D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm not sure how new Aboleth's are created, but I do know that they are "born" with all of the memories of every Aboleth that came before them.

IIRC, they lay eggs, but it doesn't really matter. Aboleths are alien creatures, have psionic powers that enslave others and physically change them, and they're born evil.

Great post, by the way.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Then it's a useless term for D&D. If everything intelligent in D&D is a person, then personhood in D&D doesn't really matter.

Who ever said that being intelligent gave you personhood? No one. Aboleths and Mind Flayers are intelligent, but they're not people.

Give me your definition of person, because so far it has been identical to "human", even though in your mind somehow dwarves are people.

 

[Lanefan]

And so are necromancers, but in D&D, all humans aren't evil.

Heh - in my game Necromancers are a playable PC class and are also in theory all Evil. I've had a couple of players try to play them against type, with varying degrees of success. Ditto Assassins.

Same as RAW Paladins have to all be Good. In other words, alignment/ethos restrictions by class rather than creature type.

But a culture and society doesn't make them relatable, and therefore warranted to be made into people.

I suppose a lot of this comes down to how human-centric one wants one's setting to be. If Elves and Dwarves are considered just as 'different' as Orcs and Goblins then at least everything's equal; with the only difference being that a player can play a Dwarf or Elf PC but not (in my game anyway!) an Orc or Goblin.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Same as RAW Paladins have to all be Good. In other words, alignment/ethos restrictions by class rather than creature type.

In 5e, they don't.

 

[Lanefan]

This keeps being brought up, and it keeps missing the point. So, let us be a little blunt, shall we?

Why are orcs being inherently evil different than Demons/Devils/Angels/Werewolves/Slaadi?

Well, how is a Demon created? Demons arise from the chaotic and malignant energy of the Abyss, fully formed and ready to destroy from the moment they spontanesouly arise from the evil energy.

Devils? A devil is formed when a mortal sells their soul to the Nine Hells, being tortured and bathed in evil energies until they are reborn and branded into the form that the Masters of the Nine Hells desire.

Angels? Much like Demons, angels are formed from energy, specifically the divine energy of the gods. All angels being Lawful Good is a problem if they serve gods of different alignments, but whatever alignment they are makes sense.

Werewolves? A malignant curse that infects those bitten by it, turning them into bloodthirsty beasts, who infect others by the same manner.

Slaadi? Parastic beings created either by implanting eggs that burst forth from the infected or infecting humanoids with a disease that warps and twists them into other such monsters. The first of them were formed from the clash of energy from a device and the chaotic realms.

And how are orcs made? Two orcs have sex and have a baby.

Note something about that? Orcs are the only one on the list that start as an infant. Every single other creature you named, they don't grow up, they don't start as a baby. They are formed, fully mature and ready to fulfill their role. That is why Orcs being inherently evil is a bigger problem than any of the other creatures you listed.

You're using different lore than I am, obviously.

I forget which, but one of Demon or Devil actually has a quasi-infant (more like a larval) phase, that being Lemure. I also have Demons grow over time, they certainly don't stay the same forever.

Never gave much thought to the development and life cycles of Devils or Angels, largely because I don't often use either.

Werewolves can reproduce with each other, or with non-afflicted Humans (cf. Lupin and Tonks); I'd be open to their being able to breed with wolves as well, when in wolf form; and in all cases in the usual male-female way.

Slaadi laying eggs isn't a big step away from frogs laying eggs; it's a different but well-known form of reproduction.

Not really, in the same vein I was just talking about, think about Gnolls for a second. Why are Gnolls different from orcs? Because a new gnoll is only born when a hyena eats the corpse of a humanoid murdered by a gnoll. Again, they are created fully formed, that is a big difference.

Hags? Born by a hag devouring a child and giving birth a few weeks later.

Trolls? Born from bits of a troll being cut off and regrowing into a new Troll.

Again, different lore for different stores.

Trolls and Gnolls both reproduce the same way Humans do. I've no idea at all how Hags reproduce; I've always thought it was a curse.

Sorry, you are wrong. They are people. Have been for decades. Just like Dragons are people.

Dragons are people? Where does this come from?

So, is a half-Orc a person?

For purposes of whether the varions 'xxxx Person' spells will affect them, yes a Half-Orc is by definition a person.

After that, it's all subjective. Some might see them as persons, some might see them as monsters, some might see them as both.

 

[Mercurius]

Oh, I agree. Leave evil drow and orcs in the Monster Manual, but make it clear that these are examples of the worst orcs and worst drow, and in certain settings, these monster stat blocks aren't accurate.

That sounds good. Now, let's convince the others.

We might have come to an agreement, and I hope others do as well, but I suspect the sticking point will be around word usage for the "worst orcs." I think that if they are within a broader context, the language doesn't matter as much because it is just descriptive language to a type of orc (e.g. "the cult of Gruumsh")--and it is words that can be applied to any race/species (i.e. brutish and evil humans). At that point, I don't know what to say to those hypothetical people.

On a side note, an interesting campaign idea that just came to mind--specific to a world, of course--is to take something from the Irda/Ogre thing in Dragonlance, and posit a primordial orcish race akin to "shamanic Neanderthals," that were eventually taken over by the cult of Gruumsh, who went about killing off the non-Gruumshians. The PCs discover this, and figure out that there is actually a small surviving group of the original orcs, who are in hiding but in danger of being found by the "Gruumshian Slayers." If one or more of the PCs is an orc or half-orc, it makes for an interesting quest to protect and/or free the non-Gruumshians.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I forget which, but one of Demon or Devil actually has a quasi-infant (more like a larval) phase, that being Lemure. I also have Demons grow over time, they certainly don't stay the same forever.

They do start at a lower form, but are fully developed in that form. Manes and Lemure are weaker, but they're not infants.

Slaadi laying eggs isn't a big step away from frogs laying eggs; it's a different but well-known form of reproduction.

Frogs don't lay eggs into other creatures through claws, though.

I've no idea at all how Hags reproduce; I've always thought it was a curse.

They consume a child to give birth.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

We might have come to an agreement, and I hope others do as well, but I suspect the sticking point will be around word usage for the "worst orcs." I think that if they are within a broader context, the language doesn't matter as much because it is just descriptive language to a type of orc (e.g. "the cult of Gruumsh")--and it is words that can be applied to any race/species (i.e. brutish and evil humans). At that point, I don't know what to say to those hypothetical people.

I don't think the worst orcs are a problem. We have stats for evil necromancers, liches, bandits, and other versions of the worst humans and other humanoids in the game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then it's a useless term for D&D. If everything intelligent in D&D is a person, then personhood in D&D doesn't really matter.

Love how you skip everything else to make a blanket statement.

But, I don't think the value in personhood can be defined by pointing to an intelligent group and saying "they aren't people". Seems to be a rather ugly view of a what a person is to me.

You're using different lore than I am, obviously.

I forget which, but one of Demon or Devil actually has a quasi-infant (more like a larval) phase, that being Lemure. I also have Demons grow over time, they certainly don't stay the same forever.

Never gave much thought to the development and life cycles of Devils or Angels, largely because I don't often use either.

Werewolves can reproduce with each other, or with non-afflicted Humans (cf. Lupin and Tonks); I'd be open to their being able to breed with wolves as well, when in wolf form; and in all cases in the usual male-female way.

Slaadi laying eggs isn't a big step away from frogs laying eggs; it's a different but well-known form of reproduction.

Missing a few points,

Yes, Demons can change over time, but they are "born" mature. A Dretch is a Dretch, and it might stay a Dretch forever, or it might morph into a Vrock or a Hezrou, but there are no baby Vrocks, no bay Hezrous, and no real life cycle. Demons can arise straight as Balors, or they can grow and change and eventually become Balors.

Devils creating Lemures is a mid-step, but Lemures are still the souls of mortals who made a deal and were dragged to the Nine Hells after death.

Werewolves can have children, but there is a major difference. A natural born child of a werewolf is not born evil, nor are they under the effects of the curse in the same manner. For example, they can change to their beast form at will, instead of relying on the moon.

And yes, Slaadi laying eggs is a well-known form of reproduction, but the eggs hatch, eat out of the humanoid, and mature very rapidly. I think within a manner of hours if not minutes after bursting forth. That compared with the parasitic nature of their conception, makes them incredibly alien.

Again, different lore for different stores.

Trolls and Gnolls both reproduce the same way Humans do. I've no idea at all how Hags reproduce; I've always thought it was a curse.

I was quoting the official 5e lore. Check your monster manual for the Hag details. It is a gross but super thematic detail they added that upped the evil and twisted nature of hags.

Dragons are people? Where does this come from?

Common Decency?

I mean, Dragons have all the markers of personhood, why should we say they are not people?

For purposes of whether the varions 'xxxx Person' spells will affect them, yes a Half-Orc is by definition a person.

After that, it's all subjective. Some might see them as persons, some might see them as monsters, some might see them as both.

heavy double facepalm

So first, you want to attach the idea of personhood to what kind of spells work on you? Read back up to the evil experiments by killing dragons joke. That is what you are advocating for. And it is a horrific way to decide if someone is a person or not.

Secondly, you don't see the glaring problems with the subjectiveness of half-orc personhood?

"Well, you see, since one of your parents was an orc, then there are people out there that are going to see you as a monster. You were born with tusks, and that is all some people are going to see."

And you can't imagine why this could possibly be construed as having racist overtones for the treatment of minority people?

I don't think the worst orcs are a problem. We have stats for evil necromancers, liches, bandits, and other versions of the worst humans and other humanoids in the game.

Yeah, being a "good race" doesn't seem to stop us from having ancient elven liches or mad dwarf kings. Don't see why making orcs as a race non-evil would somehow mean they can never be antagonists.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

That sounds good. Now, let's convince the others.

Are you evangelizing? Why do you feel you need to convince people? Is this a personal mission for you? Why can't you just have a discussion with different opinions? I mean WotC is changing it so there's no need to actually convince people.

I read that article about the history of Tolkien's Orcs. It was compelling and let me see why people would be upset. It took an 8000 word essay, referring to obscure historical facts to allow me to see a connection, though. I bet there's lots of horrible things you can uncover if you dig deep enough in lots of every day things we take for granted.

I'm fine if WotC want's to change it, even though I don't 100% agree with the Orc debate, I think trying to make it more inclusive is a good thing. I'm still going to interpret Orcs the way I always have since I usually homebrew their culture anyways - unless WotC comes up with something better. I'm not convinced this is going to solve any issues in the long run. In the short term, it'll be helpful, though, even if it's just creating an atmosphere of debate and discussion.