To set standards, I'm a DM and very occasional player. Like all Dnd players, I hope to play dnd again within a year. My playground has gone from not reading the books, to reading the books, from being edgy middleschoolers who want to kill everyone and wear goblin skin they meet to holding their heads in their hands after an npc asked about his mother who they knew was dead. I've run modules and homebrew. Lots of ways to play this game, no way of enjoying this RPG "disqualifies" you on it's own. Now that's out of the way.
______
"Good" kings, Regicide and level 20 kings:
I'm starting with this issue because it encapsulates the pain points of every piece of DND discourse perfectly. I hope to give a good summary of each pain point and why ultimately, they just aren't real problems.
______
A lone man stumbles up the last few steps of the mountain of r/DnD, collapsing to his knees. Before him sit three wise sages, who between them, have read a full chapter of the dmg.
"My players were listening to the King give them a quest, but then they decided all kings are evil and attacked him, what should I do!?"
"Heh," says the the first sage, pushing up his glasses, "Surprise! Your king has been trained since childhood by the local church to defend himself, he's a level 20 oath of the crown paladin!"
______
Surprise level 20 kings give me a migraine. First off, it's really bad story telling. An important npc being strong isn't a sin, but the players should like, know that. You can't tout your "actions have consequences" sign when you didn't set up that kings in your world do that. Is it every king in the world? Your players should know than, and in fact many real settings work this way like dark sun where in order to rule you must be a powerful sorcerer. Is it just this king? That's fine too, but surely your characters would hear about a king that literally at the peak of human achievement.
Second, it is subjectively, very boring. There are several great reasons a king could be powerful. He conquered the kingdom after adventuring and is already famous, he's a polymorphed dragon (there are many lore examples of this in the forgotten realms). I think reddit DMs are obsessed with level 20 because it's the only place they'll get to use one.
Third, and this is a common counterargument, why is the king sending them to do something he could do himself? If being level 20 is enough to dwarf a party's power, the quest they're doing is easy to solo. "Ah, but, he's busy." What about the guy who trained him to level 20? they didn't train anyone else? Just this king, but then also made sure he was doing naruto-level paperwork so he can't do any fighting? Does this not sound artificial?
______
"Hrumf" Says the second sage, "simply tell them that your King is benevolent, he rules by actual divine right! After all, in the DnD world, gods are real, and morality is objective, so it follows that so is the divine right of kings!"
______
Appeals to "the DnD world" irk me, especially when they contradict pretty much every printed example.
First, objective morality. This gets treated like fact a LOT. While good and evil are forces in all multi-setting lore, they are NOT objective moral frameworks with answers for everything.
For instance, in this objectively moral system, is lust a good or a bad thing? Sharindlar and Sharess are both chaotic good deities with lust as a domain. However, in Sharindlar's church, the lowest level clergy are called "the chaste" and, an excepert from her wiki
"When not engaged in their primary responsibility, the devoted of Sharindlar instead worked to instruct dwarven youths on proper courting rituals\2])\1]) (a process involving the exchange of gifts and later the sharing of a living space to determine affinity).\24]) The traditional rites of courting and marriage were to be maintained, encouraged, and taught by the faithful, and these included traditional dances, ritual forms of address, and similar customs. They strove to bring young dwarves together, especially those outside of traditional clans in the hopes of an increase in prolific unions, and in some cases went as far as playing matchmaker between two youths they deemed "compatible".\2])\1])"
Meanwhile, as anyone who has played BG3 will know, sharess is the patron godess of brothels.
Speaking of Sharess' Caress, there is a room in which you can pay to engage in BDSM.
In act one of the game, you can meet a priest of Loviatar, a lawful evil deity also with lust in her portfolio, who will do BDSM to you for free.
Almost any action that can be justified can be argued to be good or evil, and to pedants who go "so if i can justifying crushing babies, that could be good?" Yeah.
_____
"Hmm" says the third sage "Players are too concerned with subverting tropes these days to have fun, probably want to play as a half-fae purple skinned teifling am I right? kill your playgroup in real life."
The easiest answer to this type of thing is just, you should have set expectations of being trad sword and sorcery with your group before hand (most people don't because when they verbalize it they recognize it as railroading).
But, again, it is completely revisionist history that a lot of 5e players see to subscribe to, that 5e is the first edition where people are super revolutionary wanting to play as monsters and half angels and things, when, no 3rd edition let you play 1 million different special snow flake races and templates. There were rules to convert literally any monster stat block to a playable race, alongside the thousands of spelled out rules for telling you how to be a half-nymph dragonic ogre samurai. Dnd knows and accomidates people who don't want to just be human fighter cleric wizard and rogue.
Anyway, here's some more things I couldn't fit into the first story.
______
"Evil Races"
The lone man returns to the mountain top a month later. The third sage is doing battle with a half-fae purple skinned teifling.
"BEHOLD," the sage declares "COME SEE THE OBSESSION OF THEATRE KIDS TO TRAMPLE OUR GLORIUS RACIALLY PURE DND WORLD, BACK IN MY DAY SOME RACES WERE JUST EVIL, NOT LITTLE MISUNDERSTOOD QUIRK CHUNGUSES, THIS IS ALL BG3's FAULT! DID YOU GUYS KNOW ABOUT THIS ANIME CALLED FREIREN"
The purple skinned teifling responds "IT IS BAD WORLDBUILDING TO HAVE RACES BE EVIL, 5.0E AND BEFORE LORE IS FOR PROBLEMATIC GROGNARDS. "
___
People get very heated about evil races one way or the other. Now, I'm not saying both stances are equally morally bad, but they are both equally wrong. Teiflings, orcs, and drow weren't all just evil automatons until 2014 when 5e invented woke. In the 2003 3.5e monster manual, all of their alignments said "usually evil." Hell Drizzit has been around since the 80s as a good drow.
DND really has never had evil "races". "Ahah!" you may say, "but devils and demons!" Both of those are canonically recycled souls of people who already lived full evil lives. Devils and demons are not evil by virtue of genes, but by their own actions, and have been reduced to a state where they can no longer redeem themselves.
____
"Everyone would be scared of necromancy because it is le bad."
The man comes back to the mountaintop. "I've stopped being a DM finally, I'm a player" (let me have this fantasy) "I still move managing numbers though, so I'm playing a necromancer."
"WHAT?" Says the first sage "DON'T YOU KNOW PEASANTS WOULD ATTACK YOU ON SIGHT?!"
____
I don't understand why everyone's so up in arms about necromancy for good PCs. I'm equally as tired of the "well fireball is just as horrific," no fuck horrific, who cares?
In BG3 you can walk around with reanimated corpses and no one cares if they aren't attacking anyone. And rightly so! Ok but the teiflings are dealing with being hunted they aren't going to throw you out over that, the cult already uses undead. Surely when you get to civilization someone cares and.... there's a carnival outside baulder's gate that uses ghouls. Not inside, outside with the doorman. Where there are peasants from all the surrounding countryside, and locals.
___
The second sage holds his hands to his head "Don't you know zombies go insaaaane if you don't recast the spell every day?
___
Dogs bite children if you don't stop em. No animal companions for anyone. Swords could hurt someone if you drop them on your foot. Obviously you're going to recast the spell when your spell slots come back for free every day.
___
The third sage holds his head in his hands "Why can't you animate objects, like a normal person?"
___
Higher level spell and 5e sucks at construct creation, and even in good editions where you can build golems it's insanely more expensive.
___
The three sages combine in a swirling ball of light. Together, they for the mega brained triple sage. "BUT...." it roars, "WHAT OF THE SOUL, HOW ABOUT YOU RP A LITTLE AND SHOW RESPECT FOR THE DEAD, MIN-MAXXER?"
___
No animate dead spell description mentions a soul. Also, sending an unthinking corpse to the frontlines instead of the living relatives seems more respectful than sending little timmy off to fight the bandits because skeleton were "too icky."