it encourages you to walk further down it.

And this has some real world implications as well. You can say you understand that this is fiction and not how the real world works, but play can subtly influence how you think. Particularly if the wider culture encourages this line of thinking. It makes it just a little more natural to think in black and white terms. The more you act out good and evil in play, the easier it is to reflexively, instinctively, think in terms of good and evil in the real world as well. Again, you're on a subtly dark path.

The path is always there, it encourages you to walk it, it leads to only one conclusion, and this disturbs those that think about it.

I cannot know for sure how others think about this. Maybe it's completely true that this path doesn't exist for you. That it exists only in my mind. All I can say is it does exist in my own mind, and I cannot unsee the implications. I see the path and it disturbs and repulses me in the most profound way you can possibly imagine.

The other posts I've made in this thread were easy for me to write. This one was not. It is affecting me emotionally, and I have stress that I'm not conveying my thoughts properly. I'm shaking just a little. That's how much this topic means to me, how much it affects me. Even if you will never see the path yourself, I hope you understand where those of us who do are coming from. Why it's a deal breaker. We cannot unsee.

I think that’s something that would or should be discussed prior to the game as part of a session zero, because the thought that there may be emotions felt from having to deal with evil in a game is not something that would immediately occur to me as a DM. If I’m being honest, the thought that because I put together an encounter with what I think is a villain for the party to open up a can of whoop-ass on would bother someone after the game would likewise bother me. My objective as DM is just to present a fun game first and foremost, and balance what different players want and expect out of a campaign and individual session.

The swordsman in Indiana Jones - whether he’s evil or not is not really a question I would’ve considered. He’s coded as a villain (the black garb, the menacing laugh and sword, the fact he’s working for Nazis) and he’s very causally disposed of, I.E. shot dead, and it’s not even a serious thing. It’s a joke. A punchline. Consider that for a second - if someone pulled out a gun and shot someone on the street casually, even someone wielding another weapon, we’d consider him a dangerous threat to everyone else around him too. But we don’t in the context of the movie. All I want is to set up occasional scenarios where players feel safe to make those kinds of choices.

And though it’s not your main point, just as an aside, I hate the trope of the Magic Maguffin that immediately destroys the enemy hivemind and all the bad guys fall down dead or dormant because you killed the Queen Bee, or whatever. I’d never use that one.

 

[Tonguez]

I think monsters should be people, pets or creatures of horror.
IRL Fey were once creatures of horror, but have become twee and ubiquitous as elves - "Elves are terrific, they beget terror!", same thing has happened to Orcs, which given they are near-human makes sense as we dont need fantasy proxies for real world racism.

But I do like monsters and a bit of terror. I think the non human Ancestries provide for that. Humans should be wary of predators like Dragons and Tabaxis and Thrikeen, equally Demonspawn should stir emotional angst - and pitchforks.
OR maybe the response will be fascination like theyre pets - Kobolds, Gobs and similar exploit their child-like size, birdfolk, tabaxi Tieflings and elfs invoke 'cuteness'.

Of course in game events should matter to, there should be as much prejudice against Human raiders, Dwarf Pirates and Red Wizards as there is against lizardfolk and drow.

 

[Parmandur]

I come from a community formed in days of 3e, where there were pretty strict expectations on what was an appropriate response to such creatures

That was hardly my experience of 3E, as someone who started in that wra...like, at all.

 

[Tonguez]

Is it any more far fetched than "English people rule the world and demand - and get - respect from pretty much everyone! And not just by force either!" when 1500+ years before they were* considered some of the dumbest hairiest smelliest stupidiest people on the planet?

Um, Im not sure theres any era in history that the English have been respected by everyone.
I couldnt leave this assertion unquestioned, as even at its height England was influential but still had lots of antagonism, even from its allies and colonies.indeed for many Ciceros opinion might still hold sway, albeit that modern Anglos arent necessarily Britons...