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

[Gradine]

I'll also note that both Eberron and other settings have also had immortal outsiders change alignment. Zariel sure has the shape of a humanoid, but has only ever been an angel and a devil. Such "falls" should be (and canonically have been) both rare and monumental, resulting in a fundamental change of the creature's entire being.

A Redcap that became good would cease to be a Redcap, in the same way that Zariel ceased being a celestial

 

[Ace]

Redcaps are basically spirits made flesh. They are not humanoids and like demons or undead may not have any moral capacity.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Giants are dictionary!humanoids with intelligent societies and culture.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you’re uninterested, one wonders why you would bother replying? And suggesting people not engage in a particular topic of conversation goes a lot further than expressing a lack of interest.


That’s an awfully strong stance to take on a whole lot of nothing. As I said in my first post, I’m just idly speculating. I think my conjecture is entirely plausible for the D&D of 2031, and I think I articulated my reasons quite well. You can take ‘em or leave ‘em. I don’t want to get bogged down in your semantic quibbles which are entirely beside the point, so I’ll bow out of this particular discussion now. See you later folks!

If things continue on this current course, I fully expect D&D not to exist in a recognizable form by 2031.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As mentioned in goodness knows how many other threads here and elsewhere, the problem isn’t the mere existence of “always evil” races, but rather, the existence of “always evil” races that are characterized in the same language and imagery as real-world bigoted stereotypes. If you describe your always evil” races in words and images not linked to RW bigotry, then there’s no problem at all.

It really is that simple.

So the redcap isn’t an issue, not because it is Fey, but because it in no way is described as resembling a RW demographic.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you’re uninterested, one wonders why you would bother replying? And suggesting people not engage in a particular topic of conversation goes a lot further than expressing a lack of interest.

Because you quoted me. I was replying to your post repluimh to mine (replying to yours, replying to mine…) as one does on forums.

That’s an awfully strong stance to take on a whole lot of nothing. As I said in my first post, I’m just idly speculating. I think my conjecture is entirely plausible for the D&D of 2031, and I think I articulated my reasons quite well. You can take ‘em or leave ‘em. I don’t want to get bogged down in your semantic quibbles which are entirely beside the point,

You’re the one who challenged my use of the term humanoid in the first place! If there’s quibbling happening over semantics it’s because you opened that door.

 

[Charlaquin]

If things continue on this current course, I fully expect D&D not to exist in a recognizable form by 2031.

K. So?

 

[Charlaquin]

As mentioned in goodness knows how many other threads here and elsewhere, the problem isn’t the mere existence of “always evil” races, but rather, the existence of “always evil” races that are characterized in the same language and imagery as real-world bigoted stereotypes. If you describe your always evil” races in words and images not linked to RW bigotry, then there’s no problem at all.

It really is that simple.

For you. Other people draw different lines.

So the redcap isn’t an issue, not because it is Fey, but because it in no way is described as resembling a RW demographic.

I would have a problem with the description of redcaps if it was of a humanoid race, as I’m sure would many others, so clearly your heuristic is not as reliable as you seem to think.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For you. Other people draw different lines.

I would have a problem with the description of redcaps if it was of a humanoid race, as I’m sure would many others, so clearly your heuristic is not as reliable as you seem to think.

I’ve yet to see the line drawn differently.

Why would you object to redcaps as-is, substituting the game terminolgy “humanoid” for “Fey”?

 

[JEB]

For all these reasons I don't think it's really possible to come up with a firm, cut and dried dividing line between "ok" and "problematic" content.

If that's the case, then the only practical ways Wizards can address essentialism are (in descending order of safety):
1) Wizards has to remove behavior entirely from listings for intelligent creatures, because it's impossible to safely avoid essentialism
2) Wizards has to include multiple, distinct, equally valid versions of every intelligent creature's behavior
3) Wizards needs to affirmatively declare when an intelligent creature's behavior is a matter of fantasy-biology or a matter of culture (and readers need to accept that either option is fine; which is the tricky part)
4) Wizards needs to clearly and repeatedly explain that the described behavior for every intelligent creature is provided only as a convenient default for game purposes, and should not be taken as required traits for every single member of the species (and readers need to understand and accept this; again, the tricky part)

The idea that there is a normative default with abnormal exceptions is what makes those characterizations essentialist

What do you call the redcap description in the OP, if not a "normative default" for the species? I don't see wiggle room in there, as written.

So you can either accept that the redcap described is an example, from which you can deviate... or it's essentialist.

I gather that you think this is not a justified reading. I get the feeling that wizards, and maybe others in the community, don't have a strong interior sense of why people respond to the various representations that they/dnd puts forward as problematic or not. And so, it becomes like a guessing game, because the things that are identified as offensive to some seem almost like random selections to others.

If it's impossible to distinguish between essentialist and non-essentialist descriptions of monsters, then you either have to adopt some version of the approaches I suggested above, or you simply ignore the problem until someone specifically calls you on it, which isn't a great strategy for several reasons.