D&D 5E I thought WotC was removing biological morals?
- Status
Bardic Dave
Adventurer
Your mistake is assuming that because this distinction is good enough for you it’s good enough for everybody.
Bardic Dave
Adventurer
That’s how I felt reading your reply chastising me for engaging in on-topic speculation on a discussion forum.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I wasn’t chastising you at all, I was expressing my own disinterest in worrying about what might or might not be considered problematic some day.
Reading for characterization and genre not only relies on picking up on allusions, tropes, figures in any given representation but also on the history of that figuration and understanding of its contemporary context. So it is complicated! and further subject to individual interpretation. For all these reasons I don't think it's really possible to come up with a firm, cut and dried dividing line between "ok" and "problematic" content. So you might have one creature that calls back to 19th century pulp fiction that relied on imperial accounts of 'otherness' to provide its motivating conflicts, and another creature that calls back to regional Scottish folklore, and it's those differing histories, contexts, and usages that inform how they are presented and often how they are read.
The idea that there is a normative default with abnormal exceptions is what makes those characterizations essentialist
I gather that you think this is not a justified reading. I get the feeling that wizards, and maybe others in the community, don't have a strong interior sense of why people respond to the various representations that they/dnd puts forward as problematic or not. And so, it becomes like a guessing game, because the things that are identified as offensive to some seem almost like random selections to others.
Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
While the OP seems to genuinely misunderstand the stance that WotC has taken on alignment in regards to creatures, that doesn't change that the discussion has never been about the dictionary definition of humanoid. You seem to be the first to confuse the the usage of the word "humanoid" in regards to the discussion (the OP never uses the term), so there really doesn't seem to be the need to worry about the average gamer being confused to this point.
Bardic Dave
Adventurer
If you’re uninterested, one wonders why you would bother replying? And suggesting people not engage in a particular topic of conversation goes a lot further than expressing a lack of interest.
That’s an awfully strong stance to take on a whole lot of nothing. As I said in my first post, I’m just idly speculating. I think my conjecture is entirely plausible for the D&D of 2031, and I think I articulated my reasons quite well. You can take ‘em or leave ‘em. I don’t want to get bogged down in your semantic quibbles which are entirely beside the point, so I’ll bow out of this particular discussion now. See you later folks!
Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
See ya!
Mercurius
Legend
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.
- Status
Similar Threads
D&D General
When to know a rule?
