D&D General Drow & Orcs Removed from the Monster Manual

[abirdcall]

I'm assuming you're referring to Alien. It's unfortunate that that scene was eroticized; it's really supposed to be about the utter vulnerability of Ripley when all of the tech and gadgetry is removed. She only has her wits; both she and the xenomorph are naked - Sigourney Weaver actually suggested she do the scene nude, but it was rejected by Scott.

But I agree with the general thrust of your post.

The worst part, so I've read, is that they edited out her pubic hair. That does sexualize the scene.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Entering this discussion late and apologies if it's already been covered, but it seems to me that, even outside D&D, there's long been a struggle or questioning of the definition of an "evil" monster. As far back as Frankenstein (was it the monster who was evil or was it the doctor who created him?) Since then, we have King Kong, Beauty and the Beast, and most recently the movies The Shape of Water and the Eclipse series. Heck, even Gollum was portrayed as a victim of the truly evil Sauron. You have examples in plenty of modern TV Shows (X-Files, Grimm, Haven, etc) where monsters are represented as outsiders or as misunderstood and sometimes sympathetic. Even sharks, which have (since Jaws) been thought of as monstrous beasts that just love to eat humans, are starting to be observed in a less hysterical light.

The struggle hasn't been whether a civilization is monstrous but whether it is actually evil. Monsters and people can be aggressive, vicious, warlike, and predatory but perhaps not necessarily evil. Going beyond violent, predatory behaviors into premeditated evil acts seems to be independent of the "monstrous" tag, so perhaps it should always be applied separately.

Example: "I am plotting to wipe out [X civilization] because I was insulted by a schoolmate of the [X civilization] 30 years ago." This is the kind of motivation that can be provided at the individual level and perhaps explain an entire culture's attitude if it has made its way into political or religious spheres. It's the kind of thing that drives campaigns and wars, but it does seem to stem from knowing right from wrong and choosing wrong. And it's always been hard to define.

Mobs of creatures can act very differently than the individuals in that group might. And the culture and the upbringing of creatures within that collection could lead to evil individual and group behavior. But it can also produce outliers and exceptions too. It does become an interesting exception when the orcs want to parley -- you're curious why they are even doing so when it's so common for them to just attack.

I suppose the problem in D&D specifically has come with trying to do a profile of the people ("demonize") when it is realized there exists moral variation within the group. Orcs and drow specifically have had sympathetic reads on their civilizations in other media (Warcraft orcs, Salvatore's Drizzt) and there is concern that portraying any civilization with a wide brush will gloss over these exceptions and reads. That said, why not just include all civilizations in the Monster Manual and be clear that there exists moral variation? You could even offer a number of hooks that discuss several ways to play the civilization with perhaps political or religious drivers causing the civilization to behave in a certain way. And then point out that there exist outliers within that overall tsunami of behavior.

Anyways, just food for thought. Carry on.

 

[Maxperson]

Well a lich phylactery is pretty iconic (at least for those of us who like lichens and undead). But sure if all that had been changed was phylactery, I might quibble but it would be a more muffled complaint. It is that we are rewording so many things out of an over abundance of caution that concerns me. And I think overall that does impact the feel and flavor of the game.

Are phylacteries why lichens are so hardy?

 

[Remathilis]

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I don't care what Elliot Page does. That is their life and they should do what they want. Doesn't impact me. But changing phylactery does, so I care about it

This. This right here is what the debate is about. Why? Why does it impact you? You don't get to see a word you like in the printed book. That impacts your life. You admit that other terminology changes (magic user to wizard) aren't a problem, but this is. Most people will not even notice that change. Of those who do, few will even care. It shouldn't have warranted 50+ of discussion.

Except it's not about phylacteries, it's about the game yet again changing in ways old players do not like and to them every itch is a mortal wound.

 

[ezo]

at least it seems to have moved past the phylactery stage

This. This right here is what the debate is about. Why? Why does it impact you? You don't get to see a word you like in the printed book. That impacts your life. You admit that other terminology changes (magic user to wizard) aren't a problem, but this is. Most people will not even notice that change. Of those who do, few will even care. It shouldn't have warranted 50+ of discussion.

Except it's not about phylacteries, it's about the game yet again changing in ways old players do not like and to them every itch is a mortal wound.

Guess I was wrong... I'll check back later to see what's being discussed then.

 

[abirdcall]

Entering this discussion late and apologies if it's already been covered, but it seems to me that, even outside D&D, there's long been a struggle or questioning of the definition of an "evil" monster. As far back as Frankenstein (was it the monster who was evil or was it the doctor who created him?) Since then, we have King Kong, Beauty and the Beast, and most recently the movies The Shape of Water and the Eclipse series. Heck, even Gollum was portrayed as a victim of the truly evil Sauron. You have examples in plenty of modern TV Shows (X-Files, Grimm, Haven, etc) where monsters are represented as outsiders or as misunderstood and sometimes sympathetic. Even sharks, which have (since Jaws) been thought of as monstrous beasts that just love to eat humans, are starting to be observed in a less hysterical light.

The struggle hasn't been whether a civilization is monstrous but whether it is actually evil. Monsters and people can be aggressive, vicious, warlike, and predatory but perhaps not necessarily evil. Going beyond violent, predatory behaviors into premeditated evil acts seems to be independent of the "monstrous" tag, so perhaps it should always be applied separately.

Example: "I am plotting to wipe out [X civilization] because I was insulted by a schoolmate of the [X civilization] 30 years ago." This is the kind of motivation that can be provided at the individual level and perhaps explain an entire culture's attitude if it has made its way into political or religious spheres. It's the kind of thing that drives campaigns and wars, but it does seem to stem from knowing right from wrong and choosing wrong. And it's always been hard to define.

Mobs of creatures can act very differently than the individuals in that group might. And the culture and the upbringing of creatures within that collection could lead to evil individual and group behavior. But it can also produce outliers and exceptions too. It does become an interesting exception when the orcs want to parley -- you're curious why they are even doing so when it's so common for them to just attack.

I suppose the problem in D&D specifically has come with trying to do a profile of the people ("demonize") when it is realized there exists moral variation within the group. Orcs and drow specifically have had sympathetic reads on their civilizations in other media (Warcraft orcs, Salvatore's Drizzt) and there is concern that portraying any civilization with a wide brush will gloss over these exceptions and reads. That said, why not just include all civilizations in the Monster Manual and be clear that exists moral variation? You could even offer a number of hooks that discuss several ways to play the civilization with perhaps political or religious drivers causing the civilization to behave in a certain way. And then point out that there exist outliers within that overall tsunami of behavior.

Anyways, just food for thought. Carry on.

I have viewed the point of Frankenstein is that it is the audience (with the villagers representing them) who are the real villains.

That is the horror of the story for me, it reveals to us our own darkness.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm shocked it hasn't died already!

It hasn't been on topic for a while now... at least it seems to have moved past the phylactery stage.

But just like a lich phylactery/soul jar/amulet, it could come back to life!

 

[abirdcall]

This. This right here is what the debate is about. Why? Why does it impact you? You don't get to see a word you like in the printed book. That impacts your life. You admit that other terminology changes (magic user to wizard) aren't a problem, but this is. Most people will not even notice that change. Of those who do, few will even care. It shouldn't have warranted 50+ of discussion.

Except it's not about phylacteries, it's about the game yet again changing in ways old players do not like and to them every itch is a mortal wound.

Yeah and soul vessel is a much better way to communicate the idea as it can take many forms. Importantly they have a chart with many ideas of what it could be.

Coming up with what it is for the individual lich is the most important part and they did it.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

The worst part, so I've read, is that they edited out her pubic hair. That does sexualize the scene.

In 1979, I think the opposite effect was intended. It was a hairier time.

But I'm done talking about this now. Let's move on.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I have viewed the point of Frankenstein is that it is the audience (with the villagers representing them) who are the real villains.

That is the horror of the story for me, it reveals to us our own darkness.

Indeed, is it the "monster" that is evil or the mob (us) driven by our own fears and hatreds? That is the true message. That said, there are beasties both human and otherwise to be defeated, and it's okay to list them in the Monster Manual with all their darknesses.