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

[Lord Irongron]

Could you clarify a bit more? Is this a situation where players might wind up with different DMs, and you need to ensure that there is a more or less uniform experience? Or are they typically always with the same DM?

I'm wondering why each individual DM can't chat with their players to determine a consensus for that table. For example, at session 0 with new groups I always emphasize that I don't use alignments and players shouldn't assume that any creature is automatically evil and needs to be killed; they need to assess the situation.

It's a bit of an outlier situation, but without going into excessive detail it is a single online setting, where DMs move between players, and players move freely among one-another, as such a single agreed upon policy is required, which is currently that most traditional 'monsters' cannot enter civilised settlements, and interactions with traditional creatures (elves, dwarves, humans etc), if not hostile, should generally be conducted with animosity. Further to this certain races, such as drow, are almost entirely prohibited from being good aligned.

Hypothetically a DM, in accordance with existing rules, wouls feel compelled to intervene if they saw a budding romance between a drow and a human, or if they saw a goblin sitting down for dinner with a dwarf. This is all rather strictly enforced, and often also reflected in good vs evil traditional narratives and quests (and in NPC attitudes).

I admit when it comes to traditional tabletop I am far more likely to be playing WHFRP, where such issues rarely arise (it's hard to get cosy with a two-headed warrior of chaos with a bloody tentacle hanging from his chest).

 

[Charlaquin]

(it's hard to get cosy with a two-headed warrior of chaos with a bloody tentacle hanging from his chest).

It is with that attitude!

 

[roger semerad]

It's a bit of an outlier situation, but without going into excessive detail it is a single online setting, where DMs move between players, and players move freely among one-another, as such a single agreed upon policy is required, which is currently that most traditional 'monsters' cannot enter civilised settlements, and interactions with traditional creatures (elves, dwarves, humans etc), if not hostile, should generally be conducted with animosity. Further to this certain races, such as drow, are almost entirely prohibited from being good aligned.

Hypothetically a DM, in accordance with existing rules, wouls feel compelled to intervene if they saw a budding romance between a drow and a human, or if they saw a goblin sitting down for dinner with a dwarf. This is all rather strictly enforced, and often also reflected in good vs evil traditional narratives and quests (and in NPC attitudes).

I admit when it comes to traditional tabletop I am far more likely to be playing WHFRP, where such issues rarely arise (it's hard to get cosy with a two-headed warrior of chaos with a bloody tentacle hanging from his chest).

If that's the rules of the group there shouldn't be a problem. I wouldn't want to play in it, but I'd just move onto another group that fit my style. It sounds like you're trying to recruit as many new players as possible and that's causing the issue, maybe because as new players they don't really know what their preferences are. If you think the current status quo is causing problems (or will soon), or it is restricting the growth of the group (and growth is something you actively want to do), you may need to have this conversation with the group as a whole. It will create some heated debates, but it sounds like that's where it's heading anyway.

 

[TigerDude]

As the years roll on it increasingly feels like it's a lot of greybeards shouting 'NO! IT ISN'T HOW WE DID IT IN OUR DAY!'

I think there's a unifying characteristic of those players, namely one where being labeled because of how they look has never proved detrimental to them personally.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To me this specific part of your very good post isn't even that big a deal, because those 'tags' aren't even used "in-world"... they are purely tag words the game uses to distinguish creatures merely for game effects. Nobody "in-world" on Faerun could or would point to two different goblins and say "That one's a fey, and that's one's a humanoid" because the distinction to them is meaningless. They are both goblins in Faerun... and who knows how long either one has been here or even if one actually arrived here from the Feywild at all... plus there's no "scientific methodology" set up in the world to determine when one might switch (or "evolve" as you put it) from one to the other. Goblins are just goblins. We players only care if specific ones are classified as "fey" or "humanoid" to determine whether Charm Person works on them or not.

Of course, charm person does exist in the world, which is why it having different effects on otherwise identical creatures is a problem for some. It's not just the players that should care, the PCs (who are part of the world theoretically) should care too, as should any NPC who deals with spells that care about such things. I don't see why they couldn't just have them all be humanoid, or even better, duel-type as appropriate. Other versions of 5e have no problem with this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Jermey said in the video about aberrations that gith who spent time away from the planes and lived on the material plane long enough (generations, not in ones lifetime) became humanoids and got the abilities of the pc species rather than the abilities in the Monster Manual (and were aberrations). He insinuated that was true of all PC species whose type differed from MotM to MM. Now none of that is stated in the MM (aside from a reference in the lizardfolk section) but we also haven't had any new species that were formally monsters be reprinted yet. It's possible that the PC goblin species will be fey if it gets reprinted or the giths be aberrations, but for now the take is that if you're a PC goblin, your from a different branch of goblin than the MM goblin.

Nothing better than important lore information being missing from the books but available through a designer interview.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

duel-type as appropriate

I am genuinely mystified why WotC-brand 5E seems so strongly opposed to creatures having more than one type.

As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing about 5E's rules (2014 or 2024) breaks if you consider creatures to have more than one type. Like, Protection from Evil and Good? If you have the type they picked for the spell when they cast it, it hits you, even if you also have another type.

I'm struggling to think of even one example where just considering a creature of have more than one type would cause a genuine rules problem in 5E. I don't think it'll find it because, IIRC, 3E and 4E allowed creatures to have more than one type.

 

[Charlaquin]

Of course, charm person does exist in the world, which is why it having different effects on otherwise identical creatures is a problem for some. It's not just the players that should care, the PCs (who are part of the world theoretically) should care too, as should any NPC who deals with spells that care about such things. I don't see why they couldn't just have them all be humanoid, or even better, duel-type as appropriate. Other versions of 5e have no problem with this.

Dual-type is definitely my preferred approach!

 

[Scribe]

I am genuinely mystified why WotC-brand 5E seems so strongly opposed to creatures having more than one type.

As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing about 5E's rules (2014 or 2024) breaks if you consider creatures to have more than one type. Like, Protection from Evil and Good? If you have the type they picked for the spell when they cast it, it hits you, even if you also have another type.

I'm struggling to think of even one example where just considering a creature of have more than one type would cause a genuine rules problem in 5E. I don't think it'll find it because, IIRC, 3E and 4E allowed creatures to have more than one type.

I'm almost positive it wouldnt matter.

 

[TerraDave]

You could play a drow and ally with orcs in 1e (by Gygax!). Tiefling were created to be a player race in 2e and non-evil Gith have been around for decades. As for 3e, its most famous module hinged on allying with kobolds.

But if you have an adventure where the party needs to fight through and kill dozens and dozens of goblins, why not?

Though it would be cooler if it was dozens and dozens of elves.