D&D (2024) Humanoids in the MM...

[Micah Sweet]

Gnolls aren't monstrosities. They are fiends.

But they're not humanoid, despite meeting the dictionary definition and decades of material, just like all these new monstrosities. And now I have to wonder what value there is in changing all these away from humanoid in the first place? Is it for the spell immunity? Is it because humanoid monsters aren't going to be in the main part of the MM anymore (making it essentially a fig leaf allowing them to still have a MM entry)?

I'm curious as to WotC's thought process here, and motivation.

 

[JEB]

But they're not humanoid, despite meeting the dictionary definition and decades of material, just like all these new monstrosities. And now I have to wonder what value there is in changing all these away from humanoid in the first place? Is it for the spell immunity? Is it because humanoid monsters aren't going to be in the main part of the MM anymore (making it essentially a fig leaf allowing them to still have a MM entry)?

I'm curious as to WotC's thought process here, and motivation.

Wizards is clearly cool with non-humanoid PC species in 2024 (as they'd already done in post-Tasha 5e). TBH, I'm not even sure I'd rule out PC gnolls now, despite their being fiends - unless fiends are going to be a specific "evil as a species" non-PC category. Guess we'll see.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wizards is clearly cool with non-humanoid PC species in 2024 (as they'd already done in post-Tasha 5e). TBH, I'm not even sure I'd rule out PC gnolls now, despite their being fiends - unless fiends are going to be a specific "evil as a species" non-PC category. Guess we'll see.

I will never hear the word "non-humanoid" and not immediately assume you're talking about a living creature that isn't two arms, two legs, and a head in human configuration. D&D's usage of that term is counter-intuitive.

 

[JEB]

I will never hear the word "non-humanoid" and not immediately assume you're talking about a living creature that isn't two arms, two legs, and a head in human configuration. D&D's usage of that term is counter-intuitive.

You're not wrong, but that usage has a very, very long history in the game...

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're not wrong, but that usage has a very, very long history in the game...

Yeah, but I don't get all my vocabulary from D&D, and changing all those races/species/heritages/whatever away from humanoid makes the term mean less, not more, since it used to include things it now doesn't.

 

[Remathilis]

But they're not humanoid, despite meeting the dictionary definition and decades of material, just like all these new monstrosities. And now I have to wonder what value there is in changing all these away from humanoid in the first place? Is it for the spell immunity? Is it because humanoid monsters aren't going to be in the main part of the MM anymore (making it essentially a fig leaf allowing them to still have a MM entry)?

I'm curious as to WotC's thought process here, and motivation.

My honest guess is that there is a little sleight of hand here. Yes, WotC has said humanoids do not have a set alignment, but WotC has not ruled out alignment tendencies for things that aren't humanoids, and they have turned a lot of humanoids that traditionally were antagonists into non-humanoids so they can keep their alignment tendencies. Monsters of the Multiverse pretty much explained this in a little sidebar on hobgoblins of all things (stating PC hobgoblins are humanoids and have a variety of outlooks, while the monster hobgoblins are fey and influenced by fey magic, so they can have an alignment).

This has several ramifications. First, it lets WotC keep alignment on a lot of creatures that otherwise would end up in the "no specific alignment" bin. Gnolls can remain mostly evil, githzerai mostly chaotic, etc. It also tries to keep the classic play style alive while also addressing the concerns of biodeterminism. However, I think it's a compromise that ends up upsetting both sides. Most bio-essentialism proponents aren't satisfied that "they aren't humanoids" justifies goblins and gnolls having evil alignments, and those who rejected the concept see them unnecessarily messing with monster types. And, of course, it will raise questions regarding the PC versions of these creatures remaining humanoids and weakening X Person spells.

But yes, this is WotC trying to have its cake and eat it too.

 

[Scribe]

But they're not humanoid, despite meeting the dictionary definition and decades of material, just like all these new monstrosities. And now I have to wonder what value there is in changing all these away from humanoid in the first place?

Human-oid, has the implication that something is human like. Many many words have been spilled over the turning of monsters, into humans, and the negative associations with that.

Calling things Monsters instead, removes a bit of that for those who struggle with such things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Human-oid, has the implication that something is human like. Many many words have been spilled over the turning of monsters, into humans, and the negative associations with that.

Calling things Monsters instead, removes a bit of that for those who struggle with such things.

I figured it was essentially political/social.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I don't think you should be a monstrosity without some kind of curse, magical ability (medusa's gaze), or being the extra big version of a humanoid (I presume the Minotaurs of Baphomet they mentioned in the DMG will be monstrosities, but they could be thought of as large humanoid minotaurs); although I concede being the extra big version of a beast still makes you a beast. If you are just a furry human with cat's claws or a dog's snout, I don't think that is different enough to be a monstrosity.

Also "Minotaurs of Baphomet" makes me happy, although I would have been good with "savage minotaurs" or something like that.

 

[the Jester]

My honest guess is that there is a little sleight of hand here. Yes, WotC has said humanoids do not have a set alignment, but WotC has not ruled out alignment tendencies for things that aren't humanoids, and they have turned a lot of humanoids that traditionally were antagonists into non-humanoids so they can keep their alignment tendencies.

3e solved this problem 20 years ago with "often", "usually", and "always" descriptors for alignments.