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

[Doug McCrae]

5. As far as "word for word" goes, there are two points here. Firstly, why are you stuck on the stat block? There's a lot more to monster descriptions than a stat block. Now, if we're talking about the full monster description, I'll defer to @Doug McCrae, who has repeatedly posted exactly what the problematic language is. If you don't know it by now, please, I ask you, take the time to read what's actually being written before replying.

This post is a summary, with links to lots of other posts providing supporting evidence and argument.

Identical language – "mongrels" in AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e used to refer to half-orcs, "civilized and savage" "races" in D&D 5e.

This post is about the word "mongrel."
This post covers "civilized and savage" "races."

Extremely similar language and concepts:

Intellectual and moral inferiority
Orcish dominant 'genetic' traits, orcish and goblin high fertility rates and abundant population
Evil as innate and racial

3. Who is complaining about gnolls? Please. I'm really, really curious. When did gnolls become an issue? What in the gnoll description copies, nearly word for word, racist treatises?

4. No, folks don't "map it onto some real world thing". They really don't. No one, AFAIK, is worried about describing gnolls as evil. Nor bugbears AFAIK.

I see all the "savage and brutal" races – bugbears, goblins, gnolls, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, orcs – as a problem, due to issues I outline in the summary post.

 

[Argyle King]

And, again, that's fair. My honest opinion is that the attempt is valuable in and of itself, even if the final result isn't quite what you'd hoped. IOW, so long as we're trying to be better, then, well, hopefully, we can get enough swings of the bat to get it right in the end.

"It might offend someone" isn't really a fair criteria. It's not enough for someone to just say, "Oh I think that's offensive." It really isn't. You do have to show your work, so to speak. Why is it offensive? How is it offensive? What, specifically, is the problem? Once you get to that level, a lot of the more specious complaints go away. Or, at the very least, it becomes a better too for uncovering what the actual problem is.

I agree with much of what you said here. I hope that remains the case for art, gaming, and a lot of other things.

Unfortunately, there are areas of contemporary US culture in which a claim of offense is enough of a criteria. I've experienced how that can be a net negative for education and discussion on a college campus, but that's a different conversation.

One aspect of newer threads about gaming that I've seen here (and welcome) is that there's a willingness to have a conversation and explore how/why something is a problem rather than going directly to muzzling everything.

Both Enworld and the community here (at least most of it) should be applauded for that. Elsewhere, on other forums, things are handled differently.

I think the moderation here seems fair and the community is usually able to explore topics with thought. I hope there's some correlation between that and the broader rpg community as a whole.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I see all the "savage and brutal" races – bugbears, goblins, gnolls, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, orcs – as a problem, due to issues I outline in the summary post.

On some level I agree, but I also feel like if the stance is going to become "no intelligent mortal 'monsters'" then a lot of these creatures should just be dumped from the game because they don't have a purpose anymore. They were intended to be the bad guys, same as monsters in many video games, and keeping things like kuo-toa, sahuagin, or merrow (for example) in the Monster Manual if they aren't allowed to be the bad guys means there's not really much use for them as opposed to evil factions of tritons or sea elves or merfolk.

 

[ReshiIRE]

On some level I agree, but I also feel like if the stance is going to become "no intelligent mortal 'monsters'" then a lot of these creatures should just be dumped from the game because they don't have a purpose anymore. They were intended to be the bad guys, same as monsters in many video games, and keeping things like sahuagin (for example) in the Monster Manual if they aren't allowed to be bad guys means there's not really much use for them as opposed to evil factions of tritons or sea elves or something.

Could they not be changed (maybe with or without ability changes) to well... not always be evil?

I read their entry and with some changes they could simply be a species that may or may not be able to be a PC (their abilities would need to change a lot for that to be feasable) but certainly don't have to be a 'always hostile' species. There could be different cultures, or simply individuals in there don't have to raid, or different layers of their society. Make them less like carcitures of Vikings and more into actual Vikings (that's the closest comparison I can see).

And I think they you have another fascinating race, especially if you keep the restriction on needing to swim and breathe, and seeing how that could tie into some living on land (maybe create water could be very useful for once).

 

[Warpiglet-7]

THIS is exactly why I hate the fact that the discussion has been hijacked by the folks who want to expand the issue to include biological morality.

1. Since when are drow females larger? That's news to me. Now, the fact that the only matriarchy in the game is evil, men hating women who enslave men and worship a black widow spider goddess is pretty on the nose when you want to talk about misogyny. This is pretty much the textbook description of feminism in the 1970's. Add on the whole Ham thing and it's just seriously icky.
2. You hear drunk dudes use words like "decadent, intelligent sadists"? You have some seriously well educated drunk dudes in your area.

3. Who is complaining about gnolls? Please. I'm really, really curious. When did gnolls become an issue? What in the gnoll description copies, nearly word for word, racist treatises?

4. No, folks don't "map it onto some real world thing". They really don't. No one, AFAIK, is worried about describing gnolls as evil. Nor bugbears AFAIK.

5. As far as "word for word" goes, there are two points here. Firstly, why are you stuck on the stat block? There's a lot more to monster descriptions than a stat block. Now, if we're talking about the full monster description, I'll defer to @Doug McCrae, who has repeatedly posted exactly what the problematic language is. If you don't know it by now, please, I ask you, take the time to read what's actually being written before replying.

6. A monster being greedy or violent or whatnot, is perfectly fine. You'll note that no one really has an issue with Red Caps here. The reason there isn't an issue is because the description of Red Caps isn't directly quoting, again, practically word for word, racist texts of the recent past.

The reason that it is so hard to have this conversation is that people are conflating a bunch of different issues, other people are trying to expand the issue infinitely without any end game in sight, and still other people are weighing in without actually having done any background reading into the issue. No wonder we get people saying things like "hard pass". I get it, it's confusing as all get out. I'm very much of the opinion of solve the real problems now that are affecting real, living people, right now, and worry about the other, mostly hypothetical stuff, later.

These are examples of creatures who will no longer be evil necessarily—very germane to the thread.

drow females as created were larger and stronger than males in 1e. [edit: might have only been a Realms thing]. They also could be high level clerics where males could not. I am not going to dig for quotes in UA or any of the modules and books right now. Based on the tenor of your reply it too would be hijacking or irrelevant to you. Not worth the effort!

Since you noted the Ham thing have you ever seen a black widow? One of my children almost stepped on one as a toddler. But they are shiny black, obsidian, maybe like a moonless night?

I doubt Ham was. As to darker skinned creatures generally, I note that they are not just darker but usually have an unnatural skin color. In fact, you will find this to be true cross culturally.

do you think Ham was more of an inspiration than a spider? Or just the fact that a cursed group was dark. That one detail does not move me in context of everything else, again because of the association with spiders.

hijacking biological morality? You don’t have to agree but I hardly think this is tangential. In fact these points clearly get at some objections to biological morality.

I think you probably are aware of that fact. What word did you use in a previous reply? Disingenuous?

if you don’t want to discuss it, feel free to ignore it. But you surely haven’t refuted a bit of what I said. But then it’s easier to merely say “not relevant, I don’t like how the conversation turned.” Or go read before talking. I have read much of what Doug McRae has written. There are SOME descriptions that hit too close but the broad brush approach WOTC is using seems a bit ridiculous.

that’s fine too. None of it will matter anyway. WOTC will make some of these changes based on spurious associations. I am merely pointing it out for posterity. And to show that people can read all kinds of things into this particular debate, well reasoned or not.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Could they not be changed (maybe with or without ability changes) to well... not always be evil?

I read their entry and with some changes they could simply be a species that may or may not be able to be a PC (their abilities would need to change a lot for that to be feasable) but certainly don't have to be a 'always hostile' species. There could be different cultures, or simply individuals in there don't have to raid, or different layers of their society. Make them less like carcitures of Vikings and more into actual Vikings (that's the closest comparison I can see).

And I think they you have another fascinating race, especially if you keep the restriction on needing to swim and breathe, and seeing how that could tie into some living on land (maybe create water could be very useful for once).

Why have them around when you already have multiple other aquatic races available?

Regarding "different cultures", while I think that sounds nice in theory it would in practice mean taking up more word count to present both antagonistic and friendly takes on various creatures. I'm trying to imagine a changed version of the 5E Monster Manual with the same page count that includes paragraphs on good goblins, gnolls, sahuagin, orcs, etc. There wouldn't be room for all the creatures we currently have in the book.

How many people looking to run or play D&D are really going to get much use out of paragraphs of text in a Monster Manual on good gnolls or sahuagin unless they're a PC race? Why have these creatures in the Monster Manual, which is largely devoted to an to agnostic monsters, if they aren't antagonists? Should they be relocated to a book of humanoids or something?

 

[Remathilis]

Personally, I once believed the mentioning of the hair was to create a contrast with dwarves (who are typically depicted as being gruff and hairy,) but I could see how someone might view it differently and there is some amount of artwork and narrative which goes into describing elves as having some sort of ethereal beauty in a manner which isn't too far from the stereotypical nerd drooling over an anime girl.

I worry about this kind of analysis. While I don't disagree there is a certain level of fetishizing of elves, I think it's reading in a racial element just to find a racial element. Moreover, I ask what is too be done about this. Are we to remove the elements that make elves look distinct from humans other than pointed ears? What about dwarves and halflings dwarfism? Tabaxi and catgirls? It's one thing to proverbially remove the bone from the orc's nose, but the "elves shouldn't be lithe and angular because Asian fetishization" feels like analysis out looking for an argument.

 

[Aldarc]

On some level I agree, but I also feel like if the stance is going to become "no intelligent mortal 'monsters'" then a lot of these creatures should just be dumped from the game because they don't have a purpose anymore. They were intended to be the bad guys, same as monsters in many video games, and keeping things like kuo-toa, sahuagin, or merrow (for example) in the Monster Manual if they aren't allowed to be bad guys means there's not really much use for them as opposed to evil factions of tritons or sea elves or something.

The thing is, however, we also see similar transformations from expendable monsters to humanized creatures in many video games too. Charr were barbarian demon-cat villains of Guild Wars 1, but they are now a playable race in Guild Wars 2 and also responsible for the world's industrial revolution. Warcraft has numerous cases of bad guy monsters to humanized player character options as well. To a certain extent, we even see the humanization of the Zerg in Starcraft through the eyes of Kerrigan and her top sub-commanders in Starcraft 2 (e.g., Zagara, Dehaka, Abathur, Stukov, etc.). There are some where we obviously don't, however, such as Diablo, but this is a franchise about killing demons of Hell and their corrupting influence in the world.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Why have them around when you already have multiple other aquatic races available?

Regarding "different cultures", while I think that sounds nice in theory it would in practice mean taking up more word count to present both antagonistic and friendly takes on various creatures. I'm trying to imagine a changed version of the 5E Monster Manual with the same page count that includes paragraphs on good goblins, gnolls, sahuagin, orcs, etc. There wouldn't be room for all the creatures we currently have in the book. Also, how many people looking to run or play D&D are going to get much use out of paragraphs of text on good gnolls or sahuagin?

Why have these creatures in the Monster Manual, even, if they aren't monsters? Should they be relocated to a book of humanoids or something?

Because they add flavour? I don't think everything included had to be absolutely useful to everyone. I mean, people have discussed before what species / races they include in their campaigns or not, and in many cases popular species are left out. I am guerssing it's very much like that with any creatures included in the MM.

I don't think it necessarily requires multiple paragraphs. Just a more neutral tone and explicitly (or maybe implicitly) implying whether creatures are peoples (those with cultures, religions, tribes / nations / medevial societies etc.) versus ones along the lines of devils or beasts etc. Besides, people generally already adopt creatures described inwards as friendly or not necessarily monsters, and I wouldn't be surprised if people came up with various ways for people to play PC goblins, orcs etc. before there were official options.

Also, I can't answer that question but I also can't answer the question of how many people get much use out of sahuagin or gnolls in the first place... I was unaware of sahuagins until this point and it seems like to me they, as written, require a niche that requires at the very least a reason to go out to the coast. I don't think however, we should determine solely the value of any writing or lore included on a creature, or any creature indeed, purely by 'how much use they will get'.

Also, doesn't the Monster Manual contain a lot of creatures that are not necessarily monsters anyway? The MM could adopt a more neutral or better describing name, such as how 'Beastiry' is used as the term for Pathfinder's equivalent.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I worry about this kind of analysis. While I don't disagree there is a certain level of fetishizing of elves, I think it's reading in a racial element just to find a racial element. Moreover, I ask what is too be done about this. Are we to remove the elements that make elves look distinct from humans other than pointed ears? What about dwarves and halflings dwarfism? Tabaxi and catgirls? It's one thing to proverbially remove the bone from the orc's nose, but the "elves shouldn't be lithe and angular because Asian fetishization" feels like analysis out looking for an argument.

This kind of analysis is called problematization. It is a form of critique where a person looks at something and asks themselves

• Who is making this?
• For whom is it intended?
• Why is this being made here, now?
• Whom does this benefit?
• Whom does it harm?

I don't think this is necessarily bad and can be used to examine things to discover where there really are problems. However, it also allows for a lot of creative interpretation that can be more spurious without requiring much to backup the assertions made. Plus, many writers pretty much do this for a living, meaning there's a financial incentive to problematize various things so that they can keep creating new content. Sometimes these takes catch on, and sometimes they fail to gain traction.