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

[Micah Sweet]

But, this is the entire point of the changes. It's because these images and concepts were used (even if they weren't originally intended that way) to promote bigotry of real world people. I mean, why have hobgoblins been tied to Japanese culture? Japanese folktales don't have hobgoblins like that. So, where did the link come from? Well, look at that image that was posted and then compare it to:

I always thought they were given that style because someone in 1st ed thought it was cool. I'm sure they didn't realize how horrible people would think of it now.

 

[Azzy]

My point is that giants have just as much reason to be analyzed under the present zeitgeist as orcs, drow, or anyone else with sentience and a culture. And eventually, if things continue as they have been, they will.

That's as may be. There has been speculation to that end and it wouldn't be surprising in the least if it came to pass.

 

[Bardic Dave]

My point is that giants have just as much reason to be analyzed under the present zeitgeist as orcs, drow, or anyone else with sentience and a culture. And eventually, if things continue as they have been, they will.

No, no. You see giants aren’t “humanoid” so they’re in the clear.

I agree with you, of course, but a few people place more value on the status-quo established by the lore, the rules, and tradition then they do on they can see right in front of their nose.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’ve yet to see the line drawn differently.

Then you haven’t been paying much attention to this thread:

Redcaps aren’t a humanoid race, they’re fae creatures.

I can get on board with fey creatures being immoral and bloodthirsty and needing to be fought as monsters instead of PCs.

I think the more ‘alien’ the creature is the more comfortable I am with them being evil.

SO yeah if Fairy are spirits then I’m happy to think of Red Caps as “Murder Elementals”

. It's because humanoids (in the D&D sense) are mortal creatures with civilisations and are capable of independent thought. Fey (and other non-humanoid creatures), may be humanoid (in the dictionary sense), but that's irrelevant—they are spiritual beings like fiends, celestials, elementals, and undead whose natures are inherent to their identities.

...They're immortal outsiders. They burst fully formed as if from the head of Zeus exactly as they are and will always be.

I'll also note that both Eberron and other settings have also had immortal outsiders change alignment. Zariel sure has the shape of a humanoid, but has only ever been an angel and a devil. Such "falls" should be (and canonically have been) both rare and monumental, resulting in a fundamental change of the creature's entire being.

A Redcap that became good would cease to be a Redcap, in the same way that Zariel ceased being a celestial

Redcaps are basically spirits made flesh. They are not humanoids and like demons or undead may not have any moral capacity.

 

[Malmuria]

If that's the case, then the only practical ways Wizards can address essentialism are (in descending order of safety):
1) Wizards has to remove behavior entirely from listings for intelligent creatures, because it's impossible to safely avoid essentialism
2) Wizards has to include multiple, distinct, equally valid versions of every intelligent creature's behavior
3) Wizards needs to affirmatively declare when an intelligent creature's behavior is a matter of fantasy-biology or a matter of culture (and readers need to accept that either option is fine; which is the tricky part)
4) Wizards needs to clearly and repeatedly explain that the described behavior for every intelligent creature is provided only as a convenient default for game purposes, and should not be taken as required traits for every single member of the species (and readers need to understand and accept this; again, the tricky part)


What do you call the redcap description in the OP, if not a "normative default" for the species? I don't see wiggle room in there, as written.

So you can either accept that the redcap described is an example, from which you can deviate... or it's essentialist.


If it's impossible to distinguish between essentialist and non-essentialist descriptions of monsters, then you either have to adopt some version of the approaches I suggested above, or you simply ignore the problem until someone specifically calls you on it, which isn't a great strategy for several reasons.

It is perfectly possible for a writer/artist/creator/designer to be concerned with not replicating (consciously or not) harmful tropes and stereotypes and take that into account in their writing process. Many writers do this automatically because of their own experiences and worldviews. Editing can add another layer of readers who can identify such representations.

What I'm saying is that that process is not reducible to producing a PR checklist that wizards would be able to follow in order (for them) to be "safe." They'll actually have to have an understanding of their readers' interpretations and concerns, and carry that understanding through the entire design process. This is part of why I think merely removing alignment, for example, does not address the problems of characterization and worldbuilding for humanoid creatures.

 

[Charlaquin]

No one is trying "remove biological morals" That has never been the issue. And, frankly, the fact that this sort of thing keeps being brought up every single time one of these threads starts up shows how little people are actually paying attention to what's being said. It really is very frustrating to have to keep repeating this same thing over and over and over again.

Some people do in fact take issue with biological essentialism even when the race being essentialized isn’t directly tied to any real-life group.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, there are many parts of 5e I like now (kinda why I play the game).

Yet some day, there will be a 6e. The turtle moves.

 

[Charlaquin]

My point is that giants have just as much reason to be analyzed under the present zeitgeist as orcs, drow, or anyone else with sentience and a culture.

I agee. Giants probably shouldn’t have inherent alignments.

And eventually, if things continue as they have been, they will.

Good!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yet some day, there will be a 6e. The turtle moves.

Well, there were many points of similarity between all previous editions of D&D (even 4e). The kind of changes some people seem to want to the basic structure of the lore, if taken along this course over time, will render a very different game than what we've had before.

 

[Azzy]

OK, so it's fine to describe satyrs as having an essential, fundamental nature?

Generally speaking, yes—as fey they are essentially spirits of nature. I suppose in setting where satyrs are a PC race (like Theros) that would be different, however.

Or eladrin? (The latter seems especially pertinent because eladrin are only one step removed from elves...)

Eladrin are an odd case. As a PC race, they are humanoids (like other elves), but in the monster section they are listed as fey (elf). As an elf subrace, they should have no set alignment.

I'm sure these are issues that WotC will have to address when they finalize their stance on creature alignment.