D&D 5E MM Firesnake up on Christopher Burdett's Blog

[77IM]

Have you seen any of the Alien films?

If a face-hugger were after you, would you spare it because it's a baby? Or would you kill the out of it? If you learned the xenomorphs were sapient, would that change your answer?

 

[Savage Wombat]

There are two issues here.

One issue is - is it "all right" to kill a child if that child is a threat to your life?

The second issue is - should a publishing company be creating fictional monsters for a game that are dangerous children to be slain?

These issues are very separate.

 

[KarinsDad]

Utter BS, there is no political correctness in thinking about the morality in the fantasy world you are playing a RPG in. In fact it's one of the interesting things about it. If we wanted to play just kill and who cares there are plenty of board games that would do a better job. Why does one character kill the goblin women and children and another one doesn't? Because moral questions are interesting drama 101. It's not just a game, it's a game where you make up a story that's worth taking part in.

In this case it's an interesting question, some characters might want to try to capture and domesticate a young monster or just leave them alone as part of the natural world. Others might not. Being able to role-play both convincingly is a sign that you are winning D&D I suppose.

If you want to play the game as just kill everyone you meet for XP and take their stuff and your group agrees that's great but making a stink at other people for doing it differently is a dick move.

Who said anything about just killing everything?

What's BS is putting 21st century modern day morality into a medieval setting.

Try stepping into character as a medieval PC instead of a politically correct 21st century liberal "evil babies are not really evil, they are just misunderstood" nonsensical BS thinking person. The media is warping your brain.

It's a fricking game. Yes, morality is important, but try to at least think outside your box.


Most morality in many campaigns is that evil creatures are evil. As an example, Orcs. Gruumsh automatically makes all Orc evil in many campaigns. It's often a feature of every creature of that race and a standard trope. Sure, some game designers are pushing an agenda of "good orcs" and "good drow", etc. But that doesn't mean that people should necessarily be forced to play the game with that moral idea in mind.

And quite frankly, the very concept of adventurers who trespass, rob, and then kill is morally wrong, but the vast majority of adventures are run that way.

Simple example. The PCs are hanging out in a bar. A man comes in. He says that his family was kidnapped by Orcs, could the PCs please help? 9 players out of 10 will probably go off on some mission to go rescue the family and have no problem invading an Orc lair, killing Orcs, and taking their stuff.

All on the word of a single NPC without any evidence that the Orcs did anything wrong at all. This type of thing happens all of the time in games.

Please. Morality is totally subjective in FRPGs, but some people stretch morality so far as to not even be recognizable.

Babies? Are you fricking serious??? What a crock. It's political correctness on crack.

 

[KarinsDad]

There are two issues here.

One issue is - is it "all right" to kill a child if that child is a threat to your life?

The second issue is - should a publishing company be creating fictional monsters for a game that are dangerous children to be slain?

These issues are very separate.

The answers are "Yes if we are talking about in game" and "Yes, if they want to".

Next, people will be saying that D&D players worship real demons and devils. Oh wait, someone actually said that 35 years ago and convinced a bunch of people that it was true.

It's a game.

 

[Incenjucar]

Pretty sure that baby murder is not a "21st century liberal" thing. D&D is also not a medieval Earth game. It features magical robots, air ships, lizards that are smarter than humans, and angels and demons you can play poker with.

I agree that it is a bit myopic to make monstrous humanoid infants a monster type, but in all fairness, 5E is aiming for the old days, which were built heavily on fantasy racism and little thought put into what being a murder hobo really means from an ethical standpoint.

As a DM, I might just use these creatures specifically to put some massive guilt down on the PCs, and to basically put them in the shoes of being the real monsters.

Overall, I agree that WotC really should keep the problematic nature of these sorts of depictions in mind, and to avoid having infant forms of intelligent monsters in this way. It may not be the most vile of acts to create such a bit of fiction, but there are many other ideas available which are less prone to problems.

--

Worth keeping in mind that "it's a game" isn't a defense any more than "it's a book" or "it's a conversation." Games are expressions of ideas, along with their mechanics. One does not automatically agree with the implications of their art (good people can write stories about evil people!), but it does still express ideas, and offers them up for criticism.

 

[PeelSeel2]

They are not babies. They are very young monster who CAN KILL THE PARTY. They are evil.

If this isn't make believe enough for you, all of this takes place in your mind. None of it is reality. In no reality does killing things in RPG's equal killing things in real life. NONE!

If that where the case, video games would have a large influence on violence. Which they don't.

Moral issues within the game can be very fun. Some of the best moments of RPG come out of that.

 

[AJCarrington]

Back to the OP and artist...really like the work being shown and very keen to see the Salamander art later today.

 

[KarinsDad]

Pretty sure that baby murder is not a "21st century liberal" thing.

Actually, it pretty much is when you are talking non-human species.

For hundreds and thousands of years, people would kill baby wolves just as easily as they killed adult wolves. There was very little thought process of "aw, the poor little things". Same with coyotes and other predator babies. Sure, some people might try to domestic a baby wolf. But there was no moral ambiguity about killing them.

Ditto for a lot of species. The Bible gave mankind dominion over the earth and its animals, and that was morally ok for millions of people for thousands of years.


Even today, if you go outside and walk on your lawn, you will probably kill hundreds of insects including baby insects. It does not morally enter most people's mind that they are slaughtering these creatures.

But from a strictly 21st century moral POV, that's a form of murder. Nobody talks about it, because "they are only insects". The morality line tends to shift based on human culture, education, and social needs. Just like most PCs don't talk about the fact that their job is:

1) Breaking and Entering
2) Murder
3) Theft

because it's a game.

D&D is also not a medieval Earth game. It features magical robots, air ships, lizards that are smarter than humans, and angels and demons you can play poker with.

For the most part, it is. Technology is pretty much limited to plate mail, swords, castles, etc.

Yes, there are "magic is technology" worlds like Eberron, but that tends to be more of an exception than a rule. And there are intelligent species other than people, but society is still basically hunter/gatherer combined with agriculture, mostly in medieval-like settings.

The reason why food source dictates morality is that in the 21st century, most nations on the planet have people go to a little store and trade paper for food. It is almost always there. Most people do not have to slaughter animals to get meat, or to protect a farm from predators.

But when one lives in a medieval-like setting where wolves and worgs exist, that food only comes into the town if the farmers (or adventurers) go out and kill baby wolves, baby Orcs, and a lot of other baby predators (along with mostly adult predators). Morality does not really enter the picture when one is talking survival. If your deity is the enemy of the Orc deity, no moral ambiguity about killing any sort of Orc at all.

A given player might add that morality for his PC, but it is not required (unless maybe the DM requires it).

I agree that it is a bit myopic to make monstrous humanoid infants a monster type, but in all fairness, 5E is aiming for the old days, which were built heavily on fantasy racism and little thought put into what being a murder hobo really means from an ethical standpoint.

As a DM, I might just use these creatures specifically to put some massive guilt down on the PCs, and to basically put them in the shoes of being the real monsters.

Overall, I agree that WotC really should keep the problematic nature of these sorts of depictions in mind, and to avoid having infant forms of intelligent monsters in this way. It may not be the most vile of acts to create such a bit of fiction, but there are many other ideas available which are less prone to problems.

Agreed. But it goes back to the demon worshiping thing. Just because D&D had demons in it did not mean that players worshiped demons. It meant that the concept offended some people's 20th century religious morality. The same with this. Just because the 5E D&D has baby evil intelligent creatures in it does not mean that players actually find baby killing to be morally ok. It just means that it is an aspect of the game that is available and potentially offensive to some player's real world morality. No more, no less.

Worth keeping in mind that "it's a game" isn't a defense any more than "it's a book" or "it's a conversation." Games are expressions of ideas, along with their mechanics. One does not automatically agree with the implications of their art (good people can write stories about evil people!), but it does still express ideas, and offers them up for criticism.

Why does there need to be a defense? There is nothing wrong morally with killing fictional infant creatures.

All morality is subjective. There are cultures in the world today which feel that it is morally ok to kill whales. If you feel that it is morally wrong to kill whales, that does not make you morally superior to them, nor does it make you right and them wrong.

Morality is subjective. It's based off of cultural needs and desires. In a D&D game, it's based off of fictional cultural needs and desires.

 

[orangefruitbat]

To totally derail this thread

Fire snake, fire snake
Hotter than a clam bake
It's a snake; it's very hot
Best dispatched with arrows shot
Look out, here comes the fire snake.

 

[bogmad]

Why does there need to be a defense? There is nothing wrong morally with killing fictional infant creatures.

This.
I mean, if you want there to be something wrong with it in your game, by all means go ahead. I think spinning that around on pc murderhobos could actually be pretty fun.

But don't try to argue that killing baby evil monsters is so morally reprehensible a concept that it's offensive to see firesnakes in the Monster Manual. That seems a little overboard, for all the reasons people have already mentioned, and probably more.

More on topic: I think this looks great! People have mentioned chicken, but I seem to see some personality in the face! And I love how it fits in with the face of the Salamander just posted!