Which villainous race(s) are next on the chopping block?

[TyGuy]

WotC reimagined goblins, orcs, and drow in recent books. And they alluded that they will continue to retcon the "leans evil" alignment of historically villainous races.

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.

Do you think this will be contained to playable races or do you think this sentiment will creep into any demi-human? What do you think the criteria will be for "problematic" villainous races? There doesn't seem to be much love for kobolds, they didn't get the orc ASI treatment. Instead of dropping their -2, they can move it around with Tasha's though... *eyeroll*

Will illithid eventually get the "moral complexity" treatment? How about fiends and celestials? How far can you envision the goalpost moving?

[Naanomi]

This edition of course took Gnolls into 'less morally complex' ground than in past editions

[MaxWilson]

Will illithid eventually get the "moral complexity" treatment? How about fiends and celestials? How far can you envision the goalpost moving?

Illithids, neogi, beholders, and baatezu are all tragically misunderstood, underrepresented cultures just trying to make a buck, a brain, or a soul and find a little innocent pleasure disintegrating innocent souls along the way.

There is no justice until neogis are fairly represented among the 5E player character base! The neogis will tell you when it's fair to stop.

[Tanarii]

They already did a pretty good job with Gnolls, Goblinoids, Kobolds and Orcs in Volos, and Fiends in Mords. We need more of that.

[Warder]

WotC reimagined goblins, orcs, and drow in recent books. And they alluded that they will continue to retcon the "leans evil" alignment of historically villainous races.


Do you think this will be contained to playable races or do you think this sentiment will creep into any demi-human? What do you think the criteria will be for "problematic" villainous races? There doesn't seem to be much love for kobolds, they didn't get the orc ASI treatment. Instead of dropping their -2, they can move it around with Tasha's though... *eyeroll*

Will illithid eventually get the "moral complexity" treatment? How about fiends and celestials? How far can you envision the goalpost moving?

Every humanoid race will get the same treatment eventually, I'm sure. As for other creatures, I'm not so sure. People generally seem to be okay with monstrous-looking creatures being monsters, which is a PoV I really disagree with. Illithid could go both ways - they're humanoid but they look very alien, so maybe they're allowed to be bad guys?

[LudicSavant]

D&D's monsters have pretty much always been morally complex... which is why the dissonance of saying that they're not has always been jarring.

This applies even to D&D's actual fiends. You can't take a left turn in the lore without running into a fallen angel or a redeemed demon or someone like Falls-From-Grace. This isn't a new edition thing, this has been true for decades.

Acknowledging that fiends aren't always evil isn't a retcon. If anything, it's the other way around.

[KorvinStarmast]

Obviously, someone needs to make a Yuant Ti Ranger, and call him Snakeskin Cowboy.

Robert E Howard will roll over in his grave.
(The Conan genre bad guys were often some version of snake people doing occult and evil rituals somewhere ...)

[MaxWilson]

D&D's monsters have pretty much always been morally complex... which is why the dissonance of saying that they're not has always been jarring.

This applies even to D&D's actual fiends. You can't take a left turn in the lore without running into a fallen angel or a redeemed demon or someone like Falls-From-Grace. This isn't a new edition thing, this has been true for decades.

Acknowledging that fiends aren't always evil isn't a retcon. If anything, it's the other way around.

That's like saying evil Drow aren't problematic because Drizz't. What's new is saying that exceptions to the evilness aren't enough.

[Naanomi]

This applies even to D&D's actual fiends. You can't take a left turn in the lore without running into a fallen angel or a redeemed demon or someone like Falls-From-Grace. This isn't a new edition thing, this has been true for decades.

Acknowledging that fiends aren't always evil isn't a retcon. If anything, it's the other way around.

Of course, even back in 2e planescape lore, such beings didn't remain fiends forever

[Amechra]

Wait, "recent"? Eberron has been a thing, WotC. It's been a thing for longer than some of the people playing your game have been alive.

[LudicSavant]

That's like saying evil Drow aren't problematic because Drizz't.

You got it exactly backwards. Evil Drow are problematic, and Drizz't is part of why.

[MaxWilson]

Of course, even back in 2e planescape lore, such beings didn't remain fiends forever

Yeah, eventually they turn into Avangions.

(Okay, that one was actually an Athasian Dragon/Sorcerer King, not a fiend, but arguably that's even worse than a fiend.)

[TyGuy]

They already did a pretty good job with Gnolls, Goblinoids, Kobolds and Orcs in Volos, and Fiends in Mords. We need more of that.

Am I missing something? Those monstrous races are a variety of flavors of evil in those books. They flesh out how they're awful.
The future is going to be #notallhobgoblins are cruel and merciless.

[TyGuy]

You got it exactly backwards. Evil Drow are problematic, and Drizz't is part of why.

That's your opinion.

[OldTrees1]

Will illithid eventually get the "moral complexity" treatment? How about fiends and celestials? How far can you envision the goalpost moving?

I believe Illithids have examples dating back to AD&D.
Fiends and Celestials have examples dating back to BC. Or, if you insist on limiting it to D&D, dating back to 1st edition.

The concept of "beings with free will have free will" is a rather old concept. After a moment thinking about that concept, one could readily start having villains that choose to do what makes them villainous rather than villainy being a racial trait.

[MaxWilson]

You got it exactly backwards. Evil Drow are problematic, and Drizz't is part of why.

So... why are evil fiends not problematic? Or did I misunderstand your point?

I believe Illithids have examples dating back to AD&D.

I don't know about "not evil" but Spelljammer is replete with illithids who aren't necessarily hostile and elves who aren't necessarily friendly, which is more interesting for gameplay than the good/evil distinction.

[Amdy_vill]

so kobold had their rehabilitation into a more neutral race back in 3.5 and 4e, honestly, I think we will see the rest of the goblins(bugbears and hobgoblins) get a rework in their lore then we will probably see any new traditional evil race get the treatment. yanti are on the block considering they have a race block now, so are the giths, we might see a reprint of minotaurs with more player-friendly lore, given the large amounts of hints about a Dragonlance book we will likely see the draconians their natural evil and natural good striped away for making them more neutral. on the note of Dragonlance the kender will defiantly get a lore rework, give the whole oriental problem with them and them all being thieves. so that can of worms is defiantly getting cleaned up. we might see some book work on dwarfs, if the Thri-kreen gets a race this edition we will definitely see them get a rework. I hope we get the Thri-kreen they have been a player race in every editon and their one of my favorites. there are more like there are over 20 types of goblins from past editions that we might see, and many other races but most of 5e races were not evil to start so it's mostly speculation about new races and covering the nonplayable races like vistania or the few stereotypes like dwarfs.

[LudicSavant]

That's your opinion.

Indeed it is.

If you want to have a creature that's okay to kill on sight for no other reason than that it is one of those creatures, then the bar is pretty high. It's at minimum as high as how categorically evil the demons are in DOOM.

D&D's fiends have never met that bar. Instead, it gives us dissonance: We'll hear of exception after exception for (insert monstrous race), then be told that it's somehow okay to slaughter all their babies who, for all you know, are perfectly capable of moral agency and being or becoming one of the exceptions.

Rich Burlew (the Giant himself) actually has some really good rants lying around about why this is awful and if he had any say he'd go complete scorched earth and abolish it from D&D forever.

So... why are evil fiends not problematic? Or did I misunderstand your point?

You seem to have gotten the point backwards -- it would be problematic to say that fiends are an all-evil, not-morally-complex race, given that you can hardly take a left turn without running into an "exception" in the lore.

[OldTrees1]

So... why are evil fiends not problematic? Or did I misunderstand your point?

I think their point is, if a non black raven exists then it is unreasonable to continue to claim all ravens are black. So claims that all ravens are black, despite clear contradictory evidence, is part of the problem. (I say "part" because my analogy is not as charged as the actual topic). So claiming all fiends are evil might be problematic if Fall-from-Grace exists.

Edit: They edited in a response. Feel free to ignore my accurate guess.

I don't know about "not evil" but Spelljammer is replete with illithids who aren't necessarily hostile and elves who aren't necessarily friendly, which is more interesting for gameplay than the good/evil distinction.

Interesting examples. I was referring to some illithids that did not eat people. Although one example is from the one person that half survived ceremorphosis.

[Jerrykhor]

I think they will release UA for playable Ogre race, size Medium. We already have medium Centaurs and Minotaurs, so this is logical.

[LudicSavant]

I think their point is, if a non black raven exists then it is unreasonable to continue to claim all ravens are black. So claims that all ravens are black, despite clear contradictory evidence, is part of the problem. (I say "part" because my analogy is not as charged as the actual topic). So claiming all fiends are evil might be problematic if Fall-from-Grace exists.

Edit: They edited in a response. Feel free to ignore my accurate guess.

Your guess was indeed accurate.

[Catullus64]

To try to be on the positive side of things, "morally and culturally complex" doesn't mean "not evil". A lot of nuanced and understandable factors can contribute to the end result of an evil society. I don't think that adding layers of depth to a race means that said race can no longer serve as a villainous force. As a previous poster pointed out, Volo's Guide added lots of insight into why Orcs and Goblins are the way they are, without robbing them of their core of menace and antagonism. I hope that the guiding aim in future releases is to make all races well realized and rich in cultural detail, rather than the bland approach of assumed moral neutrality across the board.

In summary, a race can still be presented as evil and necessary to fight (a necessity conceit for the game) without resorting to categorical thinking and essentialist assumptions.

[OldTrees1]

To try to be on the positive side of things, "morally and culturally complex" doesn't mean "not evil". A lot of nuanced and understandable factors can contribute to the end result of an evil society. I don't think that adding layers of depth to a race means that said race can no longer serve as a villainous force. As a previous poster pointed out, Volo's Guide added lots of insight into why Orcs and Goblins are the way they are, without robbing them of their core of menace and antagonism. I hope that the guiding aim in future releases is to make all races well realized and rich in cultural detail, rather than the bland approach of assumed moral neutrality across the board.

In summary, a racepopulation can still be presented as evil and necessary to fight (a necessity conceit for the game) without resorting to categorical thinking and essentialist assumptions.

Yes. If I decide ghouls are not necessarily evil, that does not prevent me from having the party encounter a den of evil ghouls.

I think they will release UA for playable Ogre race, size Medium. We already have medium Centaurs and Minotaurs, so this is logical.

Sigh, yeah, they might strike out 3/3.

[False God]

Hopefully, all of them.

The goalpost has never moved. It has always remained: "If it is a sentient race, it has the capacity for good and evil and everything inbetween." WotC has just taken their sweet time inching towards it.

[Naanomi]

Yeah, eventually they turn into Avangions.

(Okay, that one was actually an Athasian Dragon/Sorcerer King, not a fiend, but arguably that's even worse than a fiend.)

They are mutually exclusive actually; one requires you to be a defiler and the other a preserver

[kingcheesepants]

WotC reimagined goblins, orcs, and drow in recent books. And they alluded that they will continue to retcon the "leans evil" alignment of historically villainous races.


Do you think this will be contained to playable races or do you think this sentiment will creep into any demi-human? What do you think the criteria will be for "problematic" villainous races? There doesn't seem to be much love for kobolds, they didn't get the orc ASI treatment. Instead of dropping their -2, they can move it around with Tasha's though... *eyeroll*

Will illithid eventually get the "moral complexity" treatment? How about fiends and celestials? How far can you envision the goalpost moving?

One small point, kobolds actually don't have that -2 anymore it was taken out with an errata a ways back.

I think that yes, Illithid and fiends and celestials and beholders and basically every other type of sentient creature will be given a more nuanced treatment that looks more at their motivations. I don't think that's a moving goalpost at all though unless you believe that the original goal was to have races that serve as two dimensional caricatures that are unambiguous villains.

Now because these races have some actual life to them and have motivations and feelings and can be reasoned with and might even be amenable to working with the players you have before you a greater wealth of lore friendly story options that you didn't before. Is that a bad thing? I don't know how it could be, I can still have an evil orc if I want to, just a tribe that ruthlessly raids towns killing and destroying anything in their path because they love killing. Or I can have a villainous orc that raids some towns unless they pay some protection money, he does it for the money. Or an orc tribe that raids towns because that's the only way they have to feed their kids and maybe the players can work with them to find a solution that benefits everyone. I don't quite understand why having more narrative options that opens up greater story opportunities is a problem.

Also as others have pointed out it's not as if this is exactly new. Ebberon isn't some brand new setting and there are examples of morally complex fiends and what have you going back to the first days of d&d and even prior to that.

[Tanarii]

Am I missing something? Those monstrous races are a variety of flavors of evil in those books. They flesh out how they're awful.

Yes. It was great. We need more of that.

Useful information for the DM on how to run villainous races in game. Same with Mind Flayers and Beholders (in Volos) but I don't traditionally run games in the level range where they're appropriate. Humanoids as the enemy? All the time.

Also useful for players who have PCs that have been facing them as enemies. Rangers with them as a Favored Enemy especially appropriate.

The future is going to be #notallhobgoblins are cruel and merciless.

Eh. The 80s Satanic Panic passed eventually. This too shall pass.

[Lord Raziere]

Eh. The 80s Satanic Panic passed eventually. This too shall pass.

As will your vision of the game, no matter how hard you fight for it.

[Zhorn]

I see this focus cycling through every sentient race/species.

"Every one of X are evil"

DM/writer/player "I want to have an X that is an exception"

"Most of X are evil, with some notable exceptions"

DM/writer/player "I want to have moral complexity and misunderstood perspectives"

"Most of X's societal norms are seen as evil to outsiders"

DM/writer/player "This is a problem for them to be considered evil. They have a rich culture and anyone who defines them as evil is only doing so because of some type of -ism"

"X are no longer used as the stand-in for evil. Every one of Y are evil"

DM/writer/player "I want to have a Y that is an exception"

...

[LudicSavant]

Am I missing something? Those monstrous races are a variety of flavors of evil in those books. They flesh out how they're awful.
The future is going to be #notallhobgoblins are cruel and merciless.

What you're missing is this:

To try to be on the positive side of things, "morally and culturally complex" doesn't mean "not evil". A lot of nuanced and understandable factors can contribute to the end result of an evil society. I don't think that adding layers of depth to a race means that said race can no longer serve as a villainous force. As a previous poster pointed out, Volo's Guide added lots of insight into why Orcs and Goblins are the way they are, without robbing them of their core of menace and antagonism. I hope that the guiding aim in future releases is to make all races well realized and rich in cultural detail, rather than the bland approach of assumed moral neutrality across the board.

In summary, a race can still be presented as evil and necessary to fight (a necessity conceit for the game) without resorting to categorical thinking and essentialist assumptions.

Yes. If I decide ghouls are not necessarily evil, that does not prevent me from having the party encounter a den of evil ghouls.

As Catullus and OldTrees rightly point out, you don't need to have essentialist assumptions or other issues in your writing in order to have villainous groups.