D&D 5E I thought WotC was removing biological morals?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Faolyn

(she/her)
Emotional elevation is evidenced by cycling expression (in contrast to emotional depression which is evidenced by flattened expression). The Feywild and Shadowfell are the material world's cosmological elevation and depression.

If the fey are elevations given life, it would makes sense that their form would be mutable. -- Actually, that's quite cool!
And now I'm seeing the Feywild and Shadowfell as being the representations of the manic and depressive states of bipolar disorder.

However, monster type speaks to the fundamental nature of a creature. Celestials and fiends are wholly different entities.
Real-world mythology has an enormous overlap in monster type (some myths have werewolves as basically undead, for that matter, and there's often very little that distinguishes fey, undead, and fiends). Depending on the type of setting you're in, I can easily see supernatural creatures changing types. It's definitely not a concept that would work in all games, but for some? Sure. Planescape, maybe, or any setting where myth takes precedence over fact.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm not going to argue your point, though I do not agree with it, but I do ask the obvious question: if D&D is fundamentally flawed at it's inception, why are we even bothering? Burn the whole thing down and start again.
I don't think it's all or nothing, where we can say x,y,z representations are unreservedly problematic, throw them in the trash, whereas a,b,c representations are and will always be good, keep them. Rather, it's an ongoing conversation, and fiction (including and perhaps especially ttrpgs) can actually help us explore what all that means, both in the fiction and in the meta-commentary.

rpg author Zedeck Siew had some interesting thoughts about this:

 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I've heard of similar interpretations of The Walking Dead -- it's claimed a section of its fanbase interprets it in roughly this way -- but I've never seen the show so I have no opinion about whether it's a misinterpretation or not.
Ugh, gross. I’ve seen the show and I really don’t see that metaphor. But, it’s possible I’m just missing it. Like I said, I’d need to hear a more thorough analysis under that interpretive lens.
 


mrpopstar

Sparkly Dude
So... a thing I intend to do, going forward, and a thing that WotC should do, is make creatures, even humanlike ones, that cannot alter their moral position "Unaligned", and then let their actions determine morality as things happen.

Angels and Demons? Unaligned Outsides. Angels might foster goodness in the universe, might -serve- goodness or a good creature... But they do so not out of choice or moral compunction, but because they're designed to do so. Further, they can and will commit terrible acts of horrible evil in order to fulfill the intentions of their creators.

An Angel will burn an entire city to the ground if they are commanded to do so, with no pause to rescue children or ensure that animals are loosed and saved, because they have been told that it will be good to do so.

Similarly, even a demon acting in a manner that appears good, such as saving a family, is ultimately serving a greater evil. And has no more moral consideration for the act than for poking a hole in a chicken.

Redcaps? Murderous Unaligned Fae. They kill because it is what they do. They're not "Evil" or "Good" or even "Neutral" because those alignments imply there's some morality to their thoughts and deeds. There isn't. No more than there's thought to their failed attempts at Stealth while wearing iron boots that they never remove. If a Redcap wanted to be stealthy, he could take them off. But even when he wishes to be stealthy, the boots make it basically impossible.

Because like homicide, the boots are a part of what a Redcap is.

As to the racial allegories of Redcaps: are not "People" or Representations thereof in any example. They're explicitly, historically, mythological monsters. So trying to compare them to things like Orcs and Elves is doomed to failure. And there's actually a couple of layered reasons for that.

Firstly: Orcs were never mythological. They were created, whole cloth, by Tolkien and other writers. There's no cultural tradition of Orcs in myth and legend unlike the Powrie/Redcap. Orcs were created to represent Corrupted Elves. Which is -already- heavy into racism because the Orcs are Black (With Black Speech) while the Elves are all white and blonde and it plays hard into Ham, of Biblical fame. Oh, I'm sure Tolkien didn't sit down and think "Darn black people and/or Jewish People, I'mma make them my villains!" when he wrote the book (though I could be wrong)

But there's a long-standing cultural precedent of "Evil = Black Skin" that Tolkien had been exposed to. And pretending it ain't there is foolish.

But then future writers took his evil orcs and gave them societies and personalities and families and made them even more humanlike. Which just -exacerbates- the issue. Because now you're applying all the cultural traits of various societies to the "Evil Race". Which are, almost invariably, 'Primitive' and 'Tribal'.

Meanwhile Elves -were- a Mythological race of people who were good, evil, and in between. At least from the cultural understanding that we (And Tolkien) could reasonably be able to gather. He was, after all, an abject nerd who studied linguistics and stuff like we study RPG Texts... And then we turned around and redid the Curse of Ham with evil black elves transformed by their gods. But elves themselves? They were always meant to be allegorically similar to humans with their own societies and identities and ideologies.

The Powrie are neither of those things. They were always an evil mythological bogeyman. They've got no cultural traits that reflect any society, and aren't geared to represent any specific race, except -maybe- White Irish people in a very specific region who were murderers and bandits during a specific period of time which gave rise to the myth.

In the event that Redcaps are instead written to have a specific culture with their own identity and trappings, and/or the ability to make moral choices, it'll be a social issue. But until then, they're no more humanlike than the penanggalan, even if they've got a more human form.

And they should be, as previously noted, Unaligned homicidal murder elementals. It makes all the sense in the world.
Note that, given the game's definition, unaligned creatures lack the capacity for rational thought and are incapable of making a moral or ethical choice, acting according to their bestial natures.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Are tieflings fiends and aasimar celestials?

There can be mortals with outsider ancestry without being outsiders themselves. That's always been the case?
No. Aasimar and tieflings are humanoids. The three races I referenced ARE called out as being fey and not humanoid. They are the only races (so far) with a type OTHER than humanoid.

What you're suggesting is my point; satyrs centaurs and hexbloods should be humanoids with fey origin, not actual fey.
 


Faolyn

(she/her)
So... a thing I intend to do, going forward, and a thing that WotC should do, is make creatures, even humanlike ones, that cannot alter their moral position "Unaligned", and then let their actions determine morality as things happen.

Angels and Demons? Unaligned Outsides. Angels might foster goodness in the universe, might -serve- goodness or a good creature... But they do so not out of choice or moral compunction, but because they're designed to do so. Further, they can and will commit terrible acts of horrible evil in order to fulfill the intentions of their creators.
The modron currently have the trait Axiomatic Mind, which prevents them from going against their programming. I have often felt that all supernatural creatures that are supposed to represent an alignment (such as angels or slaadi) should have that trait. As long as their is the notion that sometimes there's a glitch in the programming (or that it's possible to introduce such a glitch) so that incredibly rare individuals can break free of it, to allow for interesting NPCs.

Firstly: Orcs were never mythological. They were created, whole cloth, by Tolkien and other writers. There's no cultural tradition of Orcs in myth and legend unlike the Powrie/Redcap. Orcs were created to represent Corrupted Elves. Which is -already- heavy into racism because the Orcs are Black (With Black Speech) while the Elves are all white and blonde and it plays hard into Ham, of Biblical fame. Oh, I'm sure Tolkien didn't sit down and think "Darn black people and/or Jewish People, I'mma make them my villains!" when he wrote the book (though I could be wrong)
Not entirely true. The modern interpretation of orcs is almost entirely based on Tolkien, but orcs themselves are not without mythical history.

(I'm particularly interested in this quote from Tolkien quoted in that Wikipedia article: "I originally took the word from Old English orc (Beowulf 112 orc-neas and the gloss orc: þyrs ('ogre'), heldeofol ('hell-devil')).[g] This is supposed not to be connected with modern English orc, ork, a name applied to various sea-beasts of the dolphin order".[T 3]" because it kind of wants me to make orcish were-dolphins. And wouldn't they be horrible?)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JEB

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I'm not going to argue your point, though I do not agree with it, but I do ask the obvious question: if D&D is fundamentally flawed at it's inception, why are we even bothering? Burn the whole thing down and start again.

We should separate the idea of "fundamental flaws" from "sometimes vague terminology".
 

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
Note that, given the game's definition, unaligned creatures lack the capacity for rational thought and are incapable of making a moral or ethical choice, acting according to their bestial natures.
Yup! I agree with this. Only their "Bestial" nature in this instance is their "Outsider" nature. They have rational thought, but not free will. Essentially AI with the Gods issuing commands.
The modron currently have the trait Axiomatic Mind, which prevents them from going against their programming. I have often felt that all supernatural creatures that are supposed to represent an alignment (such as angels or slaadi) should have that trait. As long as their is the notion that sometimes there's a glitch in the programming (or that it's possible to introduce such a glitch) so that incredibly rare individuals can break free of it, to allow for interesting NPCs.
Agreed!
Not entirely true. The modern interpretation of orcs is almost entirely based on Tolkien, but orcs themselves are not without mythical history.
Oooo! Didn't consider that. True! I stand corrected.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top