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

[Doug McCrae]

My mistake, OP said he was just confused.

But, my post traveled through time! Note the post three down from my original post, comparing the imagery to Nazi stuff.

I was raised Jewish, and have been on the receiving end of anti-Semitism. I'm sorry but I don't see the relationship. And this is before I read the next 8 pages, I would guess some in there are upset as well.

All good, just giving my opinion. Nothing to write home about.

I don't think I'm upset! I explain my use of such imagery a few posts upthread.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Is it appropriate to compare D&D with genocidal racism?

Gary Gygax did so in 2005 when he justified the killing of evil humanoid children and other non-combatants with the phrase "nits make lice". As Gygax says, this phrase was reportedly used by the 19th century genocidaire, Colonel Chivington, to justify the mass murder of Native American children and other non-combatants.

A more in depth discussion and historical background on the phrase.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

As mentioned in goodness knows how many other threads here and elsewhere, the problem isn’t the mere existence of “always evil” races, but rather, the existence of “always evil” races that are characterized in the same language and imagery as real-world bigoted stereotypes. If you describe your always evil” races in words and images not linked to RW bigotry, then there’s no problem at all.

It really is that simple.

So the redcap isn’t an issue, not because it is Fey, but because it in no way is described as resembling a RW demographic.

I guess that’s what confuses me though. I don’t think green skinned orcs or white haired red eyed drow look like people. Nor does in the latter case a black widow themed, demons worshipping matriarchy remind me of any culture on earth.

I think this is becoming a Rorschach and people project what they bring.

so while I don’t think efforts against racism should be discouraged, I think this is anything but simple or consistent.

if we want to say WOTC is doing their best to avoid racism I can shrug and say ‘ok’ but the basis on where they draw lines and take stands seems nearly arbitrary.

 

[DEFCON 1]

In my opinion, 99.99% of all "slippery slope" arguments are wrong. Because it implies the person making the argument knows that the people at the bottom of the "slope" are going to feel the exact same way they do about the situation, but it will be so far along they can't do anything to fix it. So the person making the argument wants to make sure the "slope" never happens NOW in order to save those people from their inevitable problems in the future.

Except that the people at the far end of the slope will have grown up understanding and living with the "slope" already in place and thus it pretty much won't feel like a problem because they won't have known anything different.

Every societal more we currently have has been the end of a "slippery slope" claimed by somebody in the past. But we all seem to be perfectly okay with them. "People of different religions can get married?" Yep. We are currently at the end of that "slippery slope" and most of us do not find any problems now that we're here. So all the people from a century plus ago were completely and utterly full of dog doo-doo when they made that so-called argument.

As pretty much most people are when they trot out the scare-tactic "slippery slope" argument today.

 

[Mecheon]

And it'll almost certainly insult some people, probably get into a fight or three, and maybe end up burning the place down; 'cause that's just how Orcs are.

And in a typical Orcish might-makes-right society that'd be par-for-the-course acceptable (well, maybe except for the burning-down part; or maybe not). In most Human societies, not so much.

Mate, that's just how some pub nights go

Neither are dragons, but they’re doing it for dragons.

To be fair, I think that's different. I think that's "This was interesting in 1E and 4E were things weren't as clear-cut and let's actually make these stats useful for the good ones"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because biological essentialism is bad, and shouldn’t be validated by the game.

People keep saying things like this, and I really do not understand how this can make sense when talking about literal different species. Like certainly dwarves, centaurs and aarakocra are biologically different from each other rather essential manner? And sure, it can be icky when we get to the morals, but even there we should be able to recognise that different species may have different instincts and needs which may lead to different values. For example a species who need to eat brains of sapient creatures in order to survive would probably develop morals that might seem rather abhorrent to the people to whom those brains belong to. Then again, human morals might seem pretty abhorrent to pigs...

 

[FrozenNorth]

Doesn't make me wrong.

But it is not evidence you’re right. That’s the issue with slippery slope arguments. They are a fallacy because they don’t present an argument for why one change will cause a bunch of other changes.

Several people have given plausible reasons why redcaps fall on one side of the line and orcs, drow and Vistani the other.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Why don't we just dispense with any and all descriptions to end up with a purely mathematical game?

"Your 34HP entity comes across three 2HD entities armed with what looks like d8 damage-tools."

Surely nobody could morally object to that?

Some people could object to the slippery slope argument.

 

[Weiley31]

While reading this discussion, I couldn't help but think of this quote:



Why don't we just dispense with any and all descriptions to end up with a purely mathematical game?

"Your 34HP entity comes across three 2HD entities armed with what looks like d8 damage-tools."

Surely nobody could morally object to that?

The number 8: I beg your pardon? I'm used for gardening, not murdering! It's that guy you have to worry about!! points to the side: the Number 7 starts sweating profusely while looking back and forth.

 

[Weiley31]

People keep saying things like this, and I really do not understand how this can make sense when talking about literal different species. Like certainly dwarves, centaurs and aarakocra are biologically different from each other rather essential manner? And sure, it can be icky when we get to the moral, but even there we should be able to recognise that different species may have different instincts and needs which may lead to differnt values. For example a species who need to eat brains of sapient creatures in order to survive would probably develop morals that might seem rather abhorrent to the people to whom those brains belong to. Then again, human morals might seem pretty abhorrent to pigs...

It's the Twilight solution: The Cullens fed on the blood of animals instead of hunting down humans most of the time. The Lawful Good Ithillid living at the village where the farmstead is feeds on the brains of cows. All is good and the Ithillid is a contributing member of society while helping out the fellow villagers.

Cue the scene where the Party is met by a cow. Said cow is Awakened and is the main leader of the cow herd at said Farm, who then hires the party to murder said Lawful Good Ithillid because it is a danger to cow kind.