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

[Older Beholder]

The idea that a horrible murder creates a horrible murder creature seems like a metaphor for murder being a bad thing.

Where as Orcs and Drow can be seen as a metaphor for dark skin = evil.
edit with apologies

 

[Argyle King]

Method of creation doesn't matter. Appearance doesn't matter. Sapience and Free Will matter.

If the Redcap has both, then he is evil and all redcaps are evil and we're in the same "All of a race is evil" boat all over, again. And the one example in the castle just makes it all the worse because it shows they get a choice and all choose evil but one. In which case the OP is right and it's just a problem waiting to happen. Though less of one because as I previously noted the Redcap has no cultural trappings or examples of "Peopleness" such as families, jobs, or societies. They're just murderhobos, the lot of 'em.

As to redemption... It doesn't matter.

Morality isn't "They could be better, tomorrow, than they are, today, so I must let them kill me, now, to avoid depriving them of the chance!"

Are you in danger? If yes, fight back. Kill if you have to. There's no big conundrum, there. The issue you're presenting lies earlier: The choice to travel to the dungeon and get that treasure no matter how many orc lives it costs. At -that- moment you've made the choice, and everything that flows from it is consequence.

Are you doing it because that treasure is needed to save the world/kingdom/village? Or are you doing it to enrich yourself?

Even if I were trying to save a kingdom/village/etc, am I to assume that my problems are of greater importance to those creatures?

If such an item has the power to change my entire life or the lives of the people from wherever I categorize as "home," I'm inclined to believe that being deprived of such an item would have a detrimental effect on those from which I take the item.

 

[Malmuria]

Even if I were trying to save a kingdom/village/etc, am I to assume that my problems are of greater importance to those creatures?

If such an item has the power to change my entire life or the lives of the people from wherever I categorize as "home," I'm inclined to believe that being deprived of such an item would have a detrimental effect on those from which I take the item.

Your character is a True Neutral Druid. Hell yeah!

 

[Argyle King]

Your character is a True Neutral Druid. Hell yeah!

Funny enough, a lot of what's being discussed here is why it was fun to play a Lizardfolk Paladin (Oath of Ancients) a while back. Balancing what was traditionally seen as "good" against a culture which doesn't necessarily frown upon eating people was a challenge. What was good/bad from the viewpoint of that character (and a different culture) didn't always line up with what was seen as good/bad by the typical PC races.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If orcs are not born evil (and to be clear I have played/run that way for 25 years) and we shouldn't be color coding for your convenience dragons (I was later to that party maybe about 15 years) then we shouldn't be painting (like in blood) red caps as all little murder machines...

I assume that even fey wild races have free will, and that some % how ever low should be nonviolent, or able to channel the violence's for good...

for the record I don't think I have ever used redcaps, but I don't see why we need to paint any intelligent race as "all XXX"

 

[Faolyn]

The irony, imo, is that it's actually more modern xp-for-combat style dnd that creates incentives for seeing encountered creatures as mostly opportunities for combat, and thus, for the morally inclined player or character, as inherently evil piles of xp (incidentally, this tracks with the way that the British would characterize native groups as monsters for the purpose of justifying violence and plunder).

Considering that xp-for-combat has been the norm for the bulk of D&D's history (xp-for-gold isn't in 2e), I wouldn't call it modern. I'd call it the norm.

 

[JEB]

The provocation seems to be that one should offer a hard and fast rule of what is an acceptable representation and what is not, and that such a rule should cover all cases not only now or in the future; or, if that's not possible, that the whole issue should be dropped for lacking consistency.

Alternatively, some folks are observing the inconsistency in where different people draw the line on essentialism, and simply want there to be consistency - or at least some common points of agreement - so an approach that works for most folks can actually be found. Rather than facing the prospect of a debate that never ends, or only ends with some significant section of fans unhappy...

Personally, I think some fair solutions have been proposed in this thread to at least mitigate the problem for most folks. And I think the debate is valuable so long as it can produce such answers.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I'll admit I find it a bit funny that redcaps started this discussion when I'm currently using redcaps as the main minions in my campaign at the moment. While most of them have been cannon fodder, I've developed a boss one that has lived longer and am currently trying to create roleplaying notes for such a redcap that is somehow able to suppress it's constant urge to kill long enough to make sure it doesn't get killed itself. The compromise I've come up with is that this particular redcap is able to delay gratification (killing) long enough to offer itself as a mercenary (which hopefully the party rejects) while at the same time trying to supernaturally inspire violence in others to enable its own need to kill.

 

[Faolyn]

If orcs are not born evil (and to be clear I have played/run that way for 25 years) and we shouldn't be color coding for your convenience dragons (I was later to that party maybe about 15 years) then we shouldn't be painting (like in blood) red caps as all little murder machines...

I assume that even fey wild races have free will, and that some % how ever low should be nonviolent, or able to channel the violence's for good...

for the record I don't think I have ever used redcaps, but I don't see why we need to paint any intelligent race as "all XXX"

Humans, orcs, and dragons are all natural species. They reproduce, raise their young, develop personalities, learn, grow as people, etc. It's ridiculous to assume that they would be always any particular alignment, especially Always Good or Always Evil.

Redcaps, and many other fey in 5e, are specifically born out of emotions or actions. Redcaps are literally born out of the act of murder: if blood is shed through violent means in or near the Feywild, redcaps may spring forth. They don't reproduce and produce young, and it's fair to assume that because of their origins, they don't really develop strong personalities, learn, or grow. As someone else said on this thread, it's fair to see these fey as murder elementals.

I mean, it's fair to say that yeah, redcaps aren't all evil, or even most redcaps aren't evil. But it actually makes sense with the lore the way it's written that they and other similar fey are like that.

 

[Alzrius]

(xp-for-gold isn't in 2e)

O RLY?

Allow me to quote a paragraph from page 47 of the original 2E DMG (page 69 in the revised version):

As an option, the DM can award XP for the cash value of non-magical treasures. One XP can be given per gold piece, or equivalent, found. However, overuse of this option can increase the tendency to give out too much treasure in the campaign.

Also note that the table for individual class awards (table 34 in both versions of the DMG) has rogues (i.e. thieves and bards) gain 2 XP per gold piece value of treasure obtained.