Fire Snakes have been larval Salamanders since at least the Monstrous Manual (1993).
D&D 5E MM Firesnake up on Christopher Burdett's Blog
- Thread starter Scorpio616
- Start date
Fire Snakes have been larval Salamanders since at least the Monstrous Manual (1993).
Savage Wombat
Hero
1. I didn't feel the need to rehash the explanation [MENTION=82746]HardcoreDandDGirl[/MENTION] already went over.
2. As I originally stated, the fact that you are dismissive the argument and don't see what we're saying - is what I find troubling. You really should see it.
3. Fiction holds a mirror up to reality. Fiction that does not attempt to say something about reality is without value. Lots of people, even those who agree with you on this point, will not tolerate the "it's just a game" argument.
4. The concept of whether killing baby sentients is acceptable is an argument almost as old as D&D itself. I criticize WotC for deliberately creating a monster that adds to that argument instead of reducing it.
5. Comparisons to Alien Xenomorphs or ravenous hatchlings in a movie are not particularly relevant to discussing creatures that have their own culture, society, and intellect. If putting baby salamanders on the monster list is acceptable, baby orcs is just one step further. As a wise man once said, a baby stone giant may be capable of squashing armed men, but you don't see them on the monster list because even gamers know that the idea of armed men stabbing a giant baby is seriously wrong.
Last edited:
Savage Wombat
Hero
I don't remember that as the case, but I suppose I could be mistaken.
HardcoreDandDGirl
First Post
you just added all that, well savage wombat said it better...
ok, but would it be less fun if we took away all the baby monsters?
at least 3 long time D&D players... most likely more...
let me answer that then...
My moral framework has a problem with playing a game about heroes and killing baby monsters. I feel this way because I feel that it is not the sort of behavior that should not be thought out and examined, when it is just thrown in willy nilly it creates an atmosphere of un ease...
well I question why they did it, no one has answered yet what it adds to kill a baby dragon or a baby fire snake... just that they want it.
I linked to a huge discussion/article on this from years ago...
no just people who are dismissive jerks... can you tell me again why your thoughts are more important then mine?
then how can we disagree?
please define small segment and tell me what research you have to show who is more or less representive?
again people assume after 2 days they know for sure everyone is on there side...
because it creates a sense of good and evil that I and others like me find disturbing....
I think not glorifying baby killing is pretty easy really.. and you have yet to tell me what you lose from the game if all baby's were removed... what harm would that do?
I didn't think I had to explain that killing is wrong... maybe you need to reivaluate your thoughts here... maybe they came out wrong... is it ok to kill a puppy?
um ok, what makes anyones? since we have one represented and disagree on it, how do we decide?
I have answerd this before I do not wish to SEE ANY BABY KILLING... not in MOVIES, or GAMES, or BOOKS, inless it is done by someone non heroic... villians do that not heroes...
I see it fine. I do not agree with it. The reason I find it a non-issue is because it is to me (not to you). There is no great social message here. It's not important for many people. It is important for a few people, but that does not mean that the intolerance of a few people should sway the creative decision making process of the game designers.
Since you see this as an important social issue, I am not surprised that you find it troubling that other people do not see it as an important social issue.
Nonsense.
The value of most fiction is entertainment. Many people experience entertainment without it having to revolve around big artificial social issues. The purpose of entertainment is to have fun.
If you want your game to revolve around fiction saying something about reality, great. Do so. But don't belittle other people's games because they are there for fun instead.
That's not to say that some fiction cannot revolve around social issues, it's just that a lot of perfectly fine fiction is purely entertainment without the rest of that intellectual and emotional baggage.
Who? Games are meant for fun. Who says that they have to have a big moral and social message to them?
Maybe between you and a few other people. In nearly 40 years of gaming, this is the first time I've heard of it.
It also depends on what one calls a sentient. Where is the line drawn?
Dolphin, Dog, Octopus. Are any of these sentient?
How is the baby sentient issue important?
It's not relevant to you. Both are sentient creatures. Both are dangerous creatures both as infants, and as adults.
You call this irrelevant because you've found a tiny little difference. In the movie, there does not appear to be a society of the creatures. So you have this fine line you draw between the two examples.
But I see a society in these creatures. The queen is the ruler. The others obey. They all work together for the same goals. It sounds like a society to me.
I don't see any significant difference between the two examples.
Wrong how? Again, you state this as fact with no solid evidence to back it up.
It's wrong because it's wrong is not a valid or compelling argument. It's wrong because Savage Wombat humanizes stone giant babies to be the equivalent of humanoid giant babies is not a valid or compelling argument.
In Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, there were giant children. I do not know of anyone who got their panties in a bind if the PCs killed those children. You might have.
Where does one draw this line of yours?
Sorry, but all of this moral line drawing is all in your head.
Your are entitled to your morality, but do not shove it down the throats of those players who see absolutely nothing wrong with the game designers creating any type of evil creature that they want to.
I'll say it for the fifth time. Morality is subjective.
And, D&D is a game. Games are meant for fun.
You don't want sentient baby monsters in your game? Great. Don't have them.
Maybe not less fun, but definitely less rich in flavor. If the DM puts Firesnakes into his game and describes them as cute little babies, doesn't that bring up a moral conundrum for some players? Since that conundrum is uncomfortable for you as a player, should we try to limit this from other people's games?
Yes, argumentum ad populum is still a logical fallacy. I wasn't trying to introduce it to prove which side has the morally correct POV, but to show that the social importance of this topic appears to be limited.
Ok, but you do realize that you answered the question "What is it about your moral framework such that you find it distasteful for the very existence of fictional baby monsters?" with "this does not belong in the game and I am uncomfortable with it"? That's totally fine for you, but I don't see why you would want to put restrictions on other players and groups.
For one reason, these types of creatures have been in the game system for decades.
Should they be removed because you are uncomfortable with them?
My thoughts are not more important than yours. But I am not the one trying to push a moral agenda.
This, in my mind, is making a mountain out of a very tiny molehill. The game designers sometimes make poor decisions, but on a scale of 1 to 10, this is definitely a 0 in my mind since I think that there is nothing wrong with the decision.
"Killing is wrong"?
You do realize that we are talking about a game where a good majority of PCs go around "breaking and entering", "murdering", and "stealing"? That's a good chunk of the game.
Players justify their heroic PC killing actions, but if killing were truly wrong, they would just knock all of their enemies out and take them back to town for real justice.
If you do not want some moral ambiguity in your game and you want the heroes to always be in the right and always have extremely good justifications for the monsters that they kill, great. Do so. In your game.
Whereas I think that the expression of real world fiction has to allow for heroes killing baby menaces. The baby menace that I do not kill today is the predator tomorrow.
It might be a distasteful job, but someone has to do it for the greater good.
And you'll note that we are talking baby menaces here. Not baby puppies. Your side of the argument seems to not be able to draw the line between the two.
Btw, in the real world, this moral conundrum happens all of the time. There were warehouses of body parts from the Iraqi wars, including many children. Some military personnel felt these baby killing issues quite strongly, but sometimes the job has to be done.
But we are not talking real world here. We are talking a game. Heroes can do distasteful things in a game and it's all part of the experience. If you do not like that experience, fine. Do not have it in your game.
But don't dictate that it is unacceptable in other people's games or the game system itself.
Savage Wombat
Hero
To use an incredibly slippery-slope sort of argument:
Many people in the gaming industry have argued that unconscionable acts (like slavery) should be an accepted part of their game world, because it's more "realistic".
WotC, and other companies, make it clear that, regardless of real-world history, such an action is unquestionably evil in their game worlds, and do not publish material suggesting otherwise.
So I question WotC's decision to allow a different "unconscionable" act (in quotes for my opinion) in their official published material.
Again, I understand you hold a different opinion about the innate evilness of the act. But I don't understand your continued dismissal of the existence of the issue, nor the degree to which you defend your indifference.
And it's never "just a game". Never.
MoutonRustique
Explorer
I did not "add all that" - with regards to what you quoted.
That was an explicit list of what makes a baby a baby vs. not a baby (though far from perfect or complete) - it was a baseline proposition to state my starting assumptions. Nothing I wrote relates in any way to the monster itself, it relates to the definition of "baby" as the concept.
My point was the following : I propose that in a given setting's reference point, fire snakes do not meet the criteria necessary to be termed "babies". They are simply "new" and capable of further growth. They are not innocent, they are not dependent, they are not helpless, they are not defenseless, they are aggressive, they are dangerous, and, in some settings, they are EVIL. The whole of this (in this case, the last one being key) makes them into "not babies" much like much like you, yourself, considered 3 day old urku'hai (or however it is spelled) "not babies".
All this said, you are obviously moved and angered by the choice of them being "baby" salamanders, and you needn't explain or apologize for your feelings. I am sorry the choice WotC made has upset you. My hope was in convincing you that, in this case, you needn't feel bad for the critters.
It's unconscionable if we are talking baby puppies. Killing baby puppies is an evil act.
It is not unconscionable if we are talking baby evil menaces. Killing baby evil monsters is a good act and possibly even a lawful act. It helps out society more than the alternative.
Can you truly not see the difference? I cannot even imagine equating the two.
Most everyone here disagreeing with you are discussing baby evil monsters. The baby adjective is irrelevant to the threat of the creature other than the current level of threat.
I do not dismiss the existence of the issue, just the importance of the issue. I discuss it to the degree that I am discussing it because it's a lazy Saturday with nothing going on today.
To you.
Savage Wombat
Hero
So you're OK with killing baby orcs and goblins then?
You don't know fire snakes are evil menaces. You know they have NE in their alignment box. Are you OK with killing random people on the street (in your game) because they have NE in their alignment box? Maybe they're just greedy. What alignment was Ebenezer Scrooge?
There is nothing in the current MM entry for fire snakes, or salamanders, that says that they are a threat to humans in any fashion. There is no mention of banditry, man-eating, world conquering, or anything. In most cases, the only reason you run into them is because you're in their territory on the plane of Fire.
You are dismissing the argument because you've already labeled them "monsters" - meaning "legitimate targets" - and don't care to consider it further.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
