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

[billd91]

I’m sorry, what!? Zombies, in the form popularized by George A. Romero, are a metaphor for consumerism, not immigration

Metaphors have a tendency to drift or have other people interpret them in ways not intended by the author. Pretty thematic around here with respect to other topics about D&D creatures and races.

 

[Charlaquin]

I wonder if the "fey are bound but strong emotions" excuse applies to centaurs, satyrs and hexbloods? You know, the three PC "fey" races so far...

The consistent answer being given seems to be “that’s a bit of an edge case, but probably not.”

 

[mrpopstar]

Per Ravnica and Theros:

Fey. Your creature type is fey, rather than humanoid.

So PC centaurs and medium fey while MM centaurs are large monstrosities.

Ah, I don't own Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica or Mythic Odysseys of Theros.

 

[Remathilis]

The consistent answer being given seems to be “that’s a bit of an edge case, but probably not.”

There is an odd cynical streak that wants to point out the hypocrisy of that. That some fey are utterly bound by their nature and other fey are not, but I think it's just easier to admit that PC "fey" are a mechanical mistake and treat those races/lineages as humanoids with fey ancestry (cf elves).

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, that is equally absurd, which is why we complain about all the examples of it, like:

Dwarves, Elves and Hobbits? All of those species have been given generic alignments in the past (LG, CG and NG in order, I think).

That's... that's my point. That's my whole point, right there. They're not "always evil" if they can forge their own path, which means the idea that they're biologically evil is demonstrably false.

Wrong.

Those who forge their own path are - intentionally or not - fighting against their own biology* and-or upbringing* and-or culture* to do so. That's what makes it interesting.

* - specific broad-based tendencies of any of these, for good or bad, within a creature's overall society are enough to paint a generic alignment onto that creature/society. And that's what we're talking here: generic default alignment, with (in 5e) a note in the DMG as quoted by others, above, saying that individual variance is allowed and even expected.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

At this point, I'm not going to bother reading the thread because this is what, the 50th time this argument has happened? I've heard it all before. Also can't escape it every time it comes up on Reddit or Twitter. However, I've given it some thought, and I think this entire argument ties into a broader trend in fantasy. Pointing this out might get me run out of the thread, but here goes nothing:

D&D, at its core, is inherently conservative. It takes a 19th century conservative Counter-Enlightenment Romantic's ideas about the world and society and morality and dresses it up with magic and funny ears. And I don't know if that can ever be fundamentally changed, or if it can only be covered up despite the designers' efforts at promoting inclusiveness in the game. I guess that would all depend on if the designers will ever be ready to confront the themes endemic to D&D ever since Appendix N was assembled head-on, rather than try and tip-toe around them. But it's not just D&D; it's the entire subgenre of fantasy that it resides in.

The dominant trends in Western fantasy today, particularly the subgenres of high fantasy and heroic fantasy, lean heavily towards conservative politics in the vein of Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre, whether consciously realized or not. Very monarchist, very much about "chosen one" or "great men" narratives, very much about holding faith in institutions and "civilization" and defending such from the chaotic horde from the outside. These arguments about "biological essentialism", "race as culture", "inherent evil", and I'd even say "fixed ability scores" are pointing towards this tendency towards conservatism within the fantasy genre. When I see people protesting the recent changes to D&D regarding race and alignment, this is the argument that I see hiding behind the curtain, whether those advocating for it realize it or not. I would hope that the growing vocal reaction against these elements in fantasy is part of the growing pains of a broader shift in attitude within the genre. But right now, authors in English language literature who use the aesthetics of fantasy to push progressive ideas are largely going against the tide to do so.

China Mieville wrote some words on this which can be read here (note that this was 20 years ago!):

The quick answer to why fantasy looks so conservative is that for a long time a huge amount of it has been. If you look at stereotypical 'epic' or 'high' fantasy, you're talking about a genre set in magical worlds with some pretty vile ideas. They tend to be based on feudalism lite: the idea, for example, that if there's a problem with the ruler of the kingdom it's because he's a bad king, as opposed to a king. If the peasants are visible, they're likely to be good simple folk rather than downtrodden wretches (except if it's a bad kingdom...). Strong men protect curvaceous women. Superheroic protagonists stamp their will on history like characters in Nietzschean wet dreams, but at the same time things are determined by fate rather than social agency. Social threats are pathological, invading from outside rather than being born from within. Morality is absolute, with characters--and often whole races--lining up to fall into pigeonholes with 'good' and 'evil' written on them.

This is what we're working with, even after twenty years. Not that this describes all of the fantasy genre, far from it, but the corner of fantasy that D&D has occupied for most of its life comfortable fits into this mold. Which, I'd argue, is a form of fantasy that is not very fantastic at all. It's a form of fantasy that's shackled to a past that never was, to a caricature of ages gone by and the traditions that have been lost to the march of time. And because it takes this idealized version of the past for granted, it falls prey to the same tropes, the same stereotypes, the same biases over and over again. There's no room for the truly fantastical to take root as long as high and heroic fantasy remains tethered to this anchor of traditionalism and conservatism. Again, to quote Mieville:

The problem with escapism is that when you read or write a book society is in the chair with you. You can't escape your history or your culture. So the idea that because fantasy books aren't about the real world they therefore 'escape' is ridiculous. Fantasy is still written and read through the filters of social reality. That's why some fantasies (like Swift's Gulliver's Travels) are so directly allegorical--but even the most surreal and bizarre fantasy can't help but reverberate around the reader's awareness of their own reality, even if in a confusing and unclear way.

Take a book like Rats and Gargoyles by Mary Gentle. It's set in a fantasy world, and it involves discussions of racism, industrial conflict, sexual passion and so on. Does it really make any sense to say that the book is inherently, because of its genre form more escapist than what Iain Banks calls 'Hampstead novels', about the internal bickerings of middle class families who seem hermetically sealed off from wider social conflicts? Just because those books pretend to be about 'the real world' doesn't mean they reverberate in it with more integrity.

Precisely because you read and write books with society in your head, the 'escape' that Tolkien and others aspire to is doomed to fail. In fact, it's precisely those kind of escapist books that take the real world for granted which are most shackled to thinly veiled and highly ideological versions of that world. The problem with most genre fantasy is that it's not nearly fantastic enough. It's escapist, but it can't escape.

 

[Charlaquin]

We are sadly in an age where the actual meaning does not matter any more, only what someone believes the meaning is, no matter how wrong he is.

I mean, art can have different meanings, there are many interpretive lenses one can use. But when you make a claim so far afield of the commonly accepted reading, you should show your work. I have never before heard of zombies as a metaphor for immigration, not even of Zack Snyder’s take on them.

 

[Charlaquin]

Metaphors have a tendency to drift or have other people interpret them in ways not intended by the author. Pretty thematic around here with respect to other topics about D&D creatures and races.

Sure. Zack Snyder’s zombies, for example, rather miss the mark on the consumerism metaphor. But zombies as an immigration metaphor? That’s so far afield of any interpretation I’ve ever heard… it’s not a drift, it’s a complete non-sequitur. I would need to hear a more detailed analysis under this interpretive lens before accepting it out of hand.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, art can have different meanings, there are many interpretive lenses one can use. But when you make a claim so far afield of the commonly accepted reading, you should show your work. I have never before heard of zombies as a metaphor for immigration, not even of Zack Snyder’s take on them.

Zombies, to me, are just a metaphor for "boring".

 

[Gradine]

Dwarves, Elves and Hobbits? All of those species have been given generic alignments in the past (LG, CG and NG in order, I think).

Never "always" though, at least to my memory. Certainly not in 5e. And those generic alignments tend to be more a product of their culture than their physical race.

Wrong.

Those who forge their own path are - intentionally or not - fighting against their own biology* and-or upbringing* and-or culture* to do so. That's what makes it interesting.

* - specific broad-based tendencies of any of these, for good or bad, within a creature's overall society are enough to paint a generic alignment onto that creature/society. And that's what we're talking here: generic default alignment, with (in 5e) a note in the DMG as quoted by others, above, saying that individual variance is allowed and even expected.

I... why do you disagree with me and then immediately say a bunch of stuff that is exactly what I'm saying? My problem is with the "always", not the "evil".

I suppose that we do disagree on the role biology does (or should) play in it. D&D, as presented, certainly does attribute biological causes to morality. It's just that, in my view, this is both wrong and bad.

A baby orc, taken from its culture, may tend towards anger and violence even as they grow, but these traits cannot be morally judged on their own, or else every Barbarian also needs to be defined as "always evil".