Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
50th Anniversary and beyond
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8483474" data-attributes="member: 6777737"><p>So what? He's allowed to use rhetoric in his arguments.</p><p></p><p>He cites real life to show that, historically, "justice" was often brutal and swift. That "an eye for an eye" is quite a common standard of law. That it existed as such in our world and may exist as such in a fantasy world, too. Indeed, Gary doesn't mention it, but when the Bible talks about "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" it's quite often interpreted as a call for an <em>appropriate and measured</em> punishment, since at the time the punishment for a crime was often, by law, <em>much more severe</em> than the crime itself!</p><p></p><p>As for the Chivington quote, Gygax himself points out that lots of people have used the same logic to justify massacres. And the saying is true in it's most literal interpretation. <strong>If X is always evil</strong>, <em>then it's good to destroy all X</em>. You want to say that because the bolded part isn't always true and generates really unpleasant side effects when applied to races of people, that the italicized half isn't a logical conclusion. That's balderdash! We're injecting our own premises into that argument. Ideas about how <em>we</em> think because that's how <em>we </em>operate. And that's how we want whole peoples to be treated, because doing otherwise reminds us of all the horrors of our world when that <em>didn't</em> happen. It reminds us of what made <em>us</em> monsters. We have good reasons to want to move away from that, but <em>that's still how it originally worked.</em></p><p></p><p>We're not really extending the same courtesy to everything. We still have "always Evil" in D&D. Demons. Or devils. Or undead. Or mind flayers. Or beholders. Or green hags. Or chimera. Or efreet. Or red dragons. Take any of those and plug them into "If X is always evil, then it's good to destroy all X." You've probably played more than one PC that would agree with those statements. It's <em>less</em> problematic to have a game where it's never used as a label for whole races of people. But it's not <em>not problematic</em> for sapient creatures of a given class to have identical and basically immutable morality... but only as long as they're inhuman. </p><p></p><p>The truth is that the game needs monsters, and monsters make us uncomfortable. Because we know human monsters <em>are</em> real. So we're going to be very careful to not make the game's actual monsters too much like us. This hair is a lot finer than people think it is.</p><p></p><p>Like you look at the statements made about <a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1271498627215589376?s=20" target="_blank">gnolls</a>... I really don't think that's an improvement. "Oh, we'll just categorize the whole race of peoples into fiends and now it's okay." Like a whole race of "always Evil" humanoids is bad, but I don't think a whole type of fiend being "always Evil" is really a significant improvement. It's still eliminating agency and free will and using language reminiscent of colonialism and genocide when you describe them. There's nothing stopping fiends from having a culture or a society.</p><p></p><p>At some point you have to just... draw an arbitrary line and say, "Eh, that's good enough. I'm okay with that. We know what we mean, and it's just a game. Let's roll some dice and kill some monsters and take their stuff and call ourselves heroes!" I think the new line is better than the old line, but we're still just drawing that arbitrary line.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 8483474, member: 6777737"] So what? He's allowed to use rhetoric in his arguments. He cites real life to show that, historically, "justice" was often brutal and swift. That "an eye for an eye" is quite a common standard of law. That it existed as such in our world and may exist as such in a fantasy world, too. Indeed, Gary doesn't mention it, but when the Bible talks about "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" it's quite often interpreted as a call for an [I]appropriate and measured[/I] punishment, since at the time the punishment for a crime was often, by law, [I]much more severe[/I] than the crime itself! As for the Chivington quote, Gygax himself points out that lots of people have used the same logic to justify massacres. And the saying is true in it's most literal interpretation. [B]If X is always evil[/B], [I]then it's good to destroy all X[/I]. You want to say that because the bolded part isn't always true and generates really unpleasant side effects when applied to races of people, that the italicized half isn't a logical conclusion. That's balderdash! We're injecting our own premises into that argument. Ideas about how [I]we[/I] think because that's how [I]we [/I]operate. And that's how we want whole peoples to be treated, because doing otherwise reminds us of all the horrors of our world when that [I]didn't[/I] happen. It reminds us of what made [I]us[/I] monsters. We have good reasons to want to move away from that, but [I]that's still how it originally worked.[/I] We're not really extending the same courtesy to everything. We still have "always Evil" in D&D. Demons. Or devils. Or undead. Or mind flayers. Or beholders. Or green hags. Or chimera. Or efreet. Or red dragons. Take any of those and plug them into "If X is always evil, then it's good to destroy all X." You've probably played more than one PC that would agree with those statements. It's [I]less[/I] problematic to have a game where it's never used as a label for whole races of people. But it's not [I]not problematic[/I] for sapient creatures of a given class to have identical and basically immutable morality... but only as long as they're inhuman. The truth is that the game needs monsters, and monsters make us uncomfortable. Because we know human monsters [I]are[/I] real. So we're going to be very careful to not make the game's actual monsters too much like us. This hair is a lot finer than people think it is. Like you look at the statements made about [URL='https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1271498627215589376?s=20']gnolls[/URL]... I really don't think that's an improvement. "Oh, we'll just categorize the whole race of peoples into fiends and now it's okay." Like a whole race of "always Evil" humanoids is bad, but I don't think a whole type of fiend being "always Evil" is really a significant improvement. It's still eliminating agency and free will and using language reminiscent of colonialism and genocide when you describe them. There's nothing stopping fiends from having a culture or a society. At some point you have to just... draw an arbitrary line and say, "Eh, that's good enough. I'm okay with that. We know what we mean, and it's just a game. Let's roll some dice and kill some monsters and take their stuff and call ourselves heroes!" I think the new line is better than the old line, but we're still just drawing that arbitrary line. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
50th Anniversary and beyond
Top