There are a couple of things coming with the new Monster Manual, but what I want to talk about here is the transformation of certain classic D&D monsters to have new creature types.
The two that we already know of are Goblins going from Humanoid to Fey, and Gnolls going from Humanoid to Fiend. (Actually, as of my actually finishing this post, we now have Kobolds counting officially as Dragons.)
The 2014 Monster Manual is only ten years old, but there have been a lot of developments in the culture of the D&D world that have inspired certain changes. I don't want to really delve into the "political" side of this, but I do think that there has been some reflection of fantasy's historical Eurocentric biases, and an interrogation of the very idea of "races."
In the 2024 Player's Handbook, the option formerly known as your fantasy "race" was changed to "species." It's perhaps a bit of a clinical term, but it's also unambiguous. "Race" was meant more in the convention of "the human race" than, say, Latino or East Asian.
And yet, we run into this problem in fantasy, which is that there are many people who are very human-like while not being human.
In our day-to-day experience of the real world, we've never met another species with the ability to talk and reason on anything approaching a human level of sophistication. It's possible that Neanderthals were somewhat like this, but it's also possible that we were co-fertile with them (indeed, there's some evidence that people of European and East Asian descent might be part Neanderthal) and thus they're not exactly a separate species. And yet, in the eons (maybe 300,000 years?) since modern humans first evolved and spread out from Africa and onto every other continent (not much in the way of permanent settlements in Anarctica, to be fair) humanity has developed distinct cultures and languages, philosophies and practices.
Thus, our best way to understand a world of dwarves and elves is to think of them as simply other cultures. Indeed, given the co-fertility of many of D&D's historical "races," one could argue that, in some cases, they're really more like separate ethnicities - just with more significant genetic variation (something that, beyond the cosmetic level, is actually very narrow for humans, with basically indistinguishable physical and mental capabilities).
And yet...
We also have, like, lizard people. Or Dragonborn. Sapient species who clearly have no shared ancestry with humanity. Going farther, we have Plasmoids or even Warforged and Autognomes, the latter two being fully artificial and thus don't even likely have DNA and potentially no organic materials (Warforged might have wood or leather parts, so technically organic, but not in the sense that they grew this organic material themselves).
Furthermore, because fantasy is largely predicated on pre-scientific assumptions about the creation of the world, in many cases the species of D&D were literally created separately by gods - Halflings and Gnomes might seem pretty similar, but the first specimens of each species were created by entirely separate entities, meaning no shared ancestry at all.
Through most of D&D's history, there were certain species (using the updated term here) that were just plain villainous. Even in the 2014 Monster Manual, Goblins and Orcs were all listed as chaotic evil. Both are, of course, classic fantasy monsters. In Tolkien, the two terms are basically different descriptions for the same beings (maybe making goblins somewhat smaller of stature, but I think they're pretty interchangeable) and in both cases, they are by definition evil. Now, Tolkien himself felt troubled by this premise, and came up with a potential explanation (embraced by most, including the Amazon Rings of Power show) that Orcs aren't a wholly separate species, but are actually just elves who have chosen an evil path, and their physical differences were an expression of that malevolence (it's worth noting that for much of history, beauty and virtue were assumed to be inherently intertwined - which sure makes your standard of beauty a powerful standard indeed).
And yet, despite the irredeemably evil nature of Tolkien's Orcs, many fantasy-creators have imagined an alternative - making Orcs, first, their own separate species, and then making that species a more nuanced and human-like culture, fallible, but with the potential for good. Perhaps one of the most popular examples is the Warcraft series. In the first two games of the series, the Orcs really were just bad, but in the third, with the introduction of Thrall as the new Warchief of the Horde, the Orcs were portrayed as a proud culture that was manipulated and tempted into corruption by demonic forces - it wasn't that the Orcs were free of sin, but that they didn't have to continue going down that path, and that individual Orcs could live very different lives than that of bloodthirsty warmongers.
In D&D, while there are certainly plenty of "canonical" worlds and settings, the addition of the Orc as one of the core playable species in 2014 (which, to be fair, was more of an update to 2014's core Half-Orc option) suggests that Wizards of the Coast has fully embraced Orcs as one of the nuanced, human-like peoples who can be just as heroic or villainous as any person.
Which brings us back to Goblins.
Fey, to be fair, are one of the more hard-to-pin-down creature types. At the extremes, you have Fiends, who are more or less by definition evil. Celestials, to be fair, have been broadened out to any kind of outer-planar being who isn't a fiend (something I think Pathfinder and thus possibly 3rd edition simply called an "Outsider," with fiends and celestials as more subtypes). Undead are almost exclusively evil as well. Constructs are generally neutral. But while Fey might skew toward the chaotic side of things, they can easily be benevolent or wicked.
Fey are, also, the most common creature type other than Humanoid for playable species. Indeed, prior I think to Spelljammer's Astral Adventurer's Guide, which gave us playable constructs, oozes, and monstrosities, I believe Fey were the only creature type other than Humanoid that a player could play (they experimented with making Dhampirs undead, something I think they could actually do now that healing spells no longer can't be used on Constructs or Undead).
And thus, making Goblins fey, arguably, doesn't really make for that huge of a change. It will make some spells less useful - Charm Person, for example, will no longer work on them. But Fey seem to kind of straddle a line - they're nearly humanoids in some cases, but then you have the less human-like ones, which are more like embodiments of various emotions and feelings. Fairies are, of course, a playable species, and creatures like pixies and sprites, while tiny, still feel basically like people. But then you also have things like Meenlocks or Hags, which are not just frightful and spiteful, but more or less made out of frightfulness and spite.
Goblins also hold a special place in D&D - they're basically the standard "first combat encounter." Notably, Lost Mines of Phandelver, which has stood the test of time as a really solid intro adventure for 5E, begins with a fight against goblins in a forest.
It's strange, though: Goblins are great cannon fodder for heroic adventurers to slay... until they're also one of the peoples of your setting. Again, looking to World of Warcraft, their version of goblins are certainly oriented more toward comic relief, but they're presented very much as a people with their own merits, even if their hyper-capitalist, Randian culture frequently teeters into outright villainy.
Goblins are also an oft-reprinted playable species - appearing in Volo's Guide to Monsters as well as Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica (based on Magic the Gathering, where Goblins are probably the most common "red" creature type) and of course Monsters of the Multiverse. I believe in Pathfinder (at least its 2nd edition,) Goblins are one of the core playable ancestries. Basically, after Orcs, Goblins are probably the most commonly playable "villainous" fantasy species.
In my own homebrew setting, the villainous reputation of goblinoids (here including Hobgoblins and Bugbears) is in part due to a territorial dispute in some of the main continent's most fertile farmlands. To the Halflings of the vaguely Central/Eastern European-coded Vodaskia, the Goblins were historical tyrants and oppressors, originally loyal to a green dragon that terrorized the land. But for the goblinoids, throwing off the yoke of said dragon was meant to lead to a new era of freedom and prosperity for them, only to descend once again into war against the local halflings over who had a right to the land. The most famous hobgoblin leader, called Battenspur, is seen as a historical villain by the Halflings and humans of the country, but the goblinoids see him as the great hero who will one day return, King Arthur-like, to finally establish their glorious, promised realm. My intent, as the creator of this setting, is not to give any easy answers as to whether the goblinoids are purely a blameless and oppressed minority, or if they just happen to be on the losing side of an entrenched conflict who have their share, even more than their fair share, of blood on their hands. It's very possible that adventurers in this setting could find themselves fighting against roving bands of aggressive goblinoids, but it's just as possible that the adventurers would be called upon to defend an enclave of goblinoids threatened by intolerant, bigoted vigilantes.
One thing I've always found funny is the special place of Gnolls. D&D is filled with animal-people, from Tortles to Bullywugs to Kuo-Toa (to be fair, these guys might be changing into aberrations) to Aarakocra, and so on and so forth. It's kind of a classic fantasy thing - what if *insert real animal species,* but people?
And yet, for some reason, hyena-people are just singled out as complete and utter monsters. And here, WotC is fully committing to this: Gnolls are not humanoid, not even (as I expected them to go) Monstrosities, but Fiends.
Now, the specific lore of Gnolls in D&D does link them directly to one of the Demon Lords - beings who are just shy of being full-on deities of chaotic evil (and thus are fair game for adventures to fight). Thus, it does make sense (I also wonder if this means that the Minotaur of Baphomet, which I assume will be the update of 2014's Minotaur monster, will be one as well).
Still, this comes with a seeming directive to DMs - Gnolls are not there to have a nuanced character arc, and not there for you to come up with a Gnoll culture and history beyond ceaseless carnage and brutality.
And that means that, on a fundamental level, the folks at WotC have decided to draw a line. And I think that line is, essentially, the Humanoid creature type.
I expect that we will not see a single humanoid creature in the monster manual with a specific alignment - we might see some "any non-lawful alignment" or similar options, which I think is the 2014 version of the bandit. But given that, by necessity, we're going to get some equivalent to 2014's "Orc," "Orog," and the other two or three stat blocks we got back then, I expect we're going to find some real changes there.
Indeed, especially in the case of Orcs, who, along with Drow, are among the few player-character species in the Player's Handbook who also have stat blocks in the Monster Manual, I'll be curious to see how they handle things. After all, any of the generic humanoid NPC stat blocks could, in theory, be Orcs or Drow. So, what will the "Orc" and "Drow" segments now represent? I could imagine the Drow ones being specifically Lolth-aligned Drow, and thus perhaps the Orcs could be specifically "Gruumsh-aligned" ones. We'll see.
Anyway, it's just funny because I could imagine a fantasy world in which Gnolls are simply hyena-people, and just as capable of being good guys as any other animal-folk, while Orcs could be more like Tolkien's vision of semi-demonic brutes (indeed, Orcs were originally from classical mythology, in which they were a kind of underworld spirit - they're also etymologically linked to Ogres).
Now, it's of course up to individual tables to see how much this changes the stories being told. Given the existence of fallen or even inherently evil Celestials, I think it's totally within a DM's discretion to make good-aligned fiends, for instance. (I haven't made them canonical for my setting, but after reading some of the 2nd Edition Planescape books, and finding that "Powers" - a.k.a. gods - can choose whatever plane they wish their divine realm to be in, regardless of their alignment, I had this idea of a Chaotic Good god of heavy metal who chooses to have a realm within the Nine Hells. Basically, the followers of this deity would all be kind of himbo metal-heads, and the god would have a coterie of devils who have been converted to not just good but also chaos through the power of rock - but they don't suddenly become celestials or anything - they still look like fiends because that's, well, fucking metal.)
The bigger impact, overall, though, will be that a lot of humanoid-specific spells and features are not going to be as good as they once were. Calm Emotions, for example, I think only works on Humanoids, which means you can't get a gang of angry Goblins, Kobolds, or Gnolls to calm down and talk it out. That being said, spells like Banishment or Protection from Evil and Good might actually have more applications.
I can't wait to get the new Monster Manual in hand (well, likely the digital version first).
Now, hopefully my home won't burn to the ground before that happens! (It's an anxious time for us Angelenos. I am, at least, quite far from either of the big fires, but it's a pretty stressful time nonetheless.)
No comments:
Post a Comment