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

[Charlaquin]

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...)

Eladrin I would say no. They may be more connected to the Faewild than other elves, but they’re fundamentally still people. They are born, they have societies and cultures, all that jazz. Satyrs are a trickier case. I would lean to counting them as people and not giving them inherent alignments, but they’re definitely on the borderline.

 

[Tonguez]

No, no. You see giants aren’t “humanoid” so they’re in the clear.

I agree with you, of course, but a few people place more value on the status-quo established by the lore, the rules, and tradition then they do on they can see right in front of their nose.

Giants very much already have been, although its Ogre that has largely taken the flack and of course both Ogre and Orc share the common etymology of Orcus, the Etruscan cannibal god.

But other than Ogre/Hill giant (which are essentially identical) whats to complain about in the depiction of Storm Giants or even Fire Giants? Is alignment even meaningful for the Orderning?

 

[Charlaquin]

No, no. You see giants aren’t “humanoid” so they’re in the clear.

I disagree (though I do kinda think they should be classified as humanoid TBH).

I agree with you, of course, but a few people place more value on the status-quo established by the lore, the rules, and tradition then they do on they can see right in front of their nose.

I mean, I also agree. Giants are functionally people, they shouldn’t be essentialzed.

 

[Hussar]

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.

No, they really, really don't.

Are giants used or have they been used, to promote racist denigrations of real people? Say, in the past hundred years or so? I think we can say that there is something of a shelf life for these sorts of things. Yes, the Greeks called lots of people barbarians, but, we generally don't associate the Greek definition with what we do in D&D, and, frankly, what the ancient Greeks thought isn't really a problem today.

So, no, there is not as much reason to analyze giants. The only reason you would analyze giants is if you are really missing the point as to why orcs and drow and Vistani are being looked at.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, there were many points of similarity between all previous editions of D&D (even 4e). The kind of changes some people seem to want to the basic structure of the lore, if taken along this course over time, will render a very different game than what we've had before.

If that’s how it’s gotta be, then that’s how it’s gotta be.

What I’m getting at here is that your objection is committing the logical fallacy known as “begging the question.” It assumes its own conclusion that major change to the lore of the game is a bad thing. I don’t agree that it is.

 

[Bardic Dave]

Giants very much already have been, although its Ogre that has largely taken the flack and of course both Ogre and Orc share the common etymology of Orcus, the Etruscan cannibal god.

But other than Ogre/Hill giant (which are essentially identical) whats to complain about in the depiction of Storm Giants or even Fire Giants? Is alignment even meaningful the Orderning?

I don’t know, as I can’t predict future societal mores. Fire giants are notorious slavers. I can definitely see that getting phased out.

I disagree (though I do kinda think they should be classified as humanoid TBH).

I mean, I also agree. Giants are functionally people, they shouldn’t be essentialzed.

Yup, now what about centaurs? What about satyrs? Keep going down that path and you’ll arrive at redcaps soon enough. I say this entirely without value judgment. This isn’t a morally fraught warning against the perils of slippery slopes, this is merely an impartial observation.

 

[Hussar]

Some people do in fact take issue with biological essentialism even when the race being essentialized isn’t directly tied to any real-life group.

Oh I agree. But, like you said, that's not today's problem. Today's problem is tied to real life groups. Maybe after we sort that out, we can start taking a little harder look at some of the borderline cases and worry about that then? Because, right now, if we want to dive down into biological essentialism, we are simply obfuscating the much larger problems which are directly impacting real life people.

In other words, describing an entirely fictional race that has never been tied to any real life people as being fundamentally evil is a somewhat less urgent issue than using language and descriptions that are directly tied to real, living, breathing people right now.

 

[MGibster]

Removing alignments from monsters as I understand it is to say that no creature is biologically 'evil'. But is there a material difference between saying a race is evil and saying a race is homicidal?

Eh, we (as a whole) aren't all that consistent when it comes to what races/lineages/whateverwecallthemnow are evil by default so why would we expect WotC to be consistent?

Redcaps aren’t a humanoid race, they’re fae creatures.

Come on. Could we really just reclassify orcs as some other creature and make everyone happy?

 

[Hussar]

I always thought they were given that style because someone in 1st ed thought it was cool. I'm sure they didn't realize how horrible people would think of it now.

Probably not. I do not care. This has never, ever been about blaming anyone. Who give a rat's petoot what the artist thought? Why does it matter? Oh, the artist did it by accident so that makes it okay? No, of course not. Was it accidental? Maybe? What's the point of discussing whether or not it was accidental? What purpose does assigning blame serve? But, out of curiosity, why would you be "sure" about anything? Do you know the artist? Have you spoken to anyone who has spoken to the artist? What reason do you have to be "sure" about anything? I agree that the artist probably didn't think it would be horrible, because, in the 1970's, it was 100% acceptable to use that kind of imagery or very similar sorts of things, when talking about Japanese or Asian Americans. Sure, the WWII propaganda stuff is brutal, but, it's hardly isolated. Good grief, racist depictions of Japanese in the 1970's? Naw, that would never happen would it?

The point is, the image of hobgoblins is very, very close to the Tokyo Kid imagery that is unbelievably racist. Maybe, just maybe, we should change the image first and then, later on, leave it to the historians to figure out who to blame?

 

[Charlaquin]

Yup, now what about centaurs? What about satyrs? Keep going down that path and you’ll arrive at redcaps soon enough. I say this entirely without value judgment. This isn’t a morally fraught warning against the perils of slippery slopes, this is merely an impartial observation.

Centaurs and Satyrs are, like I said in an earlier post, an unusual case. It comes down to what they are in the setting. If they’re spirits of nature? Then it’s fine for them to have an essential nature. Are they people with societies and cultures and such? Then it isn’t. Personally, I lean more towards the “they’re people, and should therefore not be essentialized” interpretation, but there’s definitely gray area there.

There’s no such gray area with redcaps. They aren’t people, they are literal murder spirits. Is it possible that some day they will come to be viewed as people, or that the standard will shift such that even defining otherworldly spirits in essential terms isn’t considered acceptable? Sure. And if that day ever comes, they’ll probably be changed. But for now, I don’t think there’s a problem.