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

[Oofta]

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

Zombies have been associated to whatever we fear. For the Haitians it was exploitative colonialism. In American cinema it's been fear of voodoo and "witchcraft", communism, the atomic age, materialism, viruses and yes, immigrants overrunning society.

So exclusively associated to those others, those aliens invading our homes and eating our way of life if not our loved ones? No, but it is one thing that has been associated. Zombies can represent many different existential threats.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, sure, in theory at least. Then again, I have hard time imagining an entire species of psychopaths being able to survive.

Well there is one species I'm familiar that all of them are psycopaths. It's a pretty disturbing image though, so I'll put in a spoiler. Don't say I didn't warn you!

Spoiler

 

[Gradine]

Well there is one species I'm familiar that all of them are psycopaths. It's a pretty disturbing image though, so I'll put in a spoiler. Don't say I didn't warn you!

Spoiler

View attachment 141946

This is a lie perpetrated by

Spoiler

dog

lovers.

Spoiler

Cats

are perfectly capable of love and affection, they just choose never to share it.

 

[Alzrius]

Zombies have been associated to whatever we fear. For the Haitians it was exploitative colonialism. In American cinema it's been fear of voodoo and "witchcraft", communism, the atomic age, materialism, viruses and yes, immigrants overrunning society.

That's certainly taken to be the case with Romero's original Night of the Living Dead film. In a 2017 eulogy for Romero, Peter Sobczynski writes:

Here was a horror film that took the concerns that were taking hold of the country—specifically the racial tensions of the time, the generation gap and the conflict in Vietnam that broadcast hideous carnage into homes on the news every night—and translated them into cinematic terms in a smart and non-condescending manner that put more overtly noble social dramas like “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” to shame.

 

[Oofta]

This is a lie perpetrated by

Spoiler

dog

lovers.

Spoiler

Cats

are perfectly capable of love and affection, they just choose never to share it.

They may be capable of affection, but they're still merciless murder hobos. It's why ours are indoor only.

 

[Steampunkette]

There are stories of angels having some ability to think for self. Arguably, that's what lead to Lucifer being cast out.

Through the context of D&D, I think it becomes more blurred -as the existence of tieflings and aasimar would indicate that there is some capacity for consensual interaction with other beings. It would also seem to imply that the core essence of a D&D outsider is not such that it overpowers the ability to make decisions when the two meet and/or are joined. If the argument is that they are not capable of enough thought to make such decisions, that would imply some form of nonconsensual interaction (which is possibly more problematic).

Side Note: I vastly do prefer the version of angels (which 4th Edition embraced) which are typically fanatical servants of a higher power. The idea of an enemy who cannot be reasoned with because they are so dedicated to an ideal has an element of terror to it, especially when a "good" party finds themselves being viewed as non-good by some otherworldly judge. A similar mindset is what made MCU Thanos a compelling villain.

Orcs were (as per Tolkien) specifically twisted and created to be an evil reflection of what elves were. I certainly see why their visual representation is something which is an issue. I think there is some debate as to whether the author intended to make orcs in the image of other ethnicities or orcs are a palette swap of how elves were portrayed in his work. In either case, some portion of the audience finds their portrayal a problem. Often I find myself asking, "how should they look so as to not look like anything, while still looking like what they're supposed to be?"

D&D Orcs are something which I never really have had an idea for what they were supposed to be. Even when I was new to the game, I had a difficult time figuring out what their identity was supposed to be. They're kinda goblinoids but not. I vaguely remember that a DM I had a while back went with more pig-like features for them; that's somewhat supported by the tusks and such, but I really have little idea concerning who or what they are supposed to be.

1) You're certainly right about angels being able to think for themselves. I was suggesting they had no ability to make Moral decisions. Not that they cannot perform evil actions, as committing genocide is evil but angels have had such acts attributed to them, but they cannot make the decision to do so in any way which bears moral weight. The same way that bunny rabbit eats her own babies in a clearly horrific and evil act of infanticide but it means jack and diddly because the rabbit doesn't have the ability to question the good and evil of her actions. She does it because she must, as angels do evil or good because they must.

2) Angels and Demons would have the intellectual capacity to interact with people under this precept. Their inability to make decisions on a moral basis wouldn't hamper that. People who believe that they're always in the right, without any ability to self-reflect on their own culpability, independent of any moral consideration, still have kids, after all. We just generally recognize that they're self-centered jerks whose self-righteousness blinds them to the harm they do.

3) Indeed, a divine higher power would want beings acting on it's behalf using higher thought and rational, tactical, thought in order to achieve it's own will. But it wouldn't want them questioning it's authority/morality/etc since that could lead to disloyalty.

The Lucifer thing I don't wanna get into too deeply, 'cause religion, but... It's said he was able to rebel because he was specifically given free will where other angels weren't, and immediately used that gift to rebel, taking a third of the heavenly host with him. There's other interpretations, too, but that's a strong one to consider.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Zombies have been associated to whatever we fear. For the Haitians it was exploitative colonialism. In American cinema it's been fear of voodoo and "witchcraft", communism, the atomic age, materialism, viruses and yes, immigrants overrunning society.

So exclusively associated to those others, those aliens invading our homes and eating our way of life if not our loved ones? No, but it is one thing that has been associated. Zombies can represent many different existential threats.

It's also important to note that Night of the Living Dead uses the term "ghoul", not "zombie". IIRC, it was certain reviewers of the original movie that made the "zombie" connection, with future movies using that term.

 

[Argyle King]

1) You're certainly right about angels being able to think for themselves. I was suggesting they had no ability to make Moral decisions. Not that they cannot perform evil actions, as committing genocide is evil but angels have had such acts attributed to them, but they cannot make the decision to do so in any way which bears moral weight. The same way that bunny rabbit eats her own babies in a clearly horrific and evil act of infanticide but it means jack and diddly because the rabbit doesn't have the ability to question the good and evil of her actions. She does it because she must, as angels do evil or good because they must.

2) Angels and Demons would have the intellectual capacity to interact with people under this precept. Their inability to make decisions on a moral basis wouldn't hamper that. People who believe that they're always in the right, without any ability to self-reflect on their own culpability, independent of any moral consideration, still have kids, after all. We just generally recognize that they're self-centered jerks whose self-righteousness blinds them to the harm they do.

3) Indeed, a divine higher power would want beings acting on it's behalf using higher thought and rational, tactical, thought in order to achieve it's own will. But it wouldn't want them questioning it's authority/morality/etc since that could lead to disloyalty.

The Lucifer thing I don't wanna get into too deeply, 'cause religion, but... It's said he was able to rebel because he was specifically given free will where other angels weren't, and immediately used that gift to rebel, taking a third of the heavenly host with him. There's other interpretations, too, but that's a strong one to consider.

I agree that the Lucifer thing has many interpretations. So, I don't find that particularly useful here, but it was an easily identifiable story.

In terms of good/evil, it appears that many of these interpretations are very ego-centric. That is to say that the bunnies, angels, and such are not really good/evil because they do not act in accordance with the human definitions of what those things are. With that in mind, how it is any more (or less) valid for a human being to judge the actions of a bunny, angel, or devil as not being a real (as defined by human interpretation) version of good/evil any more than the same judgement can be made when looking at Orcish behavior and culture?

 

[Azzy]

The Lucifer thing I don't wanna get into too deeply, 'cause religion, but... It's said he was able to rebel because he was specifically given free will where other angels weren't, and immediately used that gift to rebel, taking a third of the heavenly host with him. There's other interpretations, too, but that's a strong one to consider.

Yeah, Lucifer is an interesting case. 99% of the Lucifer story is based on fictional writings rather than actual religious texts. Hence, I believe that how one views Lucifer (in writing and popular conception) is more of a Rorshach test.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

So basically, the way 3E did it?

Unfortunately, people saw the "often chaotic evil" line without looking that "often" means "half or fewer".