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

[Charlaquin]

None of those posts articulates a clear reason why the fey/humanoid distinction is the crux to them. They are flat statements of personal opinion without explanation.

In contrast, those who object on the grounds of links to RW bigotry have been crystal clear.

Many of the people quoted have been quite clear on the matter. In particular, I think @Gradine was quite explicit and clear about their criteria.

 

[clearstream]

Your first question, whenever this conversation comes up, should always be, "Has this element been used to denigrate anyone?" If the answer is no, then the element in question isn't what WotC is talking about.

A though I had about that is that the fey are symbolic, and one thing they may symbolise is one polity's characterisation of the violence of another polity as one-dimensionally evil without any other explanatory motive. (And presumably ignoring their own violence, while doing so.) So redcaps may well be an ancient memory that implicitly denigrated people on one or other side of a border. Accepting it might amount to accepting that such depictions should ever stand.

The cost of words like 'some', 'typically' or 'usually', or contextualisation such as 'this group' or 'in their dealings with interlopers' seems to me low; if that is what could be paid to remove from our narratives the trope that some creatures are committed to unmotivated evil (or good). Especially as the definitions of such in alignment are themselves so problematic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Removing alignments from monsters as I understand it is to say that no creature is biologically 'evil'. But is there a material difference between saying a race is evil and saying a race is homicidal?

I'm not sure I have a point to make, other than that I'm slightly confuised as I thought that was what they said they were going to stop doing?

View attachment 141882

Redcaps aren’t a race. They’re a classification of Fey that are not humanoid. They are born of the Feywild reflecting and amplifying bloodlust from reality.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’ve yet to see the line drawn differently.

Why would you object to redcaps as-is, substituting the game terminolgy “humanoid” for “Fey”?

Redcaps are closer to demons than to humans. As others have said. This is consistent with wotc’s statements since they started changing how alignment works and trying to fix their racism problem.

They are homicidal for precisely the same reason that a demon wants to destroy stuff and an imp follows rules and respects the letter of the authority of those more powerful, while seeking to climb the infernal hierarchy by corrupting mortal souls.

None of these are humanoids. They’re elementals. They can no more be kind and altruistic than a Djinn can be made of stone.

 

[clearstream]

Redcaps aren’t a race. They’re a classification of Fey that are not humanoid. They are born of the Feywild reflecting and amplifying bloodlust from reality.

I feel like we shouldn't ignore the role of symbols in narratives. Games have a ritual, heavily symbolic aspect. As the monsters move in our minds as actors, they drag in their wake ideas.

Questions redcaps raise for me include. Are any creatures committed to unmotivated violence? Are these the spririts of those who lived on the border and violently resisted interlopers? Who conjured them? Whose narratives does their monster-hood (i.e. symbolism) serve?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I feel like we shouldn't ignore the role of symbols in narratives. Games have a ritual, heavily symbolic aspect. As the monsters move in our minds as actors, they drag in their wake ideas.

Questions redcaps raise for me include. Are any creatures committed to unmotivated violence? Are these the spririts of those who lived on the border and violently resisted interlopers? Who conjured them? Whose narratives does their monster-hood (i.e. symbolism) serve?

they aren’t spirits of anyone. They’re an amplified reflection of homicidal violence.

 

[Scribe]

Yet it's the obvious solution: take Orcs and Drow and all the other once-monstrous creatures (including Tieflings and Dragonborn, dammit!) off the PC-playable list and leave them as monsters only.

That way they can be as nasty as you like.

I just...you know, see them as fantastical beings, completely unrelated to any real person, group, or organization.

Orcs, are simply Orcs. A non-human species, and that's all there is to it.

They remain aligned with their God, and behave as one would expect.

Pretty sure the game has had a solution to this problem (if one feels there is one) since day one.

Change it at ones own table.

Glad we have this thread to kick off the week, let's see if we get to Wednesday?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I feel like we shouldn't ignore the role of symbols in narratives. Games have a ritual, heavily symbolic aspect. As the monsters move in our minds as actors, they drag in their wake ideas.

Questions redcaps raise for me include. Are any creatures committed to unmotivated violence? Are these the spririts of those who lived on the border and violently resisted interlopers? Who conjured them? Whose narratives does their monster-hood (i.e. symbolism) serve?

Another way to look at it is; They symbolize what you would be if you eagerly indulged in the worst violent intrusive thoughts you’ve ever had when angry or frustrated or disassociating while some jerk is a jerk at you and you can’t do anything about it.

They’re the moment a person decides to brutally murder someone, and violent intrusive thoughts, made manifest in the world of symbolic reflection.

 

[JEB]

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.

Satyrs are a trickier case. I would lean to counting them as people and not giving them inherent alignments, but they’re definitely on the borderline.

But where do you draw the line between "people" and "spirits of nature"? And if something is on the borderline, does that mean erring towards treating them as people, or spirits of nature? Because the former shouldn't be treated in an essentialist way, but the latter (apparently) can be. It's a crucial difference in approach (or should be).

I should say, it seems pretty clear to me that Wizards doesn't intend for PC satyrs or eladrin to be treated as anything other than people. Yet, they are definitely fey, and they still have behavioral defaults described both as monsters and as PCs. Is that wrong of them? If so, what's the remedy? If not, why are some defaults OK and others unacceptable?

As an elf subrace, they should have no set alignment.

I would lean to counting them as people and not giving them inherent alignments

Point of order: The OP was asking about how default portrayals have persisted despite the removal of alignment. The issue at hand goes beyond alignment (and in fact demonstrates how removing it didn't really address some folks' concerns about essentialism).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Many of the people quoted have been quite clear on the matter. In particular, I think @Gradine was quite explicit and clear about their criteria.

I disagree.

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

Nothing in that quote in any way implies to me that the “humanoid”/“fey” distinction is crucial to the reasons behind why “always evil” Redcaps are or are not a problem.

But let’s let @Gradine speak for herself.