Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana May 2018: Centaurs and Minotaurs

[plisnithus8]

We are all going to handle that divide a bit differently in our games, but I think it's worthwhile to do so mindfully and not use the game as an excuse to act out in ways we wouldn't in the real world.

I don't know of any of the players I have played with that role-play as themselves. They don't want to act the exact same way in a game as they do in IRL. They choose an alignment and a race and a class and a background with goals and flaws and all the rest that would have them act differently than the person they really are. They are playing a role.

As a DM, moral dilemmas are one of the tools I use to challenge players, to see how their characters would act. I want them to be mindful of what they have their characters do, what choices their characters make. I try to have my NPCs act within their character, and if that means they are smart and cruel, then cutting off the horns of a prisoner is something they might do. I don't hold players to making choices based on alignment; their characters are dynamic, and change and free will often make great narrative. I don't think less of a player IRL whose neutral character makes some morally troublesome decisions. I reward him with Inspiration. The game is an excuse to act differently. It is a fantasy game, a role-playing game that has characters and creatures that will do things that are sometimes good, neutral, or bad.

 

[Dire Bare]

I don't know of any of the players I have played with that role-play as themselves.

Not quite what I meant. Of course, we often (although, not as often as you might think) play characters that differ from our real selves. What I meant that folks treating D&D as an excuse to act out in ways that are less than human, or humane.

Playing characters that are "evil" can be okay, unless you are using that as an excuse to act out in grossly violent, racist, or predatory ways. The kind of games I avoided in middle school (a looong time ago) and gave D&D a bad name were the types with players acted out creepy rape, murder, and torture fantasies. To each his own I guess, but those aren't games I would ever participate in, and I find unhealthy for the individuals and for society.

A more down-to-earth "evil" game or character can work really well. If the party is mostly evil or amoral PCs and decide to dehorn a minotaur captive (minotaur "person", not minotaur "monster") knowing full well the morality and potential consequences for such an act . . . OK, but don't be surprised how the "Minotaur League" treats the party when the situation is reversed . . .

As a DM, I would not be upset if my players didn't think through certain actions as evil or inhumane, but they would certainly reap the consequences. Dehorning minotaurs isn't something we have to think about on any sort of regular basis in the real world, after all. If my players made a consciously immoral or inhumane act, such as dehorning a minotaur person, if they did so in context of the story and in an adult manner . . . the story moves forward, again with consequences. If my players are just acting out inhumane fantasies, or are simply callously inhumane (as players, not characters), then that is a group I'm leaving.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't know of any of the players I have played with that role-play as themselves. They don't want to act the exact same way in a game as they do in IRL. They choose an alignment and a race and a class and a background with goals and flaws and all the rest that would have them act differently than the person they really are. They are playing a role.

As a DM, moral dilemmas are one of the tools I use to challenge players, to see how their characters would act. I want them to be mindful of what they have their characters do, what choices their characters make. I try to have my NPCs act within their character, and if that means they are smart and cruel, then cutting off the horns of a prisoner is something they might do. I don't hold players to making choices based on alignment; their characters are dynamic, and change and free will often make great narrative. I don't think less of a player IRL whose neutral character makes some morally troublesome decisions. I reward him with Inspiration. The game is an excuse to act differently. It is a fantasy game, a role-playing game that has characters and creatures that will do things that are sometimes good, neutral, or bad.

I think it comes down to expectations.

Personally, I am a fan of making evil truly evil, and sometimes I push things a bit too far and have to pull back. Not because I didn't represent the enemy properly, not even because I made my players uncomfortable, but because I took them from uncomfortable to not having fun.

If we want to be brutally honest, one sure fire way that an enemy could guarantee the party wizard they captured can't escape and attack them is to blind them and cut out their tongue. Can't see or speak, can't cast spells. However, that sort of maiming would very likely ruin the character, and it turns from "Oh no, how do I escape" to "Oh god, how could you do that" and the player is very likely no longer going to be having fun.

I actually, very early on in one of my campaigns, put forth rules that allowed me to cut limbs off players or enemies, because there were very rare clockwork arms or eyes that they could buy as replacements. But, the very first part of those rules were that they only applied if the player asked me to implement them on their character first. It was opt-in, so that I didn't end up forcing a player to see their character physically maimed, because that is a big deal for some people.


So, I hope, everyone can agree that it is a matter of the table, and that you should make sure everyone at the table is comfortable with that sort of story being told before you start including those sorts of elements. It can make for compelling story telling, but it can also ruin a group and drive people away if you accidentally hit the wrong notes.

 

[plisnithus8]

Not quite what I meant. Of course, we often (although, not as often as you might think) play characters that differ from our real selves. What I meant that folks treating D&D as an excuse to act out in ways that are less than human, or humane.

Playing characters that are "evil" can be okay, unless you are using that as an excuse to act out in grossly violent, racist, or predatory ways. The kind of games I avoided in middle school (a looong time ago) and gave D&D a bad name were the types with players acted out creepy rape, murder, and torture fantasies. To each his own I guess, but those aren't games I would ever participate in, and I find unhealthy for the individuals and for society.

A more down-to-earth "evil" game or character can work really well. If the party is mostly evil or amoral PCs and decide to dehorn a minotaur captive (minotaur "person", not minotaur "monster") knowing full well the morality and potential consequences for such an act . . . OK, but don't be surprised how the "Minotaur League" treats the party when the situation is reversed . . .

As a DM, I would not be upset if my players didn't think through certain actions as evil or inhumane, but they would certainly reap the consequences. Dehorning minotaurs isn't something we have to think about on any sort of regular basis in the real world, after all. If my players made a consciously immoral or inhumane act, such as dehorning a minotaur person, if they did so in context of the story and in an adult manner . . . the story moves forward, again with consequences. If my players are just acting out inhumane fantasies, or are simply callously inhumane (as players, not characters), then that is a group I'm leaving.

It sounds really sounds like we are not too far a part on this issue, though I'm not really sure why you keep bringing up a distinction of person or monster (are you meaning mechanically or just philosophically?).

I still don't see cutting off horns as a big deal, morally. I might actually silently applaud the group for not taking the easy way out by just killing an enemy.
Sure the minotaur would be upset, to a degree more than the dwarf would be if his beard were shaved off, but there are many things that would upset the characters.

Different players come to the table at different levels of maturity. My initial point was that NPCs, especially evil NPCs, will do things that are evil, cutting off horns not even being more of a neutral act of self-protection than an evil act of maliciousness.

 

[Remathilis]

It sounds really sounds like we are not too far a part on this issue, though I'm not really sure why you keep bringing up a distinction of person or monster (are you meaning mechanically or just philosophically?).

I still don't see cutting off horns as a big deal, morally. I might actually silently applaud the group for not taking the easy way out by just killing an enemy.
Sure the minotaur would be upset, to a degree more than the dwarf would be if his beard were shaved off, but there are many things that would upset the characters.

Different players come to the table at different levels of maturity. My initial point was that NPCs, especially evil NPCs, will do things that are evil, cutting off horns not even being more of a neutral act of self-protection than an evil act of maliciousness.

Do said evil characters also cut the hands off monks or the tongues out of spellcasters? How about ripping the teeth out of lizardfolk or clipping the wings of aarakroca? Or blinding eladrin and shadar-kai or other "teleport line of sight" races?

 

[Dire Bare]

It sounds really sounds like we are not too far a part on this issue, though I'm not really sure why you keep bringing up a distinction of person or monster (are you meaning mechanically or just philosophically?).

What's the difference between animals and people? There are no monsters in the real world, not truly, but they abound in our fantasy and sci-fi games.

Monsters are not people, they are aberrations, corruptions, dangerous beasts that not only can be killed but *should* be killed by heroes protecting civilization.

People are sentient beings just like you and me, but might have fur, or horns, or a tail. They can certainly commit evil acts, or just be violently opposed to other races . . . but wantonly killing, maiming, or violating them without regard is evil, just as it would be in the real world.

The difference isn't always easy to judge. Are tieflings people? Are actual devils from the pits of hell people?

I still don't see cutting off horns as a big deal, morally. I might actually silently applaud the group for not taking the easy way out by just killing an enemy. Sure the minotaur would be upset, to a degree more than the dwarf would be if his beard were shaved off, but there are many things that would upset the characters.

If you and I, both human, were enemies, and I captured you . . . would it be okay for me to strip you naked and shave off all of your hair forcefully to prevent you from hiding dangerous weapons? Would it be okay for me to break your fingers to prevent you from wielding a sword or casting a spell against me?

Is it okay for me to use a riding crop or whip on a horse, cattle, or other beast of burden? I can certainly be cruel about it. Is it okay for me to use a riding crop or whip against a person (in a non-combat or kinky BDSM situation)?

Dehorning cattle, or a rhino (we do this to protect rhinos from poachers), is not an evil, inhumane attack. Dehorning a monster isn't necessarily evil either, and might be a necessary thing to do. Dehorning a person, even a 9-ft tall person with sharp horns and hooves, is an evil act upon that person. Certainly, not all evil acts have an equal impact on the victim. I'd rather have my property stolen than be raped or murdered, I'd rather be raped than murdered due to the permanence of death. But do we really need to compare horrific acts?

 

[plisnithus8]

Do said evil characters also cut the hands off monks or the tongues out of spellcasters? How about ripping the teeth out of lizardfolk or clipping the wings of aarakroca? Or blinding eladrin and shadar-kai or other "teleport line of sight" races?

The minotaur horns would be the more obvious weapon, especially for less intelligent enemies, and doing many of those other actions you mention would cause the victims to become more trouble than they are worth prisoners who bleed everywhere, are not be able to feed themselves or answer questions.

How would a group of players handle taking prisoners if their captives had these same abilities? If they let them live yet ignored all of those other "weapons," they'd be asking for trouble.
And if the NPCs are evil and smart and wanted the PCs alive, why wouldn't they choose ways to make the prisoners less dangerous?

 

[Dire Bare]

And if the NPCs are evil and smart and wanted the PCs alive, why wouldn't they choose ways to make the prisoners less dangerous?

We are starting to stray a bit, yes, if the PCs are evil, they might commit evil acts. How the players handle playing evil characters, maturely or otherwise, is more my concern. Although, I do prefer my D&D games to be heroic, and I'm not a fan of evil campaigns or evil characters. But hey, that's me.

But your players characters, evil or otherwise, can't think of ways to "nerf" a minotaur captive other than sawing off it's horns? A bound captive with cladding fixed to it's horns would probably do the trick, no maiming required. Probably a lot less time and effort to boot. Not to mention magical solutions, as we are playing D&D after all.

 

[plisnithus8]

What's the difference between animals and people? There are no monsters in the real world, not truly, but they abound in our fantasy and sci-fi games.

Monsters are not people, they are aberrations, corruptions, dangerous beasts that not only can be killed but *should* be killed by heroes protecting civilization.

People are sentient beings just like you and me, but might have fur, or horns, or a tail. They can certainly commit evil acts, or just be violently opposed to other races . . . but wantonly killing, maiming, or violating them without regard is evil, just as it would be in the real world.

The difference isn't always easy to judge. Are tieflings people? Are actual devils from the pits of hell people?



If you and I, both human, were enemies, and I captured you . . . would it be okay for me to strip you naked and shave off all of your hair forcefully to prevent you from hiding dangerous weapons? Would it be okay for me to break your fingers to prevent you from wielding a sword or casting a spell against me?

Is it okay for me to use a riding crop or whip on a horse, cattle, or other beast of burden? I can certainly be cruel about it. Is it okay for me to use a riding crop or whip against a person (in a non-combat or kinky BDSM situation)?

Dehorning cattle, or a rhino (we do this to protect rhinos from poachers), is not an evil, inhumane attack. Dehorning a monster isn't necessarily evil either, and might be a necessary thing to do. Dehorning a person, even a 9-ft tall person with sharp horns and hooves, is an evil act upon that person. Certainly, not all evil acts have an equal impact on the victim. I'd rather have my property stolen than be raped or murdered, I'd rather be raped than murdered due to the permanence of death. But do we really need to compare horrific acts?

Are the Monstrous Adventurers in Volo's Guide monsters or people? I think the answer can be both. It seems like you use the word "monster" to define something that is not a person and then say it's not easy to judge where the line is drawn. If that's the case, why bring up monsters in this discussion?

There is still debate regarding the use of waterboarding as state approved method of interrogation. Personally, I feel it is torture and and an evil act, but I think adding ideas like that to consider while role-playing can make things more interesting.
Prisoners in US jails are given haircuts and searched very thoroughly for weapons. I don't think I can agree that cutting off a rhino's horn is a kindness and a minotaur's horn who might have just killed one of friends is evil. It feels like you are saying it is hard to judge what a monster is and that evils don't need to compared, but then it seems like you make that judgement and comparison. I'd rather let the players explore that themselves.

I think having PCs squirm about choosing the lesser of two evils is one of the moral dilemmas I mentioned earlier that gives players a different kind of challenge.
Example 1: Morally speaking, if we don't kill this "monster" that just attacked us, is it safe to tie him up but leave him with his horns that could kill one of us?
Example 2: Is this minotaur that captured our minotaur and cut off his horns a person or a monster?

But most of that discussion is different than my main point.
Evil PCs capturing a minotaur would probably cut of its horns. Why would they not?
They don't care if it is an evil act because they are evil. They would certainly take its battle axe. Why would they leave it with horns if they had the intelligence to think of it?

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Going back into the issue of Centaur size, I see the Centaur as being something that takes up more of a 7 foot space of control. But since spaces that creatures occupy only come in 5 foot increments it's either too small or too big.

So I think a 5 foot space is fine even if the technically protrude outside of that space. It makes it easier for balance.