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

[TaranTheWanderer]

I personally dislike the proliferation of the multitudes of species. When I DM and am making NPCs, they tend to be human.

If there are other species, I’d rather there be a story behind why they’re there and I’d rather them be alien and rare. Otherwise it loses its wonder.

Having a whole lot of teiflings wandering around, owning shops undermines the story of where they came from. It’s uninteresting. They become humans with horns. If the PCs see a gith, I want them to say - “woh, who/what is that? What’s the story there?”

My philosophy is The same with evil races. There needs to be a story why humanity or the PCs need to fight a particular group, whether that’s orcs or elves. Do they need to be inherently evil? No. It can be politics, resources or just the fact that the two groups don’t understand each other because they are so alien to each other. Can they be evil? Sure, but only if the story backs it and makes it interesting.

 

[Scott Christian]

Even if we grant this, and there is ample reason to find it simplistic, it is a far cry from always evil species. Humans have free will and can act against their inclinations.

Now I like having some always evil species, but I think it is really really important to emphasize that they are different species and play by different rules; if they are always evil they must lack free will in a meaningful way. If we can't make that distinction clear then these kinds of species will (and should) be removed from the game.

I like and really appreciate this way of thinking. As someone who played Middle Earth Role Playing waaaay back in the day, and ran a campaign that had a Uruk-hai as one of the PCs, it resonates.

But, and it is a BIG BUT, it doesn't work if it is not a player. If even 1/10th of your NPCs are "the good illithid" or "the peaceful gnoll" then it doesn't work. Here's why:

First, look at the official adventure paths. When they present the odd Gith or the odd Illithid, they are always estranged and not in their community. Meaning, they are unique to start with. That is a problem. Because now you are portraying the world where 100% of the Illithid NPCs the adventurers encounter are neutral or even good.

Second, there is the problem of a homebrew GM. Let's say the primary antagonist is Yeenoghu and his gnoll followers. The adventurers have encountered the gnolls and seen, according to the monster manual: "They emerge from the wilderness, plunder and slaughter, then move elsewhere. They attack like a plague of locusts, pillaging settlements and leaving little behind but razed buildings, gnawed corpses, and befouled land." Now the GM introduces a good-hearted gnoll, who hates their demonic overlord. The GM has just broken the consistency of its antagonists. Now, when the adventurers see the gnolls, do they think of the slaughter and gnawed bodies or the fact that some of them might be good.

Third, and it is associated with the example from above and the reason players need to be the ones to take on the role of the unique gnoll or other such "always evil" creature. And that is because something that special needs a story - they need a backstory and a story to make it special. If it is just some good-hearted gnoll, then why aren't there hundreds or thousands of good-hearted gnolls. I mean, most of the time we don't get to see this gnolls long history of how and why it became good-hearted. You need a PC to take on that role so it is special.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Second, there is the problem of a homebrew GM. Let's say the primary antagonist is Yeenoghu and his gnoll followers. The adventurers have encountered the gnolls and seen, according to the monster manual: "They emerge from the wilderness, plunder and slaughter, then move elsewhere. They attack like a plague of locusts, pillaging settlements and leaving little behind but razed buildings, gnawed corpses, and befouled land." Now the GM introduces a good-hearted gnoll, who hates their demonic overlord. The GM has just broken the consistency of its antagonists. Now, when the adventurers see the gnolls, do they think of the slaughter and gnawed bodies or the fact that some of them might be good.

I don't see how this is an issue. Like I literally had gnolls as antagonist in the early part of my current campaign. The gnolls and the humans had strained relationship for a while in this place, but recently the gnolls had become way more aggressive and seemed that they wanted to full on exterminate the local humans. The PCs aided the humans, and found out that one of the villagers had secret meetings with the gnolls. They suspected this person was traitor who was aiding the trolls. Turned out that there was division among the gnolls. A certain gnoll warlock (who had found an ancient Shoggoth and was in league with it) had taken over the gnoll tribe and wanted to exterminate the humans. The gnolls the villager was meeting with were those who were opposed to this. So with the help of these gnolls the PCs managed to take down the gnoll warlock, and eventually more cordial relatioship between the gnolls and the humans was achieved. I think having this nuance made the resulting story way better than all the gnolls just being murderous monsters would have.

 

[SkidAce]

That inspires the thought of reskinning the Illithid as the Gou'ald from Stargate.

welcome to my campaign since 1995.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't see how this is an issue. Like I literally had gnolls as antagonist in the early part of my current campaign. The gnolls and the humans had strained relationship for a while in this place, but recently the gnolls had become way more aggressive and seemed that they wanted to full on exterminate the local humans.

Do you see how you already set the pretense that not all gnolls are evil. They had a relationship, albeit strained, but it wasn't one of only "razed buildings, gnawed corpses, and befouled land." So right away, as GM, you have given yourself an out. My argument was why an exclusively evil species can only be played as its alternative good species if it is done through a PC.

Turned out that there was division among the gnolls.

You are resenting a species that is both good or evil or neutral or evil. That is not what I was replying to.

Note: It's fine if you want to play any species as multi-faceted. It should be that way. But if you want an evil only species that has some random good-guy, then it should be played by the PC, not as an NPC.