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

[Zardnaar]

I think it entirely varies based on your particular campaign.

The upcoming two Forgotten Realms sourcebooks should give us an idea of how these species are viewed "canonically" by the general public in Faerun these days.

WotC had input into how these species were portrayed in Baldur's Gate 3. In that game, drow, goblins, tieflings, and hobgoblins are clearly viewed with varying degrees of suspicion by many NPCs, but they are not greeted with a "kill on sight" reaction.

Tieflings have been exiled en masse from Elturel as a result of racial prejudice following the events of Descent into Avernus, but they don't seem to be having much trouble in Baldur's Gate itself (though they also don't seem to occupy any high status positions in the city; we don't see any tiefling patriars, for example, although there are a few tieflings in the Flaming Fist).

We don't see any goblins living in the general population, even in Baldur's Gate. There is one hobgoblin refugee from Elturel whose admission to Baldur's Gate is being stalled due to his race.

There are a few drow NPCs in Baldur's Gate, who seem to be tolerated. Again, we don't encounter any of them in high status positions. The most negative reactions to drow characters tend to come from Deep Gnomes.

Kobolds are rare in the game, encountered in one remote area as hostile scavengers, and there is one peaceful merchant kobold who is part of a circus whose membership includes many unusual beings. The general public seems more or less unfamiliar with the existence of gith.

There's 1 more Kobold merchant near the end.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

That kind of depends on your source. The current Monster Manual connects minotaurs to Baphomet, but the still current write up for PC Minotaurs does not (MPMotM). And the first setting to have Minotaur PCs was Dragonlance, where they are definitely unconnected to Baphomet, on account of Baphomet not existing in (or being cut off from) that setting.

But whatever their origin, they are big and scary looking, and I would expect people to react accordingly.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That kind of depends on your source. The current Monster Manual connects minotaurs to Baphomet, but the still current write up for PC Minotaurs does not (MPMotM). And the first setting to have Minotaur PCs was Dragonlance, where they are definitely unconnected to Baphomet, on account of Baphomet not existing in (or being cut off from) that setting.

But whatever their origin, they are big and scary looking, and I would expect people to react accordingly.

Part of my argument WRT tieflings is that they are, more than pretty much any other "frightening" race, extremely similar to regular humans. Because...they're regular humans with unusual skin tones and, sometimes, horns and tails. That's...basically it. They don't need to have been created by any demon/devil (some are connected to Asmodeus, but some can just be the product of a frisky incubus/succubus, or Elturel getting dragged into the Abyss for a bit, or...) In other words, it can happen at such a dramatic distance removed, with zero visible connection.

Krynn minotaurs, as I had understood it, are not discriminated against at all? So I would not expect on Krynn that such a thing were the case. There, AIUI, they're just seen as big dudes who are good at sailing, IIRC. Could be mistaken, Krynn is far from my usual wheelhouse.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Krynn minotaurs, as I had understood it, are not discriminated against at all? So I would not expect on Krynn that such a thing were the case. There, AIUI, they're just seen as big dudes who are good at sailing, IIRC. Could be mistaken, Krynn is far from my usual wheelhouse

The people of Krynn are too busy trying to avoid kender to worry about minotaurs.

 

[Retros_x]

I just think its boring storytelling to have ALL people from one civiliation to be evil. I prefer villains/factions that are enemies of the party because of their actions, not because of their skin/hair color. I always thought that this is common sense, but posts like these show that people actual prefer stories were they can kill civilized humanoids on sight because they have a different skin/hair color and behave like its a super weird new way of modern people playing this game. I think stories that prefer characterization over generalization are much older than TTRPGs, but what do I know. I am just a guy who likes actual characters and who uses actual monsters instead of humanoids that can talk to you when I need some simple hack n slash.

 

[TiQuinn]

You are always allowed to portray monsters however you see fit in your own game.

Perhaps the question should be “Why do some people need to have the game reflect their personal preference for depicting monsters?”

 

[Alzrius]

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).

Unto itself, this does not necessarily imply any kind of peaceful integration, let alone broad acceptance or cooperation between those different groups.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Unto itself, this does not necessarily imply any kind of peaceful integration, let alone broad acceptance or cooperation between those different groups.

It seems likely that early humans (and cousins) were very tribal, and, like chimps, regularly fought each other, but would generally accept unaccompanied females into the tribe.

 

[Burnside]

I think there are two parallel conversations happening in this thread:

1. Should/do biologically evil species exist in the game?

2. Should/do people in the game display prejudice against certain species, regardless of whether said species are actually biologically evil?

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I think the fatal flaw with a humanocentric world building is the fact that you world has to strictly limit what else is in the world. The classic AD&D model is that humanity is in ascendency, demi humans (elves, dwarves, etc) are in decline and withdrawn from the greater world (gnomes and halflings), by humanoids (goblins and orcs) live in the fringes but form no society larger than roving tribes, and most everything else is either a monster hiding in a dungeon, a creature of the planes/underdark, or a rare one-off (planetouched or the like). That design though creates only one style of world, a pseudo "the of the third age" Tolkien vibe where as humanity gains ascendancy, the fanatical world recedes into myth. The kind of world where dragons are rare, elves are dying out, and most fantasy races can only exist on the fringes of humanity.

It's not a BAD design, but for a long while it was the only design, even when it wasn't the best fit. There was no reason the Forgotten Realms needed the elves retreating to Evermeet the same way Tolkien elves did. That the dwarves were dying out and halflings lived in isolated shires. Greyhawk did that. Mystara/The Known World did that. Faerun didn't need to follow suit (for example) except for it was the style at the time (adjusts onion on belt).

But like I said, that design makes the world seem small. All new monsters must exist hidden in dungeons or the planes, all new species must be isolated tribes just beyond the borders. Everything not a demi human is a freak or a sideshow curiosity (or a menace to be removed). Humanity demands the spotlight and everything else must suffer for that.

Again, if that's your like, fine. I'm just kinda bored with it.