D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[Charlaquin]

To be honest, it's less making a case for or against as much as predicting the inevitable. The logical endpoint is that the concept of monsters will become irrelevant.

That seems a little hyperbolic to me. Just because humanoids become more nuanced doesn’t mean there won’t still be monsters.

During the Star Wars saga line, WotC put out a "monster" book. It was mostly filled with various alien species that existed in canon, separated into human-like species (the vast majority of them playable as PCs) and beasts like rancors or reeks that were either animal-like or way too powerful to be a PC (or both).

I predict the next "Monster book" that replaces the Monster Manual in 6e looks a lot more like that. A lot of formerly "monsters" will be redesigned to be PC friendly both in terms of lore and mechanics (imagine for example the minotaur, centaur and satyr from Theros becoming the MM default stats). The only things not done like that are beings too powerful (dragons, fiends) or not sentient (golems, beasts).

I believe that would be a highly desirable outcome.

The wall between monster and PC will more or less be gone.

That’s silly. You said yourself that in such a book would have powerful and non-sentient monsters treated differently than PC options. Just because humanoids stop being treated as monsters (which, again, I think would be a very positive change) doesn’t mean monsters won’t exist.

It will be a very different take. Not completely sold on if it will be bad, but it will be different and that will make 4e-sized waves.

What happens next is anyone's guess but based on how PF2e is going, I doubt Paizo will be the safe harbor it was in 2009 for those seeking to avoid these changes. It will be a momentum shift that no one is going to be immune to.

I’m sure people who want always-evil humanoids will still find a way to have them.

 

[TheSword]

To be honest, it's less making a case for or against as much as predicting the inevitable. The logical endpoint is that the concept of monsters will become irrelevant.

During the Star Wars saga line, WotC put out a "monster" book. It was mostly filled with various alien species that existed in canon, separated into human-like species (the vast majority of them playable as PCs) and beasts like rancors or reeks that were either animal-like or way too powerful to be a PC (or both).

I predict the next "Monster book" that replaces the Monster Manual in 6e looks a lot more like that. A lot of formerly "monsters" will be redesigned to be PC friendly both in terms of lore and mechanics (imagine for example the minotaur, centaur and satyr from Theros becoming the MM default stats). The only things not done like that are beings too powerful (dragons, fiends) or not sentient (golems, beasts). The wall between monster and PC will more or less be gone.

It will be a very different take. Not completely sold on if it will be bad, but it will be different and that will make 4e-sized waves.

What happens next is anyone's guess but based on how PF2e is going, I doubt Paizo will be the safe harbor it was in 2009 for those seeking to avoid these changes. It will be a momentum shift that no one is going to be immune to.

Logical Endpoint? How about starting point!

The wall between monster and PC disappeared in 3e with Savage Species. That’s a troll on the front cover.

Oh wait no... it was done in AD&D with Complete Book of Humanoids.

This is neither groundbreaking or unusual for out hobby.

Paizo did the same with their Advanced Race Guide.

Do you have any reason it won’t happen at the same pace it’s happening now... a few monsters a time as is thematically appropriate. There are 5 or 6 books that have added new PC races, some of them monstrous?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, I'M not saying that should be the end goal, but it sure as hell seems there is an audience for it. But how much farther is there to go?

They have put any and all sorts of "DMs can change alignments of monsters, these are guidelines" notices in the books. They have allowed PC orcs to be of any alignment for decades. You can create alternative takes on orcs like Wildemont or Eberron does. This hasn't been "good enough". The next logical step is to stop using them in primarily antagonistic roles and treat them no different than elves or dwarves. And then do the same for goblins, gnolls, kobolds, etc.

Please tell me if any of these statements are true.

All orcs are irredeemably evil and must be put to the sword whenever found.
All vampires are irredeemably evil and must be put to the sword whenever found.
All succubi are irredeemably evil and must be put to the sword whenever found.

If they are not true, then we must contend with the issue that no sentient species in the multiverse should have a default alignment.

Seems like you’re extrapolating beyond what is reasonable. Why?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Right. I'm not saying you're an stupid, just that what you say is stupid.

We disagree. Go away.

I didn’t call you, anyone, or anything, stupid.

Either ignore me or stop replying to me.

 

[MGibster]

I'm totally onboard with goblins, orcs, minotaurs, etc., etc. being playable races. In fact, I think they should just add the orc to the PHB and do away with the half-orc in its entirety as there would be no reason for its existence at that point. In my all dwarf campaign, I made goblin a playable race and it worked out fine (it was a playable option after PC death). The dwarfs, who lived very long lives and were a hidebound people in general, expected the goblins to break the peace at any moment whereas for the goblins the conflict with dwarfs was generations ago and nobody really worried about it. In my own little homebrew section, I have an orc nation that wants to ally itself with the other nations against the evil empire whose yoke they suffer under as well.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

To be honest, it's less making a case for or against as much as predicting the inevitable. The logical endpoint is that the concept of monsters will become irrelevant.

During the Star Wars saga line, WotC put out a "monster" book. It was mostly filled with various alien species that existed in canon, separated into human-like species (the vast majority of them playable as PCs) and beasts like rancors or reeks that were either animal-like or way too powerful to be a PC (or both).

I predict the next "Monster book" that replaces the Monster Manual in 6e looks a lot more like that. A lot of formerly "monsters" will be redesigned to be PC friendly both in terms of lore and mechanics (imagine for example the minotaur, centaur and satyr from Theros becoming the MM default stats). The only things not done like that are beings too powerful (dragons, fiends) or not sentient (golems, beasts). The wall between monster and PC will more or less be gone.

It will be a very different take. Not completely sold on if it will be bad, but it will be different and that will make 4e-sized waves.

What happens next is anyone's guess but based on how PF2e is going, I doubt Paizo will be the safe harbor it was in 2009 for those seeking to avoid these changes. It will be a momentum shift that no one is going to be immune to.

The sky is very much not falling.

 

[Oofta]

I didn’t call you, anyone, or anything, stupid.

Either ignore me or stop replying to me.

You said my opinion was nonsense while using the fallacy that "If you only understood you'd agree". In effect you said my opinion was stupid. That is the same as calling me stupid.

If the lore can justify one type of creature being evil, you can justify any type of creature being evil or you can justify none. It's a preference and can (and should) vary by campaign.

That's all. No insults, no telling you that your opinion is nonsense or that if you just understood you'd agree.

 

[Haffrung]

Um... your examples are individuals that don't represent their species. Not all Titans were like Thanos. Most humans are not like the Joker. These examples do not justify making an entire species "the enemy" - quite the opposite, the exampled demonstrate that extreme individuals make good enemies.

There was no need to have entire species be the enemy. That was just a simple approach that the original writers and players didn't see as a problem. It has shown to be less-than-great. It is probably time to retire, rather than justify and defend it.

All species? Ogres, minotaurs, medusa, ettins, trolls, wyverns, troglodytes, umber hulks, driders, yuan-ti, and behirs? All a rich and nuanced population of good, evil, and in-between? No monsters that are inherently evil and that players can assume are hostile?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You said my opinion was nonsense while using the fallacy that "If you only understood you'd agree".

No, I didn’t.

In effect you said my opinion was stupid. That is the same as calling me stupid.

No, it isn’t.

If the lore can justify one type of creature being evil, you can justify any type of creature being evil or you can justify none. It's a preference and can (and should) vary by campaign.

Irrelevant. You can subvert what a ghoul is for a given world, but that doesn’t change what it is in general. The core books talk about the general case.
That D&D Devils aren’t a species or a lineage or any other such type of thing isn’t a preference, it’s the default lore for D&D. Orcs, otoh, are a species of living creature that breed like RL mammals, have familial and other attachments, raise their children, etc.
The two are inherently different cases.

That's all. No insults, no telling you that your opinion is nonsense or that if you just understood you'd agree.

Okay. I didn’t do any of that, either.

 

[CleverNickName]

D&D is not going to have a major cultural impact. The tail is not going to wag the dog.

It depends on what you mean by "major," and by "cultural," and by "impact." Because one could argue that D&D generates millions of dollars annually, and has become a mainstream hobby now--and therefore, it has already had a significant impact on popular culture.