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

Jfdlsjfd · Aug 9, 2021

Umbran said:
But having two arms, two legs, and a head doesn't make you a creature who creates culture.

This sentence has been used against South American natives, hasn't it? With the use of Aztec architecture by Las Casas to disprove the idea that, despite their cities (or temple?) being ugly by the Spanish standard, natives had buildings and therefore a culture.

With Redcap being bilingual and INT 10, they clearly have what it takes to create a culture, even if it is unpalatable to us (a kill song? an arson lullaby?) Even if they don't have currently a culture, they are able to create one, being as intelligent as humans are.

Myrdin Potter · Aug 9, 2021

Oofta said:
Zombies are broadly linked to immigrants, those that come in legally and not.

Practically every society throughout history has had some sort of "evil other beings that are evil". Saying that it's okay if some creatures are evil because of fluff but others are not doesn't make much sense to me. Bad things are said about evil creatures, bad things have been said about various groups. With redcaps it's "homicidal with in-born blood lust". I remember that same description being used in the old westerns my dad used to watch being used to describe Apaches because they were the "bad" native American.

It's practically impossible to depict other creatures as evil without repeating language that has been used to denigrate humans at some point. While I think the MM and DMG should be much, much clearer on the role of alignment and that it's always up to the campaign setting and DM to decide what percentage of those creatures (if any) fit the MM description, I don't have a problem with evil monsters no matter what form they take or what fluff is given.

The MM is pretty darned clear:

“The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign.”

Oofta · Aug 9, 2021

Myrdin Potter said:
The MM is pretty darned clear:

“The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign.”

Yeah, which is something I usually point out in these threads. However, it is kind of buried. I think it should be more prominent and probably a section in the DMG.

Having a section in the DMG discussing the pros and cons, the role of alignment in the monster entries would go a lot further than just eliminating the alignment entry and replacing it with verbiage that still makes them evil.

Micah Sweet · Aug 9, 2021

Myrdin Potter said:
The MM is pretty darned clear:

“The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign.”

I dearly wish that were enough for people, but unfortunately that's not the world we live in anymore.

Scribe · Aug 9, 2021

Myrdin Potter said:
The MM is pretty darned clear:

“The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign.”

Exactly, so simple. A solution which has been present the entire edition, for any table to use as they see fit.

Umbran · Aug 9, 2021

Galandris said:
This sentence has been used against South American natives, hasn't it?

I wouldn't know. If you find a cite of it, good for you. I removed it because the point actually generalizes.

The point that the fae are more akin to demons and devils than regular mortals - being embodiments and reflections of aspects of the world, rather than makers of the world - is by no means new. If you want to completely remove this design space from your game, feel free. I think it is okay for WotC to work with it a bit.

Weiley31 · Aug 9, 2021

Mirtek said:
But they ones in the feywild attenting the courts of dark archfey do play a role in fey culture

Imagine a Redcap barber of the Unseelie Court.

mrpopstar · Aug 9, 2021

Humanoids are the issue. I'm cool with all other creature types having an assumed alignment.

overgeeked · Aug 9, 2021

Lanefan said:
And it'll almost certainly insult some people, probably get into a fight or three, and maybe end up burning the place down; 'cause that's just how Orcs are.

And in a typical Orcish might-makes-right society that'd be par-for-the-course acceptable (well, maybe except for the burning-down part; or maybe not). In most Human societies, not so much.

If you choose to keep the racist tropes, sure. But they’re fictional. You can choose to have them be a different way. To me, it’s far more interesting to not simply regurgitate the same old tired racist tropes.

Oofta · Aug 9, 2021

Weiley31 said:
Imagine a Redcap barber of the Unseelie Court.

I may have to steal that. Something like:

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

Jfdlsjfd

.

Myrdin Potter

Hero

Oofta

Legend

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Scribe

Legend

Umbran

Mod Squad

Weiley31

Legend

mrpopstar

Sparkly Dude

overgeeked

B/X Known World

Oofta

Legend

Similar Threads