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

[Eubani]

Just because a complaint is made does not mean that it is valid. If a person after explanation cannot grasp or care for the difference between a free willed sentient being and a murderous spirit, then that is on them not the D&D community as a whole. W we do not have to make changes on the basis of a complaint with no merit.

 

[Azzy]

Giants are dictionary!humanoids with intelligent societies and culture.

Your point? Giants may or may not get the humanoid (game term) treatment with regards to alignment, too. WotC has not mentioned how giants may be handled as far as I know.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

They look humanoid to me. They use tools. How fine a line do we need to draw?

 

[Hussar]

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.

BINGO! Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner!

It's rather sad that after all this time and all the explanations, that it takes 4 PAGES of posts for anyone to clarify this.

It's not a problem that something is evil. It's a problem when your evil race is LINKED to RW bigotry.

Are redcaps now or have they ever been used to denigrate, dehumanize or otherwise justify bigotry? No? Then they are not a problem.

No one is trying "remove biological morals" That has never been the issue. And, frankly, the fact that this sort of thing keeps being brought up every single time one of these threads starts up shows how little people are actually paying attention to what's being said. It really is very frustrating to have to keep repeating this same thing over and over and over again.

 

[Azzy]

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

The sky is falling!

 

[Micah Sweet]

K. So?

Well, there are many parts of 5e I like now (kinda why I play the game).

 

[Bardic Dave]

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

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.

Oh, I’ll get drawn in for one last quibble.

You replied to my post initially which was entirely based in speculating about the future. Is it’s so uninteresting, why engage at all?

It wasn’t me who challenged your definition of humanoid, it was you who disagreed with the notion that redcaps are essentially humanoid by appealing to a definition of humanoid that was irrelevant to my point. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck (i.e. the dictionary definition) is the relevant test if we’re talking about the intersection of society at large and D&D. If us hardcore nerds and the game designers want to create distinctions based on “spirits vs. souls”, or “born vs. created”, or outright rules constructs, that’s our business, but those distinctions will be irrelevant if the societal tide turns against them, which was my point from my very first post. Seems a few posters may have missed that.

 

[Hussar]

This is a false equivalency. Those are all, as you say, propaganda. They are imaginary creatures that exist only to mock real world peoples. D&D creatures are not, at least as a general rule. They are created to inhabit "D&D Land," often intended as foes or challenges for adventurers.

Of course it is possible that a D&D creature was created as an intentional mockery or insult of a real world person or group, but I can't think of one.

But, this is the entire point of the changes. It's because these images and concepts were used (even if they weren't originally intended that way) to promote bigotry of real world people. I mean, why have hobgoblins been tied to Japanese culture? Japanese folktales don't have hobgoblins like that. So, where did the link come from? Well, look at that image that was posted and then compare it to:

 

[Micah Sweet]

Your point? Giants may or may not get the humanoid (game term) treatment with regards to alignment, too. WotC has not mentioned how giants may be handled as far as I know.

My point is that giants have just as much reason to be analyzed under the present zeitgeist as orcs, drow, or anyone else with sentience and a culture. And eventually, if things continue as they have been, they will.

 

[JEB]

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.

OK, so it's fine to describe satyrs as having an essential, fundamental nature? Or eladrin? (The latter seems especially pertinent because eladrin are only one step removed from elves...)