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

[Remathilis]

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.

Well, that's one way to phrase what happened to incorporate new females into the tribe...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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 The classic AD&D model is that humanity is in ascendency, demi humans (elves, dwarves, etc) are in decline and withdrawn from the greater world (gnomes and halflings), by humanoids (goblins and orcs) live in the fringes but form no society larger than roving tribes, and most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.

One compromise option where you can have humanocentrism without human ascendancy is that the humanocentrism is merely local; the campaign is mostly set in lands where humans are most populous, but other parts of the world are dominated by other species. This also allows the campaign to evolve over time from familiar humanocentrism to adventuring in more fantastic lands, as the characters travel far away from the starting location.

 

[TiQuinn]

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?

So for my own part:

1) I don’t have an issue with this in theory, but I prefer to have distinct monsters that have reasons in game for that behavior. The purpose is that I do typically want a creature type akin to Imperial Stormtroopers who function as recognizable villains who my PCs can reasonably expect to act evilly and not worry about whether they can fight them.

2) IMO, this has been the default attitude of many adventures and settings in D&D dating back to my earliest play experiences and it’s just no longer interesting, engaging or realistic to me. If I want to do this, there’s decades worth of material to mine that already has that mindset.

 

[Burnside]

2) IMO, this has been the default attitude of many adventures and settings in D&D dating back to my earliest play experiences and it’s just no longer interesting, engaging or realistic to me.

I fully appreciate the "not interesting or engaging" part, but I'm confused about the "not realistic" part, considering that widespread racial prejudice is exactly how people behave IRL.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

There seems to have been no more malice between actually different species than between regional groups of "our" species. We have some evidence of cohabitation, often at a mild distance, but inhabiting the same places and not seeing (for example) sudden increases in deaths caused by weapons in the fossil record.

I freely agree that this doesn't mean everything was 100% pure peace love and rainbows with puppies for all. Life isn't like that.

But the idea that seeing a human-like sapient entity and thinking "GOOD GODS, KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!" was in any way the norm? No. No it was not.

Our genes prove that some interaction happened, and it was not exclusively of the "KILL IT RIGHT NOW!!!!" variety. Our archeological/paleontological evidence suggests some degree of integration, in addition to competition. It is exactly as foolish to presume universal hatred and fear, as it is to presume universal love and acceptance.

TL;DR: "Unfortunately, it's more complex than that," to quote Matt Parker.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I fully appreciate the "not interesting or engaging" part, but I'm confused about the "not realistic" part, considering that widespread racial prejudice is exactly how people behave IRL.

Widespread racial prejudice is primarily an invention of the Renaissance or later, and it grew out of the extremely unfortunate interaction of multiple societal traditions that were not...that. Remember, Shakespeare had a "Blackamoor" character, and nobody thought that was particularly offensive. Before that, French and English authors in the Arthurian romances included bi-racial and Moorish characters (who had converted to Christianity, of course), and that wasn't considered offensive. Or Miguel de Cervantes, who includes (IIRC) a fleeing Moorish princess as one of the bravest and most noble of the characters in his works. Any controversy about her would have been that he was showing a woman with such qualities, not that he was showing a Moor with them.

Prejudices of the medieval period were almost exclusively driven by religion, far and away more than ethnicity. Further back, again, there doesn't seem to have been any particular dislike for Egyptians by Greeks or Norsemen by Romans, other than to look down on outsiders for their "bar bar bar" language, why couldn't they be civilized and speak Greek?

But, much like the idea that the Church burnt witches at the stake, pop history and pop religion often have literally nothing whatsoever to do with actual history and actual religion. (For the record, the Inquisition burned heretics--people who failed to practice Christianity "correctly"--at the stake....and it was literally heresy to claim that witches existed, as in, it was literally, formally in violation of Catholic doctrine to claim that anyone could get power from making a deal with Satan, and accusing someone of that meant you would get punished, not them!)

 

[Burnside]

Widespread racial prejudice is primarily an invention of the Renaissance or later, and it grew out of the extremely unfortunate interaction of multiple societal traditions that were not...that. Remember, Shakespeare had a "Blackamoor" character, and nobody thought that was particularly offensive.

Shakespeare's Othello, Merchant of Venice, and Titus Andronicus all heavily feature racial prejudice as central themes, and embody the racial prejudices of their society despite his racially "other" characters being more humanized than is typical of writings in his era. Othello ends with the white characters expressing amazement that Othello could behave so nobly despite being black. Aaron the Moor in Titus describes his motivations as being revenge for being abused on the basis of his race. The Christian characters in Merchant of Venice universally describe Shylock not only as being of a different faith but also a different race than they are, and attribute his faults to his race.

 

[TiQuinn]

I fully appreciate the "not interesting or engaging" part, but I'm confused about the "not realistic" part, considering that widespread racial prejudice is exactly how people behave IRL.

I think that varies dramatically depending on the specific locations, history, politics and culture and those are seldom represented in any kind of realistic way nor is it particularly desirable in a game that I feel I or my players would find enjoyable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Shakespeare's Othello, Merchant of Venice, and Titus Andronicus all heavily feature racial prejudice as central themes, and embody the racial prejudices of their society despite his racially "other" characters being more humanized that is typical of writings in his era. Othello ends with the white characters expressing amazement that Othello could behave so nobly despite being black. Aaron the Moor in Titus describes his motivations as being revenge for being abused on the basis of his race. The Christian characters in Merchant of Venice universally describe Shylock not only as being of a different faith but also a different race than they are, and attribute his faults to his race.

The much, much bigger prejudice is about religion. The Merchant of Venice isn't about ethnicity, it's about Judaism. It's the reason why they hate Shylock, for example--and why Shylock's 100% ethnically-identical daughter Jessica marrying Antonio is completely acceptable. Because the critical "problem"--that she practiced Judaism, not Christianity--is quickly fixed by her converting to Christianity.

I'm not saying ethnicity was 0% relevant. As noted, the roots of modern ethnicity-based racism were coming together through this period.

But the much, much, much, MUCH more relevant thing was religion, not ethnicity.

 

[Remathilis]

One compromise option where you can have humanocentrism without human ascendancy is that the humanocentrism is merely local; the campaign is mostly set in lands where humans are most populous, but other parts of the world are dominated by other species. This also allows the campaign to evolve over time from familiar humanocentrism to adventuring in more fantastic lands, as the characters travel far away from the starting location.

Also not a bad design choice, assuming you still want everyone in their own little corners (this is humanville, the next kingdom over is elfland, and beyond that, there be dragon men). The benefit is that you can expand infinitely as long as the map keeps growing, but the fact you still start in humanville still kinda relegates the party dragonborn to a lot of weird stares and the like.