D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Imaro]

Well, perhaps I misunderstood the relative positions! Assuming I haven't, I will lay my position out-

Unless you have evidence to support the contention that there was some "wink wink" to the reader that the text was being expounded upon in a manner that the reader would know that they were supposed to accept it in the context of "Efreet society," then I don't think we should accept the shift in the meaning. As an example, if the use of the word, "enslaved," or "slavery" enters in other contexts (say, drow), then it has an established meaning for the writer and the audience for WoTC.

Interesting, here are a few more uses of the word "servant" from the Monstrous Manual...

Death tyrants have no self-awareness or social interaction; they are mindless servants of more powerful masters.

Drow often use giant lizards as pack animals, and frequently take bugbears or troglodytes as servants.

A properly summoned or captured efreeti can be forced to serve for a maximum of 1,001 days, or it can be made to fulfill three wishes. Efreet are not willing servants and seek to pervert the intent of their masters by adhering to the letter of their commands.

A greater golem can obey simple instructions involving direct actions with simple conditional phrases. Although this is better than a lesser golem is capable of following, they still make poor servants.

The invisible stalker is, at best, an unwilling servant. It resents any task assigned to it, although brief, uncomplicated labors may be seen as something of a diversion and thus undertaken with little resentment.

In most, if not all of these examples servant and slave seem pretty much interchangeable... so if the author is setting that precedent throughout the Monstrous Manual... why is it a stretch to assume that an evil, race who harass, rob and attack travelers wouldn't in fact adhere to said precedent?

Here's an example. In slang, we can use "cool" and "hot" interchangeably in some contexts. But if someone said, "Don't touch that plate, it's hot!," I don't think you can reasonably say, "In my context, hot is cool, so I assumed you meant that the plate was okay to touch." I mean you could, but that would be silly.

I don't really think this applies in this specific situation though.

To go back to the efreet, if you had other evidence that in the context of the "enslaved," example, there was a knowing use of irony, or it was being told from the efreet P.O.V., or something else, then it's fair game. But otherwise, I think you would have to take it as the same use of the word that you otherwise find in 5e.

We aren't talking about 5e, we are talking about the lore of AD&D where servant and slave seem to be used interchangeably.

To do to otherwise is motivated reasoning. Which is unnecessary, since (all together now) it's just some ribbons and you can run your own table with your own lore as you want.

I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise...

If you are simply saying that the prior use of servants meant that they were slaves, and that you've always run it that way, well, why worry? I would say that servants != slaves. You might want to ask the Gith about that. Then again, the mind flayers may have a different P.O.V.

What I and others are saying is that the lore hasn't been changed just expounded upon.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you find it believable then good for you but telling me something is half demon (in 4e & 5e destroyers) and half beast... well I find it hard to believe the creature can control its nature well enough to get along with and interact with other civilized races on a regular basis. If free will and consciousness is all you need then every animal and nearly all monsters should be playable as a player race and that doesn't really line up with my view.

Personally, for me 5e gnolls are more in line with how a half beast and half demon race would be in my mind... but to each his own.

They've been presented as thinking creatures with free will before, as have any mortal race, even ones with demonic origins. Are teiflings not believable for you?

 

[Imaro]

Sally Hemmings was a servant in the Jefferson household.

African were enslaved in large numbers during the 17th and 18th Century and brought to North America.

Sally Hemmings was a slave, and Jefferson inherited her.

Sally Hemmings was an acquaintance of Jefferson.

Context matters. I'll leave it to your capable abilities to look back at your examples.

Emphasis mine...My point exactly.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

They've been presented as thinking creatures with free will before, as have any mortal race, even ones with demonic origins. Are teiflings not believable for you?

Uh... Tieflings aren't a combination of animal and demon...

 

[Imaro]

Well, then, we will agree to disagree, and since you have now explained your point, I will reiterate that I agree with pemerton on this.

Well the fact that you thought we were referencing the 5e monster manual originally does make me wonder exactly how clear your understanding of the conversation going on was...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] dude, humans are animals, first of all. Second, animal intelligence is definately more complex than you seem to think. Third, teiflings are either demon grandbabies or people cursed by demonic dealings.

The point is, if it is intelligent enough to speak a language, use tools, form social groups with hierarchies, etc, and possessed of any free will, it doesn't make sense for them to be racially evil, good, civilized, etc. humans aren't racially civilized. We don't have a civilized gene.

Gnolls don't make sense in 5e.

 

[SkidAce]

Unless like in "Time Bandits" concentrated evil is a thing in your campaign, in which case things or races could be tainted.