While humans in real life have free will, they also are defined by a drive to reproduce and propagate their genes common to most living species. In some creation myth, the creator god of humans told them explicitely to multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. The drive to have children, without removing free will, made it so we actually are attracted sexually and we usually don't kill our children readily. Social structures evolved out of this to ensure the collective care of children. In RPG terms, fantasy humans modeled after that wouldn't be "always reproducers" (some can decide to reject it, other simply can't have children, others will miss the biological opportunity window...) but "inherently reproducers" seems a good depiction, and the half-human half-anything would show that they are indeed conforming to this drive. Now, another creator god could have a drive to kill other people, or to enslave other people, or to eat their brain, or to cut down trees... instead of "reproduce". Wouldn't they be considered evil? Wouldn't societies who value not upsetting the natural order see the drive to reproduce and consume all natural resource at the risk of causing anthropic change consider humans "inherently evil"?
Level Up (A5E) Gnolls (and other evil things)
While humans in real life have free will, they also are defined by a drive to reproduce and propagate their genes common to most living species. In some creation myth, the creator god of humans told them explicitely to multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. The drive to have children, without removing free will, made it so we actually are attracted sexually and we usually don't kill our children readily. Social structures evolved out of this to ensure the collective care of children. In RPG terms, fantasy humans modeled after that wouldn't be "always reproducers" (some can decide to reject it, other simply can't have children, others will miss the biological opportunity window...) but "inherently reproducers" seems a good depiction, and the half-human half-anything would show that they are indeed conforming to this drive. Now, another creator god could have a drive to kill other people, or to enslave other people, or to eat their brain, or to cut down trees... instead of "reproduce". Wouldn't they be considered evil? Wouldn't societies who value not upsetting the natural order see the drive to reproduce and consume all natural resource at the risk of causing anthropic change consider humans "inherently evil"?
Indagare Nogitsune
Explorer
There's always some kind of Problem and it needs to be dealt with otherwise there's no story. However, there have been (and, sadly, still are) people who are only too eager to punish or kill those different than them or what their particular idea of a "perfect society" is. They have to be fought because otherwise they'll just steamroll over people (before, inevitably, turning on themselves because there never is a "pure enough"). But while I don't think the creators are endorsing murder or racial theories, it's also exhausting (for me) that it keeps popping up apparently without them even realizing it.
I can't keep up with the other replies, but I keep wanting to emphasize that my point is not, and has not been, that the Narrator cannot change anything or everything nor that whatever makes everyone happy at the table is what should go on.
In the entry on the Gnolls it specifically mentions not all undergo the ritual, and even those that do can try to turn around (though they are forever fighting the demonic influence). However, that's not what a DC check will tell players. Not unless the Narrator specifically alters it.
And that's where my problem lies. The designers went out of their way to, specifically, state that there are, in fact Good Gnolls out there, but the DC checks and most of the info they provided is on the Evil ones. Now, they could have done this differently. They could have started with "while Gnolls are often known for their bloody raids, as many are known for their strong community ties and willingness to work with others" or something similar. The DC 10 would, then, reveal that there's a mix of info on Gnolls, some of it making them out to be Evil, and some of it making them out to be Good. This would, at least, allow Good Gnolls a chance to parlay with the PCs without there being a sort of "attack first, ask questions later" thing going on.
And, again, I am not saying that the Narrator can't alter what the DC check provides in terms of info based on the campaign. I am saying that if the designers wanted to emphasize there are also Good Gnolls then the entry should not read like a "why you should attack and kill this thing on site".
TheSword
Legend
Unfortunately in any gaming career your gonna come across some people who don’t fit your style of play. If you’re you’re unlucky you’re gonna meet some people who really don’t fit!
My earlier point is that there is no rule in the book that is gonna make them play differently. If the DM tells you there are some good gnolls with your DC 15 check, that isn’t gonna stop that player from killing them. Nothing you can do at that point except pvp. Which would be an absolute no-no at my table.
I get where you’re coming from. But at a gaming table, where people are there voluntarily, for fun. You’re not gonna change hearts and minds by pointing to a line of text.. You can’t ‘win’ this argument. All you can do is say, I don’t believe in that I want no part in it. You either isolate the player and change the style of game forcing them to change or leave. Or you acknowledge they won’t change/leave and you vote with your feet or not as you decide.
It’s probably a mistake to categorize this as a failure in presentation. Gnoll NPCs are usually going to be evil antagonists, unless the DM chooses otherwise and frames them that way.
Player characters are the special ones in a D&D world. If some PC Wants to run a good Gnoll then all power to them. I would say it’s on them to build up their goodness, demonstrate it, and be the shining light in the world. Not for the DM to tell them how to do it.
Last edited:
Bedrockgames
Legend
Sure, in real life there are people with bad ideas about race. I think racialist thinking is a problem. And a society governed by racialist thinking obviously a bigger problem. But evil gnolls, or evil monsters in a setting, I don't think those are to blame for that. Being able to contend with evil, to defeat monsters, in a game, I think that is healthy and cathartic. Again, personally I lean towards more morally gray settings, but I do once in a while enjoy settings where evil is real, and can manifest through things like monsters. At the same time, I can also enjoy stuff like Nightbreed (which upends that whole idea).
Indagare Nogitsune
Explorer
Oh I've been at those tables and left them for others that fit better. And, yeah, there are people like that. It can become a big issue, though, if the Player is making their PC act in such a way that makes everyone else unhappy.
I'm really not sure how else I can state why I consider the entry a presentation problem, especially since no one else seems to see it as such. It's impossible to win an argument when no one else even sees an issue, and I just end up sounding like a wet blanket on everyone's fun. I'll try one more time, but I don't think that it'll fare any better than the others. There are only two reasons that Gnoll NPCs are usually going to be evil antagonists. The first is that the Narrator has decided that, in this setting, that's what they are and that's all there is to them and everyone else at the table is perfectly happy with this.
And that, that's okay. People have different types of fun. It's certainly a lot more fun to be told "you can kill this thing without moral issues" than to have to consider them.
The second is that the designers have decided that, rather than writing out a Neutral entry, it's going to be an Evil one with a very brief blurb on "oh yeah, and sometimes they are Good, so...". Just, why? Why include that if you're going to emphasize the Evil part to the point that the Narrator has to alter the DC check because you couldn't be bothered?
I'm not sure you'll understand any better why I see this as a problem. I'm not sure it even makes any sense at this point.
They aren't but they're often a result of that. And I agree. I personally loved games like Doom or ones where I can freely attack something and not worry that it's an immoral thing to do. I tend to worry about that sort of thing too much as is.
Like I said above, I'm not sure what I'm trying to say is making any sense. Everyone seems to be taking it in a way I don't mean or aren't really seeing any sort of issue with having the first thing known about Gnolls is how Evil they are. Everyone seems to keep thinking that I'm saying, somehow, that the Narrator can't change this. It's really not the point I'm trying to get at, but I don't know how to state it and already, I think, people have decided I'm just complaining to complain.
Last edited:
I love the DC for knowing things. It something my players, when they know the setting like the back of their hand, often ask by themselves: "does my character know fact X? Is X even true in your take on the setting?" and I love those DC, they are part of what I expect from a monster manual. And those DC define the implied setting. But, I have no problem with the knowledge about good gnoll being not widely known. If it was common knowledge that gnolls can be good, we should assume a fair number of them exist to be noticeable. If it's a few gnolls that resist the ritual, it's not incredible that only experts knows about them while your average joe farmer considers them evil (because at most he knows DC 10 information about the world he lives in).
Indagare Nogitsune
Explorer
I do too, but it's what makes the DC 10 so very sad. Consider the plight of a Good Gnoll with the entry as written. They come across a band of PCs and, if they don't have initiative, they could be dead in a round. The PCs will see a Gnoll. They will want to roll a Knowledge Check and then they get the entry's DC 10 or 15. Exactly why shouldn't they kill the Gnoll on site? How could Good Gnoll societies even form if they're constantly attacked because what average Joe Farmer knows is that they are Evil and Evil needs to be killed where it's found, right?
WanderingMystic
Adventurer
For that very reason good Gnoll societies probably arent formed around other Human, Elvan ECT.. setalments. As much as I wish it wasn't so in most game world's a human would take one look at a Gnoll and see a monster, but they would also see the same with a goblin ot an orc.
I am lucky that i am not in a group where if we saw a Gnoll we would kill it on sight but if it came to attack us would make a knowledge check find out that it is possibly demonic before dispatching it.
rules.mechanic
Craft homebrewer
The ignorance that leads to other cultures assuming all gnolls are inherently evil is sad, but sadly it also feels a likely scenario for worlds where other cultures have limited interactions with, and poor understanding of, gnolls (or other groups). Zeitgiest gives a good example of a setting where there is more contact and less ignorance. However many fantasy worlds have cultures or heritages that are isolated for a variety of reasons and will often be misunderstood by other cultures (tieflings are the classic Forgotten Realms example). Indeed, the close-mindedness that leads to assumptions of evil is often acknowledged in the setting lore for the dominant societies in those worlds. The DCs seem to reflect general "knowledge" and an worldly-wise group of adventurers is likely to be aware that all generalisations are inherently limited (I think many do - given the common meme of goblins being welcomed into adventuring parties). You might like to add a default DC 20 for more sophisticated knowledge and a DC 25 for precise knowledge (such as a distinctive feature in the stat block)?
Gnolls as described on mome246 are more like a humanoid forcibly shifted into a hybrid form like in the gatepass#00 lycanthrope feats than a true breeding line of beings. That's fine & I feel that it doesn't even conflict with eberron's noble savage znir pact gnolls because that bold "demonbound raiders" section reads a lot like as heritage block that defines this subset of gnolls. The znir pact gnolls broke that bind & make sure to honor that break by piling stones that represent the destroyed statues of what were once their demon lords just as they honor their foes by taking trophies...
You can change gnoll entirely just by swapping that demonbound raiders section. Sure they might work for the lord of the region & maybe even do a good job of keeping the peace now that banditry is getting under control.... except..... well... everyone knows what they did to that poor cow after they bought it from mr mcclatchky at that fair a couple years back & they can barely even speak cause of that weird mouth. Besides, have you seen the thing they do with their teeth whenever most of them ask travelers to move along & such?
You can change gnoll entirely just by swapping that demonbound raiders section. Sure they might work for the lord of the region & maybe even do a good job of keeping the peace now that banditry is getting under control.... except..... well... everyone knows what they did to that poor cow after they bought it from mr mcclatchky at that fair a couple years back & they can barely even speak cause of that weird mouth. Besides, have you seen the thing they do with their teeth whenever most of them ask travelers to move along & such?
