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

[EzekielRaiden]

Specifically I mean creatures like the tieflings, gith, drow and kobolds.

Tieflings: Probably not. They're not "common" per se, but they're hardly so rare that people would react with shock and fear. Besides...the vast majority of tieflings are literally just people with red, purple, or blue skin and maybe some other odd features. There isn't that much to fear!
Gith: Maybe? I think people would probably be wary, because knowledge that the gith can be alien and dangerous doesn't seem to be hidden much. But other than their weird noses, they just look like skinny humans. Since some are decent and some not, I'd imagine they get a wary reception.
Drow: Sort of the same as gith, but moreso. Some drow are right bastards, and some are just very reclusive elves. Can't know for sure just by looking at one. I'm sure Drizzt's heroics have helped on this front too.
Kobolds: They're just little guys. Why would people fear them? Genuinely curious here.

(Not mentioned)
Dragonborn: Probably not. Especially given the cultural associations of Forgotten Realms dragonborn. The breath weapon might give some folks pause, but otherwise, again, what's to fear? A human with a menacing glare and a weapon is scarier!
Orcs: Frankly at this point I feel like even old-school fans have to admit that orcs aren't going to be universally feared.
Gnolls: Unfortunately, yes, they should be. I say "unfortunately" because this is a hard-coded rewrite of what gnolls had previously been. Originally, gnolls had in fact been a natural race. Now they're created from corpses via a fiendish ritual. They're magical bloodlust in bipedal form. The old gnoll lore was better.
Minotaurs: Probably not "feared" per se, but wariness, much like gith and drow. They've got a connection to a dark force (their creator deity is evil), but they're sapient beings with will and intent. Caution, not "BURN IT! BURN IT WITH FIRE!!!", is the way.

 

[The Sigil]

Part of the current aversion to blanket labelling of all races comes, I think, from moving away from the Gygaxian assertion that worlds "should" be humano-centric.

Generally, my opinion is that in a "default pseudo-medieval world" where PCs are adventuring for fame AND FORTUNE, resources are scarce (else, why get into a dangerous profession like adventuring to accumulate a fortune), most humanoid races tend to revert to what I see from humanity (the only intelligent race with which I have experience in real life)... which is to say, tribalism combined, "othering" of those outside the tribe, and that as such, outside of locations that have an abundance of resources (usually more cosmopolitan and/or magic-rich areas), most races are by default insular, compete with other tribes for resources, and generally consider anyone competing with them for resources to be "the enemy" (and ascribe dark deeds to them).

In such a world, where different "ancestries" so would have even more pronounced differences than skin hue (pointy ears on elves? bearded women on dwarves? difference in stature between goliaths and halflings? these are much more obvious differences than skin hues), and would naturally lead to "races."

I don't consider this "evil" or "good" per se, more like human(oid) nature in the face of scarcity. It explains why in the default fantasy setting, humanity finds elves distant and aloof, they find dwarves stubborn and stodgy, but can tolerate both (humans are generally interested in settling different areas than elves and dwarves) especially when they aren't in competition for resources, while orcs and hobgoblins - generally competing for the same land and resources - are ascribed "evilness." It's much easier justify in one's head, "kill the evil monsters and take their stuff" than "kill the nice allies and take their stuff."

Similarly, orcs and hobgoblins hate humans for competing with them for resources. Since tales were traditionally told from the perspective of a humano-centric world, the human lens of "who is evil" was applied (it's one of the reasons I actually LIKED the Orcs of Thar - it flipped this trope on its head in some ways and showed how the monsters would consider the humans "evil" and "marauders").

Knowing campaigns in an "old-school" game are explicitly being told through that lens of humanocentrism makes me not uncomfortable with having a world where humanoids are "evil." When I run a game where "alignment matters" (e.g., 3e with its alignment-typed damage) I am likely to explicitly point out the lens to my players and point out that "absolute law" or "absolute good" often does NOT align precisely with what most human societies would call "good" or "evil" (yes, orcs in the Monster Manual are "often Chaotic Evil" but you not should assume your axiomatic - lawful - weapon is going to deal bonus damage to every orc you meet - in my mind, alignment damage is more for use of those that are extraplanar creatures borne of that moral energy and/or mortal beings actively dedicated to promulgating the tenets of the moral axis). I think of it as "Chaotic" or "Evil" or "Lawful" or "Good" and not "chaotic" or "evil" or "lawful" or "good" if you will.

Anyway, before this devolves into an alignment thread, I'll just point out that "if your stories are told through the lens of humanocentrism" (as old-school D&D often was), it makes sense to me that erstwhile allies of humans (dwarves, elves) aren't "evil" but are "mistrusted" while enemies are "evil." It's the LENS.

 

[The Sigil]

Minotaurs: Probably not "feared" per se, but wariness, much like gith and drow. They've got a connection to a dark force (their creator deity is evil), but they're sapient beings with will and intent. Caution, not "BURN IT! BURN IT WITH FIRE!!!", is the way.

They've got "a connection to a dark force" based on their creator deity being evil, but caution is the way... and yet with tieflings I think your bias (liking tieflings) is showing...

Tieflings: Probably not. They're not "common" per se, but they're hardly so rare that people would react with shock and fear. Besides...the vast majority of tieflings are literally just people with red, purple, or blue skin and maybe some other odd features. There isn't that much to fear!

Uh, Tieflings are LITERALLY descended from demons or humans transformed by Asmodeus (unless something has changed recently and I missed it). Isn't either explanation... literally a direct connection to a dark force (by blood or by literally being magically transformed by an incarnation of Evil), too? Shouldn't "caution" be advised for the same reasons rather than "there isn't that much to fear"? They seem to me to have a much "closer" connection to evil than minotaurs since they owe their very existence to the physical incarnation of evil itself (either in outsider lineage or Asmodeus’ direct intervention).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The thing about BG3 is it forms pretty much a "first hand" experience of the Forgotten Realms. If you have played it you feel you have been there and know what it's like. And millions of people have played BG3. Mentioning gith, who were pretty obscure and unpopular as PCs prior to BG3, suggests this is what is going on. Really, you only have two choices: either embrace BG3 (which means all your DMs need to play it for research purposes), or make it clear to new players that you group is nothing like BG3 from the outset (which may also mean playing it so you can explain how it differs).

 

[Clint_L]

They've got "a connection to a dark force" based on their creator deity being evil, but caution is the way... and yet with tieflings I think your bias (liking tieflings) is showing...

Uh, Tieflings are LITERALLY descended from demons or humans transformed by Asmodeus (unless something has changed recently and I missed it). Isn't either explanation... literally a direct connection to a dark force (by blood or by literally being magically transformed by an incarnation of Evil), too? Shouldn't "caution" be advised for the same reasons rather than "there isn't that much to fear"? They seem to me to have a much "closer" connection to evil than minotaurs since they owe their very existence to the physical incarnation of evil itself (either in outsider lineage or Asmodeus’ direct intervention).

Here is the description of Tieflings from the current PHB (emphasis added):

Tieflings are either born in the Lower Planes or have fiendish ancestors who originated there. A tiefling (pronounced TEE-fling) is linked by blood to a devil, a demon, or some other Fiend. This connection to the Lower Planes is the tiefling’s fiendish legacy, which comes with the promise of power yet has no effect on the tiefling’s moral outlook.

Which is fine by me - I don't use alignment so, while most fiends have motives that are inimical to mortals, not all of them do.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

unless something has changed recently and I missed it

Initially, they were descended from any lower planes creature. It was 4e that connected them all to Asmodeus, so it could give them a uniform copywritable appearance. And yes, it was reversed mid 5e 2014. Did your really miss that?

 

[Demetrios1453]

Well... It depends on the book. Ravenloft's art was very Victorian (without firearms) and there is a Planescape art with the Lady of Pain chasing hoodlums on a skateboard. (The hoodlums, she is floating). The Realms always has a more Renaissance theme than strictly medieval. More Italian city states than British kingdoms. The most medieval looking art in AD&D probably comes from the 2e Mystara books (ironic considering how gonzo Mystara is just below the surface).

Well, darn. I was all about to start up a furious Google image search for that illustration of the Lady of Pain on a skateboard!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, darn. I was all about to start up a furious Google image search for that illustration of the Lady of Pain on a skateboard!

She has an invisible skateboard, that’s why she always appears to be floating.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

They've got "a connection to a dark force" based on their creator deity being evil, but caution is the way... and yet with tieflings I think your bias (liking tieflings) is showing...

Tieflings are simply more common because they're human-adjacent.

I have no pro-tiefling bias. I have no anti-tiefling bias.

The only race toward which I am biased is dragonborn.

Uh, Tieflings are LITERALLY descended from demons or humans transformed by Asmodeus (unless something has changed recently and I missed it).

Notice how you already had to add an exception ("or transformed..."), and it's now descent, not just direct creator attention.

All minotaurs were either directly created by Baphomet (IIRC?), or can trace direct ancestry to such. All of them.

There is no "my great-grandfather accepted a contract he shouldn't have, so all of his children were born with horns" thing, where the children did literally nothing wrong and were merely infected by one or more parental misdeeds. There is an inherent separation, even right at the beginning. Consider people like Wyll from BG3, who becomes functionally a tiefling because he was cursed. Where's the evil there? There isn't any. It's nefarious manipulation.

That's the key difference. Perhaps, to you, it doesn't matter. Certainly to me it doesn't matter, and in the actual game I run--and any other game I might run, other than one with a heavily-established setting where racism is explicitly included and extremely strong, e.g. Dark Sun--I don't do racism. Like, at all. Racism is almost completely boring as a fantasy moral trope because it has only three outcomes: the bigots are bigots and the victims are laudable; the bigots are right and the victims are evil; or the bigots are bigots and the victims are evil. None of those outcomes even remotely interests me, so I simply don't use racism as a setting conceit. I use it--extraordinarily rarely--as an individual character trait when I want to make a particularly hate-worthy character, and that's about it.

Isn't either explanation... literally a direct connection to a dark force (by blood or by literally being magically transformed by an incarnation of Evil), too?

As stated above: No, because sometimes it's indirect. Other times, it's a transformation unjustly inflicted on someone who literally never did anything wrong in their whole life.

Shouldn't "caution" be advised for the same reasons rather than "there isn't that much to fear"?

Well, there's one other significant element there. Minotaurs are a hell of a lot bigger than tieflings.

They seem to me to have a much "closer" connection to evil than minotaurs since they owe their very existence to the physical incarnation of evil itself (either in outsider lineage or Asmodeus’ direct intervention).

Why? To me it's almost guaranteed to be a much, much, much more distant one. Because, as stated, 100% of minotaurs come from beings directly, personally created and taught by Baphomet(?). The vast majority of tieflings don't have that connection. It could, quite literally, be that their great-grandfather did a bad thing exactly once, and the curse has only finally flowered three generations later, in a child who literally never did anything wrong and who came from parents who literally could not possibly have known any of this.

Further, all the lore I've ever seen about minotaurs explicitly and specifically indicates that they retain a personal connection directly to Baphomet. Those who choose not to be like the stereotypical minotaurs work very hard to limit or cut off that connection, but (again to the best of my knowledge) it is 100% always there, lingering, waiting for a moment of weakness. Nothing of the sort has ever been true of tieflings, or indeed even of other sorts of things.

Remember: All you need to be a tiefling is that one of your ancestors, at some point in the ancient past, was some kind of fiend. Has nothing to do with direct creation by Asmodeus. Any human with even the tiniest drop of blood connecting them to a fiend, or the curse of any fiend, or even just an act of great fiendish magic which an ancestor happened to be witness to or target thereof, can thus be born a tiefling. The connection can be as remote as a dozen generations or as direct as "I was personally cursed to be a tiefling."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Part of the current aversion to blanket labelling of all races comes, I think, from moving away from the Gygaxian assertion that worlds "should" be humano-centric.

Generally, my opinion is that in a "default pseudo-medieval world" where PCs are adventuring for fame AND FORTUNE, resources are scarce (else, why get into a dangerous profession like adventuring to accumulate a fortune), most humanoid races tend to revert to what I see from humanity (the only intelligent race with which I have experience in real life)... which is to say, tribalism combined, "othering" of those outside the tribe, and that as such, outside of locations that have an abundance of resources (usually more cosmopolitan and/or magic-rich areas), most races are by default insular, compete with other tribes for resources, and generally consider anyone competing with them for resources to be "the enemy" (and ascribe dark deeds to them).

In such a world, where different "ancestries" so would have even more pronounced differences than skin hue (pointy ears on elves? bearded women on dwarves? difference in stature between goliaths and halflings? these are much more obvious differences than skin hues), and would naturally lead to "races."

I don't consider this "evil" or "good" per se, more like human(oid) nature in the face of scarcity. It explains why in the default fantasy setting, humanity finds elves distant and aloof, they find dwarves stubborn and stodgy, but can tolerate both (humans are generally interested in settling different areas than elves and dwarves) especially when they aren't in competition for resources, while orcs and hobgoblins - generally competing for the same land and resources - are ascribed "evilness." It's much easier justify in one's head, "kill the evil monsters and take their stuff" than "kill the nice allies and take their stuff."

Similarly, orcs and hobgoblins hate humans for competing with them for resources. Since tales were traditionally told from the perspective of a humano-centric world, the human lens of "who is evil" was applied (it's one of the reasons I actually LIKED the Orcs of Thar - it flipped this trope on its head in some ways and showed how the monsters would consider the humans "evil" and "marauders").

Knowing campaigns in an "old-school" game are explicitly being told through that lens of humanocentrism makes me not uncomfortable with having a world where humanoids are "evil." When I run a game where "alignment matters" (e.g., 3e with its alignment-typed damage) I am likely to explicitly point out the lens to my players and point out that "absolute law" or "absolute good" often does NOT align precisely with what most human societies would call "good" or "evil" (yes, orcs in the Monster Manual are "often Chaotic Evil" but you not should assume your axiomatic - lawful - weapon is going to deal bonus damage to every orc you meet - in my mind, alignment damage is more for use of those that are extraplanar creatures borne of that moral energy and/or mortal beings actively dedicated to promulgating the tenets of the moral axis). I think of it as "Chaotic" or "Evil" or "Lawful" or "Good" and not "chaotic" or "evil" or "lawful" or "good" if you will.

Anyway, before this devolves into an alignment thread, I'll just point out that "if your stories are told through the lens of humanocentrism" (as old-school D&D often was), it makes sense to me that erstwhile allies of humans (dwarves, elves) aren't "evil" but are "mistrusted" while enemies are "evil." It's the LENS.

As a separate response from the above:

If this is true, why do modern humans have neanderthal and denisovan DNA?

We can prove--scientifically--that our ancestors met the only other groups of sapient beings that were not identical to us...and instead of destroying each other, they mated in sufficient quantities that many people of Asian descent have denisovan (homo longi) DNA, and almost all humans who have any non-African ancestry have some amount of neanderthal DNA (homo neanderthalis).

If the only time in all of humanity's existence that we actually did have other species...we ended up mating with them...I think it's quite reasonable to say that this presumption of "scarce resources + tribalism = GENOCIDAL RACISM!!!" is scientifically unfounded.