That's a very good point. I tend to avoid that language in general for exactly that reason, because it's hard to manage all the nuance needed to express the concept of people behaving monstrously.
That said, the greatest evil requires not just characterizing other people as monsters, but believing that monsters aren't people. And really, any kind of "those things aren't really people" will do it. Recognizing that the other people who are monsters are still people is very important.
Selectively denying that people are monsters only because they're like you, or part of your heritage, though, is a very important step towards being comfortable thinking that monsters aren't people. If you have to admit that "monsters" is a category which includes people you care about, you are going to be less comfortable with dismissing the humanity and rights of the "monsters".
These are good points! I would note the following:
1. The WOTC Statement on Diversity says as follows:
"
Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game. ...We present orcs and drow in a new light in two of our most recent books,
Eberron: Rising from the Last War and
Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books,
portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do."
It seems that the specific and problematic concerns raised about Orcs and Drow in D&D (and the antecedent roots as well), have been generalized to "all the peoples of D&D."
To put it another way, the specific issues regarding orcs and drow as reflecting racist/racial stereotypes (something which can arguably be extended to other cases, such as hobgoblins) is going to be corrected into a generalized "humanoids will have the same freedom of moral choice as humans do."
2.
That said, the specific concern I think some people have is that within the fantasy genre, there is the idea/concept/tradition/what-have-you of evil beings. Not just undead, or demons, but beings that are by their very nature, evil. In a game with moral absolutes and absolute alignment, this would be the "magic makes them evil" or "their deity makes them evil" kind of humanoid. This is even more important when a game, like D&D, tends to have a lot of combat and/or death. Moral issues of "who is the real monster, those three kobolds in a trenchcoat trying to kill me, or me" probably are less interesting to some people than rolling initiative.
3.
But but this comes back around to what you are saying, which is an old trope, and not just for humanoids- heck, think of the undead, and the original version of
I Am Legend from 1954! The question of who is the real monster is one that occupies a fair amount of literature.
I appreciate the statement that has been made (especially with regard to depcitions of the Vistani, troublesome issues in Chult, etc.), but in the end I'm not sure this is going to make a huge difference at most tables right now? Those that play a more combat-intensive game will likely continue to need and use "cannon fodder," and those who want to incorporate more nuanced portrayals of humanoids probably already have!
Of course, moving forward for the next generation, it will have a much larger impact. And that's good.
