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

[Remathilis]

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.

I think that's a good call to move those drow to a setting book. They represent a very specific type of drow (the evil servants of Lolth) rather than an "everydrow" like they used to.

 

[Necropolitan]

So this isn't a trap?

 

[The Sigil]

So this isn't a trap?

View attachment 415070

I would ask them if they have live worms first... if they do, it's probably a bait-and-switch.

 

[Koloth]

So this isn't a trap?

View attachment 415070

Oh, its a trap alright. But it might be a fun trap. 1/2 elves come from somewhere....

Over the years, my characters have been attacked in one form or another more often by humans then 'Monsters'. Most encounters with monsters have happened when the characters were doing what in modern terms would be called a Break and Enter into the monster's lair and the monster was just defending itself. I and others have played non standard races as PCs. Often with the fore knowledge that our reception in some places might be less then friendly.

One downside I see to the almost anything can be a PC trend that both Hasbro and Pazio are embracing is the workload on the GM. Early GMs had to know Humans, Elves, 1/2 Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits. Now the list of critters that can be PCs is pages long. No way most GMs will know a fraction of the PC critter traits, feats, special abilities, etc. This is in addition to the ever growing list of classes, sub-classes, hundreds of general feats, etc. Complexity isn't always a good thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

“Who tries to find common ground with a member of an alien species traditionally associated with attempted enslavement and genocide of humanity?”

True heroes!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

In this scene, maybe. For now. In behavioral biology it's becoming much more popular. ~80% of our behavior is genetic. As anyone who breeds dogs, cats, horses, etc. already knew before it was repeatedly confirmed for people too.

And

Indeed, and given the crowd here specifically, there's no reasonable discussion to be had on the issue. Few people anywhere are conversant in the last twenty years of scientific literature on the subject, nor are they motivated to become so—although they are certainly opinionated on the subject anyway.

Your article doesn’t support your claims. The closest to your assertion I can find in it are multiple studies estimating the heritability of intelligence, susceptibility to addictive substances, autism spectrum disorders, and certain psychiatric afflictions between 50-90%, not “behavior” in general. For example:

A large number of studies suggest a heritability for intelligence of around 50 percent; some studies put this number at greater than 80 percent.

Together, these posts come across as something perhaps a bit more problematic than you intended. So I’d suggest you abandon this particular line of discussion.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

If it exists, someone will be into it.

 

[Charlaquin]

The problem with suggestions like this is that it rules out a lot of creativity. For instance, there are several "dirty trick" methods of fighting that won't work on zombies, ranging from blinding them with a bright flash to kneeing them in the groin. You can't flood a chamber to drown them before heading down to clean the place up. You can't force a morale check by bluffing them or killing their heavy hitter, etc.

Likewise, your classic (i.e. unintelligent) zombie is going to be a fairly boring foe, even if it's still a threatening one. Zombies don't set traps. Zombies don't use flanking tactics. Zombies aren't going to use the terrain to their advantage.

I want unambiguous enemies that can do all of those things, and on whom the aforementioned strategies can potentially work.

The “zombies” don’t have to be literal zombies. The point of the suggestion is that they’re creatures with no independent thought or will, let alone social structures or culture to speak of. One can easily imagine fantastical creatures vulnerable to any and all of the tactics you describe that lack free will or society.

 

[Charlaquin]

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’d add that, whether or not one is personally influenced by this dark path existing, others playing the game might be made uncomfortable by its existence and be less inclined to want to keep playing. Which brings me back to the OP’s predicament. If this was just a group of friends playing at home together, all of whom wanted to keep “monster races” exclusively monstrous, I don’t think there would really be a problem with that. But given that it is a very large, open, online group that seems to be interested in attracting new players, then that setting conceit is likely to turn off many players who might otherwise have been interested. Which might be acceptable for the group, but if a trend has been observed of more and more new players balking at the setting conceit… well, it might be worth thinking about changing. Or not, it does sound like it’s a really big group already anyway, that growth might not be necessary.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Perhaps surprisingly given my pretty hardline stance against always-evil species, this is great news IMO.