D&D 5E I thought WotC was removing biological morals?

[Charlaquin]

Take it up with the dictionary my friend! D&D has warped our understanding of the word.

I understand the dictionary definition of the word, but in the context of D&D, which is what we’re discussing here, it has a different definition.

 

[Bardic Dave]

Ok, but we’re talking about D&D.

We’re talking about how changing social mores intersect with D&D. The rules sleight of hand which somewhat arbitrarily divides elves from redcaps may not be good enough for future players.

 

[Bardic Dave]

I understand the dictionary definition of the word, but in the context of D&D, which is what we’re discussing here, it has a different definition.

The D&D rules construct of “humanoid” isn’t a complete defence against the every day normal person’s understanding, which was my point. Saying “yeah, but this is different because the rules say so” only works if you’ve already bought into that premise. It’s somewhat tautological, and won’t stop newcomers from pointing out why a particular depiction of a humanoid creature might be regarded as problematic.

 

[Charlaquin]

We’re talking about how changing social mores intersect with D&D. The rules sleight of hand which somewhat arbitrarily divides elves from redcaps may not be good enough for future players.

Right, and I agree that may be the case. But we’re not there yet. Let’s focus on the problems of this day and age before we get lost in the weeds speculating about the hypothetical problems of the future.

The D&D rules construct of “humanoid” isn’t a complete defence against the every day normal person’s understanding, which was my point. Saying “yeah, but this is different because the rules say so” only works if you’ve already bought into that premise. It’s somewhat tautological, and won’t stop newcomers from pointing out why a particular depiction of a humanoid creature might be regarded as problematic.

I’m not saying it’s different because the rules say so. I’m saying it’s different because one is a free-thinking being that’s a part of the natural world and has organized societies, while the other is a magical spirit from the otherworld that embodies the concept of murder. It happens that D&D has jargon terms for differentiating between free-thinking beings that are part of the natural world and magical spirits from the otherworld, and its term for the former also happens to be a homonym with the English word for an animal with a human-like body plan.

 

[Azzy]

The D&D rules construct of “humanoid” isn’t a complete defence against the every day normal person’s understanding, which was my point. Saying “yeah, but this is different because the rules say so” only works if you’ve already bought into that premise. It’s somewhat tautological, and won’t stop newcomers from pointing out why a particular depiction of a humanoid creature might be regarded as problematic.

The problem with your logic is that the reference to "humanoid" in reference to monsters and alignment is based on the game term (as per the game designers and previous discussions on this topic), not the dictionary definition. It's because humanoids (in the D&D sense) are mortal creatures with civilisations and are capable of independent thought. Fey (and other non-humanoid creatures), may be humanoid (in the dictionary sense), but that's irrelevant—they are spiritual beings like fiends, celestials, elementals, and undead whose natures are inherent to their identities.

 

[Tonguez]

I think it’s less of a “manufactured controversy” and more of a discussion about where/how we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable portrayals of humanoid (if you go by the dictionary definition) creatures in D&D.

I think the mistake you have made is in thinking of Fairy as being humanoids. Despite years of D&D and Disneyfication I beleive that most rational persons are able to distinguish between ’Mundane/biological’ humanoid and ‘Idealised/Magical’ Spirit.

Fairy are spirits, and as with other Spirits - be they ghost, gods or kami - most interested viewers know they aren’t Human-ish but rather idealised and reified abstractions.
A Murderous fairy isnt talking about a race, lineage or culture. Its talking about the manifestation of a particular force of nature - which just happens to look like a little old man with a red cap and just happens to randomly slaughter strangers sheltering in old castle ruins.

 

[Bardic Dave]

The problem with your logic is that the reference to "humanoid" in reference to monsters and alignment is based on the game term (as per the game designers and previous discussions on this topic), not the dictionary definition. It's because humanoids (in the D&D sense) are mortal creatures with civilisations and are capable of independent thought. Fey (and other non-humanoid creatures), may be humanoid (in the dictionary sense), but that's irrelevant—they are spiritual beings like fiends, celestials, elementals, and undead whose natures are inherent to their identities.

The designers and the hardcore fans don’t unilaterally dictate how things are understood. The very existence of this post, in which the OP appears to be earnestly confused by the depiction of redcaps is evidence of that. Get a critical mass of people like OP and the game will change.

 

[Charlaquin]

The designers and the hardcore fans don’t unilaterally dictate how things are understood. The very existence of this post, in which the OP appears to be earnestly confused by the depiction of redcaps is evidence of that. Get a critical mass of people like OP and the game will change.

So it will change. I’m not afraid.

 

[Bardic Dave]

Right, and I agree that may be the case. But we’re not there yet. Let’s focus on the problems of this day and age before we get lost in the weeds speculating about the hypothetical problems of the future.

Or we could not police other people’s on-topic posts and let the conversation flow organically? I like that idea better.

 

[Bardic Dave]

So it will change. I’m not afraid.

Good! I never said you were!