Equal Footing Monsters

This is driven by a discussion around who is in "a group to be wantonly slain, guilt-free" (as per Prismatic Wasteland) for the typical game of D&D telling you something about that game. Whether that foe is zombies, cultists, etc. differentiates games from one another.

Something stuck in my mind about this and I figure it is that someone seem missing off the 'taxonomy of monsters' - what about peers? Pure rivals for resources, that you kill because they would do likewise to you. Not a knifes blade of difference between you beyond the banners you fly.

As a group they could be "The Rivals" - those guys down the valley? Or the next valley over? Pretty much the same folk, but fuck those guys, we've had a grudge against them since forever, only good one is a dead one.

Cartoon by Tom Gauld

Infidels are the closest proxy from Prismatic Wastelands list - but there is not necessarily such a religious or even cultural difference. The driver of difference is tied to territory or maybe just a different flag. Guards could be a model but without the implication that they are law and you are chaos - you are the same, but fighting nonetheless.

Since the question originally was "what is says about a given setting when this or that humanoid is an open target for violence" inclusion of 'the Rivals' seems useful. It is not just the murder-hobo model of 'Anyone can be killed' but the differentiating factors are effectively nil beyond being a different community of the same folk as you or even being the same community but following a different banner.

A good representation of such a game world is the Bedouin saying "I am against my brother, my brother and I are against my cousin, my cousin and I are against the stranger" - who exactly is the foe and the ally depends on the situation. Given the melange of species that a D&D settings often have, the differentiators are likely to be embroidered on the tabards or painted on the shields of those foes as opposed to them being a distinct species - and with change of circumstances, yesterdays bitter foes could be tomorrows grudging ally against a mutual foe.

Back in '21 the discourse turned to 'intrinsicly evil races' and I found peoples descriptions of games did not map to my experiences - where 'but they are intrinsicly evil' was the driving force of the foe. I have played with a bunch of different game groups and typically any sort of 'other' was good enough. Grounds to kill in game did not stem from the foe being some 'simply evil' species but from a plethora of other justifications - some of which mapped to the 'killable groups' mentioned such as cultists and zombies but not necessarily.

Not saying this is good or not, just that this might be a useful extra notch on the measuring stick to have 'the rivals' - the mirror to the players themselves, no difference other than they are not part of the same bunch, however that bunch is chosen. It speaks to a game of shifting alliances, of something Game of Thrones like with politics and treachery.