D&D General All Dead Generations: "Classic Vs. The Aesthetic"

[Doug McCrae]

incidentally, it is a bit of a paradox when it is the gygaxian naturalists who want inherently evil monsters, as it goes against the playstyle and aesthetics you identify

Well, I could be wrong! I didn't know I was going to come to that conclusion when I started writing -- I just looked back over my list of features and thought, "Hmm, good and evil are totally irrelevant here."

As @pemerton has pointed out, OD&D and AD&D 1e have several features that are at odds with amoral treasure-nabbing -- alignment, lawful clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, the gods, angels and demons/devils, Heaven and Hell.

 

[Faolyn]

For some reason my brain wanted me to type something about how thinking a group of people are cool for looking different seems to tread close to fetishizing. Does fetishizing something imaginary avoid language issues and so would never bring to mind fetishizing the far east, for example? Or is it that fetishizing in general (as opposed to negative stereotypes) has nothing inherently bad with it? Or is it that it's completely different than fetishizing? Does it matter if only some groups look cool and not others? Does this have trickiness to avoid about, say, certain skin tones are never portrayed as the cool ones?

Does the racial write-up fetishize then? Because that's different from saying that a player thinks a race look cool.

Why would any particular race (elves, dwarves, whatnot) have the same outlooks, cultures, and histories when they come from different worlds? Should the MM just give sample ones from several different settings where they're completely different? If they have great similarities across entirely different worlds with different histories, does that lead to something biologically essential in their make-up that leads to the similarity?

Well, the vast majority of playable races have the same basic needs as humans, live in the same world with those humans, and clearly have had frequent contact with them. So why wouldn't they be at least somewhat similar?

Would Vulcans have different mental stats at all? (What stats would you use in a Star Trek system?) Are there some mental type saves they'd have advantage/disadvantage on? Are innate mental differences for an entire species problematic? Or only if they have negative connotations? (Aren't there some you'd think they were positive at first blush stereotypes about real world groups that are still harmful?)

If I were to run Star Trek using 5e, I'd actually go the Level Up route and give ASIs based on background.

I could see giving Vulcans (for instance) advantage or an expertise die on saves versus being charmed or frightened, but maybe some extra negative effect if they fail such a save or roll a 1 on the save because you know they become extremely vulnerable to such attacks if the plot demands. They would also get Powerful Build and tolerance to mundane hot weather. I'd do the heritage/culture divide and make Vulcan culture grant some psychic abilities, martial arts, and probably a bonus to History or Int checks to recall facts because of those weird bubble schools of theirs that emphasize rote memorization.

If I were to run Star Trek using 5e.

 

[Faolyn]

People enjoy fictional violence pretty much everywhere from comic books to Hollywood movies.
I find your comment quite offensive.

When you describe killing some things, such as mindless undead and constructs, boring because killing orcs (which you said are taking the role of minions) is satisfying, yeah. I'm going to find that disturbing.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Well, I could be wrong! I didn't know I was going to come to that conclusion when I started writing -- I just looked back over my list of features and thought, "Hmm, good and evil are totally irrelevant here."

As @pemerton has pointed out, OD&D and AD&D 1e have several features that are at odds with amoral treasure-nabbing -- alignment, lawful clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, the gods, angels and demons/devils, Heaven and Hell.

Its probably less that "being the good guys" is essential and more that "playing people we relate to" is harder if you feel like what the characters are doing isn't justifiable, even if just incidentally so.

Thats probably why monster races are so appealing, and so problematic, theyre intentionally people you don't have to individually justify hurting. Because their nature means their misfortune is always better for the 'goodly' peoples.

Its a big part of why comic books and other action hero setups ADORED random Nazis as villains. The belief system, and the need to keep them from their goals itself is considered a sufficient justification without too much elaboration.

Note that this applies even when the heroes are just seeking wealth-- you dont enter Barrowmaze to cleanse the thing for instance, it just likely happens if you go far enough and don't lose.

 

[Faolyn]

Mind flayers. No they're not misunderstood. But no, they're not inherently evil either. They're exactly as evil as humans are for eating animals. We eat animals. Mind flayers eat intelligent life. Having a limited diet doesn't make you evil. That we think they're evil doesn't make them so. We're their food. Of course we think they're evil. Just as chickens, if they were sufficiently intelligent, would think humans were evil for eating them.

They also reproduce by inserting parasitic larva into a sentient being's skull, allowing that larva to take over the being's body and eat that still-living and possibly still-conscious person's bran over the course of several days or a week. Like a wasp laying its egg on a paralyzed foodsource.

According to Volo's (and some of the other stuff written about mind flayers over the years) they don't need to eat brains; they actually eat psionic energy. They prefer to eat the psionic energy released at death.

And then there's the grimlocks, duergar, gith, and all the other creatures they've mutated over the millennia for purposes of research or creating slaves.

So, they may not be inherently evil, but it's about as close as you can get.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

According to Volo's (and some of the other stuff written about mind flayers over the years) they don't need to eat brains; they actually eat psionic energy. They prefer to eat the psionic energy released at death.

I greatly dislike this and I definitely wouldn't use this. Making their motivation 'LOL evil!' makes them far less interesting.

 

[Cadence]

So, they may not be inherently evil, but it's about as close as you can get.

So, potentially redeemable, and we should talk first.

 

[overgeeked]

They also reproduce by inserting parasitic larva into a sentient being's skull, allowing that larva to take over the being's body and eat that still-living and possibly still-conscious person's bran over the course of several days or a week. Like a wasp laying its egg on a paralyzed foodsource.

According to Volo's (and some of the other stuff written about mind flayers over the years) they don't need to eat brains; they actually eat psionic energy. They prefer to eat the psionic energy released at death.

And then there's the grimlocks, duergar, gith, and all the other creatures they've mutated over the millennia for purposes of research or creating slaves.

So, they may not be inherently evil, but it's about as close as you can get.

So more akin to veal and foie gras. Got it.

 

[Cadence]

So more akin to veal and foie gras. Got it.

The future will look back in horror if they decide ducks and geese are sentient.

 

[Malmuria]

The future will look back in horror if they decide ducks and geese are sentient.

they are sentient