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

[mrpopstar]

It's probably a question of how a redcap is created. These things probably spring up from the Feywild itself when someone commits murder. So they're not a biological race so much as a created entity, like elementals, demons, and devils. The trouble with biological races being evil is that they're also coded with decades of real-world racist tropes that target specific real-world cultures and people.

Every time a child says "I don't believe in fairies" there's a fairy somewhere that falls down dead, and every time a child says "I'M GONNA KILL YOU!" a redcap is born.

 

[Lanefan]

Orcs, meanwhile, are not the fiendish spawn of twisted magics, they're not fungus, they're just, regular guys who form their own cities, have their relationship drama and are basically normal.

An orc will go down to the pub for a pint and a parma with you.

And it'll almost certainly insult some people, probably get into a fight or three, and maybe end up burning the place down; 'cause that's just how Orcs are.

And in a typical Orcish might-makes-right society that'd be par-for-the-course acceptable (well, maybe except for the burning-down part; or maybe not). In most Human societies, not so much.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

The point I was making in post #16 of this thread is similar to the one I made in a previous thread where I wrote:

The intent of Nazi and WWII propaganda was different, but it is not the purpose of this post to argue about intent.

Both posts are counterarguments to arguments of the form 'orcs (or other imaginary monsters) can’t be racist because they're not real'. To show that these are bad arguments all that's necessary is to provide examples of depictions of imaginary monsters that are widely recognised to be racist.

This counterargument can be supplemented by the following evidence: Appendix N authors HP Lovecraft and Robert E Howard did consider European stories about "little people" such as elves and dwarves to be based on a diminutive non-white race that they believed to have been real. Gary Gygax thought that stories about elves were based on the Picts.

The development of the idea of "little people" euhemerism.
HP Lovecraft and Robert E Howard's understanding of the idea.

My full argument and supporting evidence about orcs and similar beings in D&D.

Regarding intent, WotC do not consider racist intent to be necessary in order to make changes to D&D. WotC's 2020 article "Diversity and D&D" (emphasis mine):

Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game.​

 

[Lanefan]

I would object to any sort of mortal, intelligent race being characterized as "always evil".

What about "always good"? For some reason that always seems to get a pass.

Jenny Everyorc was a baby, with a mother, and a culture that raises her in a certain way.

And if that "certain way" of the culture* is might makes right, only the strong survive, and-or whoever last stole it owns it then boom, you've got a culture of raised-as-evil Orcs. Which means that Jenny grows up either able and very willing to hold her own (or more) in a fight, or as a proficient sneak and-or thief, or dies young.

* - underpinned and reinforced at every turn by its religion.

Now sure, specific individuals could maybe escape this society now and then and try forging a new life elsewhere, or in a different society; but a quite-possibly overwhelming amount of cultural baggage and unpleasant personal history comes along for the ride.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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:

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?

I think there's a strong correspondence between the Tokio Kid and the artwork for the goblin in the 5e Monster Manual:

The creators of 5e were, ofc, well aware of the 1e hobgoblin art's resemblance to a Japanese samurai and seem to have played that up in the 5e goblin and hobgoblin art. That was a mistake imo.

 

[Dragonsbane]

I haven’t seen anybody upset. Who are you referring to?

My mistake, OP said he was just confused.

But, my post traveled through time! Note the post three down from my original post, comparing the imagery to Nazi stuff.

I was raised Jewish, and have been on the receiving end of anti-Semitism. I'm sorry but I don't see the relationship. And this is before I read the next 8 pages, I would guess some in there are upset as well.

All good, just giving my opinion. Nothing to write home about.

 

[Dragonsbane]

At least one notable group of gamers has established a fairly clear boundary: don’t use RW bigoted stereotyping in describing creatures in RPGs. It’s an easy enough bright-line test that has been suggested time and time again in multiple threads.

In describing CREATURES. Did you know they are not real? I mean, I don't understand. I cannot stereotype an Illithid? A beholder? How about a dragon. Can we say "those damn red dragons, always liking it hot!" How about "can you believe those mind flayers, always wanting to read our minds. My word they are slimy! gross! and inherently EEE-VIL!". Or are mind flayers retconned as well into unique, individualistic entities. That eat brains.

Can we describe anything without the thought police getting up on everyone? Just because it is in multiple threads, it must be the correct opinion? LOL I hope not, as there are some scary threads in this world that are popular.

 

[Yaarel]

I think there's a strong correspondence between the Tokio Kid and the artwork for the goblin in the 5e Monster Manual:

View attachment 141909

The creators of 5e were, ofc, well aware of the 1e hobgoblin art's resemblance to a Japanese samurai and seem to have played that up in the 5e goblin and hobgoblin art. That was a mistake imo.

View attachment 141910

In your linked post, you mentioned:

"Racism doesn't depend on realness. In fact, some level of fantasy is a vital component."

That is a point that I hadnt considered before. The hatespeech tropes require fantastical exaggerations and dehumanizations to make the hatespeech more effective.

 

[Waller]

In describing CREATURES. Did you know they are not real? I mean, I don't understand. I cannot stereotype an Illithid? A beholder? How about a dragon. Can we say "those damn red dragons, always liking it hot!"

And thus you describe my confusion. Because dragons are an excellent example of where WotC is removing biologically determined morality from monsters, according to the new Fizban’s Guide To Dragons:

D&D 5E - Fizban's Treasury of Dragons: Dragon+ Detailed Outline and Descriptions

Here are a lot of juicy details about Fizban's Treasury of Dragons from the updated Issue 38 of Dragon+. For those hoping this will be heavily Dragonlance, it looks unlikely -- they say they are only giving a "very brief nod" to the setting. You might think that the standard collective noun...

www.enworld.org

“We also look at alignment. For example, chromatic dragons are typically evil, so can there ever be a good black dragon? The beauty of the word ‘typically’ is that there’s always the possibility. Each entry in this chapter starts with a table of personality traits and a table of ideals. And the final entry on the table of ideals is always something that’s dramatically outside the norm for that dragon’s alignment as we wanted to make the point that typically does mean typically, not always.”

So my question still stands.

 

[Waller]

Redcaps aren’t a race. They’re a classification of Fey that are not humanoid. They are born of the Feywild reflecting and amplifying bloodlust from reality.

Neither are dragons, but they’re doing it for dragons.