Level Up (A5E) Gnolls (and other evil things)

[Retreater]

Here's my take. I think having some group of enemies that can be killed without question is an important part of many types of campaigns. They could be oozes, undead, demons, devils, etc. But something where not every encounter has to be a philosophical argument, which likely triggers IRL arguments between players. I've seen gaming groups collapse over these discussions.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I mean, just once I'd like to see matrilineal non-evil Gnolls with a more complicated relationship with folks.

It's like this with Chromatic Dragons too.

I'm like that, too. It makes me want to skip bestiaries these days.

 

[FatPandaMonk]

Here's my take. I think having some group of enemies that can be killed without question is an important part of many types of campaigns. They could be oozes, undead, demons, devils, etc. But something where not every encounter has to be a philosophical argument, which likely triggers IRL arguments between players. I've seen gaming groups collapse over these discussions.

I have been in a group that had this happen. Every encounter was a debate. We maybe had six games before it fell apart. In those games almost nothing ever happened we were so bogged down with moral debates.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I have been in a group that had this happen. Every encounter was a debate. We maybe had six games before it fell apart. In those games almost nothing ever happened we were so bogged down with moral debates.

There's definitely an issue of taste within this: I probably won't blink if presented with mindless opponents like the usual zombie/skeleton. Maybe I wouldn't think too hard about fiends. But for my tastes, sapient mortals are just uncomfortable.

 

[Faolyn]

I have been in a group that had this happen. Every encounter was a debate. We maybe had six games before it fell apart. In those games almost nothing ever happened we were so bogged down with moral debates.

How did you run your encounters? Were the bad guys not obviously doing bad things?

 

[Retreater]

There's definitely an issue of taste within this: I probably won't blink if presented with mindless opponents like the usual zombie/skeleton. Maybe I wouldn't think too hard about fiends. But for my tastes, sapient mortals are just uncomfortable.

Do you play video games? Skyrim? Call of Duty? Uncharted? Assassin's Creed?
All of these have sentient opponents you can kill.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Skyrim? Call of Duty? Uncharted? Assassin's Creed?

None of these. I don't think I've played a game with that kind of opponent in years.

 

[TheSword]

Let’s be honest, hyena’s have had a bad rep since the Lion King. You’re gonna have to take that up with Mufassa, for banishing them to the place you must never go!

Seriously though. This is a group problem not a game problem.

- If you’re the DM just play gnolls how you want to play them. It is 100% in your control.

- If you’re a player and your group wants more nuanced stories that involve more than killing the monsters then speak to the DM and explain how you feel.

- If you’re a player and you’re the only one who wants this, and everyone else is happy going Vermintide on their asses then I’m afraid you persuade them, suck it up, or find a new group.

Changing a line of text in the MM won’t change any of that. It certainly won’t force anybody to change the game in any way they don’t want to.

incidentally, it’s not racist to kill intelligent hyena people if those hyena people don’t represent or remind people of real world folks. For a good example of what I’m talking about here compare gnolls - the cannibalistic, demon worshiping, slave trading hyena people to the examples in the thread about red and yellow orcs.

D&D General - "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

Hi, in this thread I will document the racially and culturally problematic facets of the D&D book GAZ10: The Orcs of Thar (1988). For an overview, see Shannon Appelcline's product write-up at DriveThruRPG. I write this as a long-time aficionado of D&D, and of the Known World of Mystara. I...

www.enworld.org

There is allowed to be some nuance in this debate. We can draw a distinctions between some creatures that shouldn’t be auto evil or have been handled pretty egregiously and some where it’s acceptable. I believe there is a sensibly moderate position to take.

One thing you can do, is not play with a DM that thinks it’s fun to put gnoll children or red dragon hatchlings in their adventure to tie you up in emotional/moral knots. Always remember that a DM has intentionally selected these things when they are present. They have also selected the framing when they present them to you. Published 5e adventures almost never include monstrous children unless it’s a cute fuzzy owlbear to adopt!

NB Incidentally I got a reply notification but a person can’t read a response if they’re blocked before they can read it

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Seriously though. This is a group problem not a game problem.

So people who have a problem shouldn't play D&D 5e?

Because that's essentially what anyone who says "It's a group problem" is saying.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So people who have a problem shouldn't play D&D 5e?

Because that's essentially what anyone who says "It's a group problem" is saying.

I think it means that people who have an issue with this should discuss it amongst themselves and find a way to play that works for them, making whatever changes they need to feel comfortable, as opposed to insisting that the company that produces the game change it to suit their needs.