D&D 5E MM Firesnake up on Christopher Burdett's Blog

[Mistwell]

There are those who consider D&D's use of the "evil from birth" trope as a cheap cop-out, to avoid considering the ramifications of the player's desire to just kill some monsters.

It's an excuse, but I don't think it's a cheap one (which implies no thought was put into it) or that it's a cop-out (which implies a negativity to the excuse). I think it's done because it's a game, and considering ramifications on that level doesn't match well with the purpose of a game intended for fun. I think there are much better settings for such contemplations, like a class in philosophy, a round of intercollegiate debate, a coffee house session with friends, certain theatrical productions, some poetry, some novels, etc.. But a fantasy game intended for fun doesn't seem like a good match setting-wise for that sort of philosophical debate on a more regular basis.

At least, that is how it's been for my games and experiences. I loved talking philosophy in debate and in law school, but I would not enjoy it on even a semi-regular basis for my D&D games. It's too exhausting, too real,and not as much fun as other things the game offers.

I admit to leaning to that desire myself, but I've thought about it. Is the fact that something is evil by nature enough justification to kill it? The salamanders in this example aren't actively preying upon humans for food or brood-stuff, they're just - I don't know, it's not in the description - greedy and cruel?

We don't have a dragon book out yet for 5e (if we ever will), but the 4e Draconomicon for chromatic dragons made it clear they are born already knowing they are superior to humanoids, already inherently predatory, and already (in the case of the red dragon wyrmlings) having an overwhelming desire to consume fresh meat and kill things and horde treasure. It also goes on at some length to explain that many types don't get this from a society, don't even really have a society, and are simply born with it. Finally, they explain that dragons simply do not think like humans, and it's a mistake to assume they do think like us - their brains inherently work differently than ours.

 

[77IM]

I'm sorry if you feel really connected to Alien's... I just don't

I am getting the impression that this has become a purely emotional argument, rather than a rational one. Empathy for a subject should have zero bearing on your moral obligation to them. It's OK to fantasize about violence towards full-grown, one-week-old uruk-hai because they are not as cute as year-old baby orcs or wyrmlings?

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I am getting the impression that this has become a purely emotional argument, rather than a rational one. Empathy for a subject should have zero bearing on your moral obligation to them. It's OK to fantasize about violence towards full-grown, one-week-old uruk-hai because they are not as cute as year-old baby orcs or wyrmlings?

Except as I said, The Urkhai are presented as magical constructs fully adult, Dragon wyrmlings on the other hand as babys, then he asked about if I had ever had the same problem with Aliens... I just don't see it the same way.

to put it another way. I do not feel that a movie that in no way affects my life, nore have I seen more then once or twice has the same impact on me as a game I have been known to play multi times a week for hours. I therefore can not comment on the movie the same way. So this has gotten very side trekked, Aliens is nothing but a distractions when people couldn't talk about D&D...


a 7 year old human and a 7 year old wolf are not both little children... the wolf is not a child it is fully grown adult, the Tolken example is also that of a fully grown adult.

So lets get back to the point. Why do we need stats for babies new born and children?

 

[MoutonRustique]

So lets get back to the point. Why do we need stats for babies new born and children?

Because, depending on playstyle/setting choices/preferences, they are not "babies" in any sense of the word that is relevant :

Babies are babies because they are...

• not fully in control of their bodies
• not yet educated in their position in the world
• cannot interact voluntarily with objects or people
• are not even able to be voluntary
• are incapable of moral choice
• wholly dependent upon another
• sexually immature
• some other thing I'm forgetting

In a setting where EVIL is a real thing, a fire snake is not a baby. It is simply "new" and able to evolve into something bigger and smarter and deadlier (and, possibly, Evil-er). It is fully in control of its destiny and choices, able to make said choices and very freaking dangerous to a human. It is not a vulnerable/helpless/blameless being.

Babies are to be protected because they are vulnerable and "blameless" - this is not the case for a fire snake in a setting in which EVIL is a real thing.

Again, it is a common thing for D&D games to explicitly or implicitly accept that EVIL is a real thing with which you can be born. Destroying EVIL is, and always will be, a GOOD thing - in these settings.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Because, depending on playstyle/setting choices/preferences, they are not "babies" in any sense of the word that is relevant :

SNIP

Again, none of what you describe is in the entry for the monster. You are projecting your pre-assumption (that it's OK to kill these monsters) to create a creature that fills your needs.

Nothing about the fire snake requires it to be a newborn other than the desire to tie it to the salamander species. Why suddenly make this change, knowing it's going to raise this issue?

Please do not answer as if I'm ordering you to spare baby monsters in your game. The question is why WotC decided to create a new baby monster for the MM?

 

[KarinsDad]

OK, well I fantasies around the table every week, and the type of hero (or anti hero, or villain) I want to be matters... and when I play it heroic, I wont kill something just because it's green, or black... I also feel that writing into the rules it's AOK to do so is scary...

It's not a matter of that concept being in the rules. It's in individual campaigns.

I'm totally ok with my heroic PC killing Orcs, just because they are evil Orcs. I'm totally ok with a campaign world where all Orcs are evil, just because they are. Like Tokien. In LotR and the Hobbit, the PC races can be any alignment, but the NPC races tended to be one alignment. The vast majority of the PC protagonists tended to be good, even Boromir.

There appears to be a political correctness groundswell in the gaming community that if DMs and players do not play in certain ways (i.e. individual monsters can be any alignment, monster babies should not exist in the game, good Drow like Dritz are perfectly acceptable, etc.), that it is bad/wrong fun.

Gruumsh breathes life into Orcs and because of that, there are no good Orcs. Green dragons are evil. Period. And playing in a campaign where that is the case is fine. Playing in a campaign where that is not the case is also fine, but saying that one way is acceptable and the other is not, is not very tolerant.

The game designers have to create a game for all tables. One where baby aliens are just plain evil little monsters, and ones where baby aliens are usually evil little monsters, but sometimes good and sometimes neutral.

Nothing stops a DM from using the little firesnakes as evil and PC targets in one campaign, and another DM with the "baby monsters should not exist" POV not using them at all.

I don't really understand humanizing fictional baby monsters at all, but you evidently empathize with that POV. But, people who have your POV should not be intolerant and try to stop the designers from creating such monsters. You should just not use them in your game.

 

[KarinsDad]

Again, none of what you describe is in the entry for the monster. You are projecting your pre-assumption (that it's OK to kill these monsters) to create a creature that fills your needs.

Nothing about the fire snake requires it to be a newborn other than the desire to tie it to the salamander species. Why suddenly make this change, knowing it's going to raise this issue?

Please do not answer as if I'm ordering you to spare baby monsters in your game. The question is why WotC decided to create a new baby monster for the MM?

Because killing monsters is fun in the game.

Old monsters, middle aged ones, babies. Why does age of monsters matter? This is like saying monster gender matters because men should not hit women. Male, female, or androgynous monsters, who cares?

This is a game. Fiction. Nobody actually gets hurt.

Saying that creating baby monsters in the game is immoral in our society is the same as saying the game itself is immoral. You are humanizing these fictional creatures.


The real question you should be asking yourself is why you are letting this bother you. What is it about your moral framework such that you find it distasteful for the very existence of fictional baby monsters (assuming that the reason for your POV is that you do find it distasteful and are not just playing devils advocate here)? To me, this POV is not much different than religious people from 30 years ago who thought that playing D&D was worshiping the Devil because D&D had fictional demons and devils in it. Both views seem a bit intolerant based on some moral line that was crossed.

You try to put a negative moral connotation on the game designers by even questioning their motivations to create such a fictional monster. Why?

It's a game.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me on this issue. But I find attempts to dismiss the concept that it's a controversial issue, well, troubling.

This infant issue only exists because people like yourself are bringing it up (you did mention it first in this thread).

You and D&D girl seem to think this is a relevant and real issue. Most everyone else is looking at you like you grew a third eye on your foreheads.

This is not controversial.

Today, games are filled with all types of violence. That doesn't make the killing of fictional infant creatures immoral, it only makes it immoral to some small segment of the population. Morality is subjective.

If your definition of controversial is that a few people think this way, hence, this topic is controversial, then yes, this topic is controversial. I see it as a non-issue (although a fun one to banter about).

 

[MoutonRustique]

Again, none of what you describe is in the entry for the monster. You are projecting your pre-assumption (that it's OK to kill these monsters) to create a creature that fills your needs.

Nothing about the fire snake requires it to be a newborn other than the desire to tie it to the salamander species. Why suddenly make this change, knowing it's going to raise this issue?

Please do not answer as if I'm ordering you to spare baby monsters in your game. The question is why WotC decided to create a new baby monster for the MM?

Personally, in my games, I tend to favour the approach that EVIL is not a thing, but a concept imposed by outside observation - so I get what you're asking.

On the other hand, many people/games/settings/preferences do want a situation where there are EVIL things. Those things, by being EVIL are a-ok to kill outright w/o thought of moral consequence.

So my answer is : they did not.

They did not add it in knowing it would raise the issue. They did it to add a link between the monsters and deepen the world. They possibly thought of "infant form" in the sense of caterpillar to butterfly or, that velociraptors are the infant forms of tyrannosaurus... But, at this point, this is pure conjecture.

This edition of D&D (which does not mean previous ones did not) is overtly very strong in its assumptions about what D&D is* - and I'd be very surprised to learn that the base assumption in D&D is that evil isn't an existing thing; which can make the "age" of a critter, a moot point.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

* see all the tweets about "soul of D&D" and posts about "what D&D is really about" and etc. from Mearls and Co.

 

[Savage Wombat]

This infant issue only exists because people like yourself are bringing it up (you did mention it first in this thread).

You and D&D girl seem to think this is a relevant and real issue. Most everyone else is looking at you like you grew a third eye on your foreheads.

This is not controversial.

This is exactly what I mean by attempts to dismiss the issue. A response like [MENTION=22362]MoutonRustique[/MENTION] 's shows thought and consideration of the issue. Yours is "who cares what you think?"

 

[KarinsDad]

This is exactly what I mean by attempts to dismiss the issue. A response like [MENTION=22362]MoutonRustique[/MENTION] 's shows thought and consideration of the issue. Yours is "who cares what you think?"

If you say so. I have posted several responses to this thread that did not go down that path. I was explicitly trying to address your issue of it being dismissive. It is dismissive. Just because you do not like that answer does not make it less so for other people. Just because you find this to be important does not make it important. It only makes it important to you.


You asked the question "The question is why WotC decided to create a new baby monster for the MM?

My response to you is "why is WotC doing so morally reprehensible?". You have yet to really answer that type of question. It's wrong because it is wrong is not a sufficient answer.

It's fiction. It's not real. Yes, this is a non-issue because you cannot even explain why your moral high ground is anything of the sort.

You have yet to explain why non-fictional non-human baby killing is wrong, let alone fictional non-human baby killing. Until you can give rational explanations, the issue is moot and unimportant.

In many real world cultures, killing non-human babies is totally moral and has been for millennium. Killing baby wolves or baby snakes or baby ground hogs for example. What makes your subjective moral opinion any better than anyone else's?

Many people here have given reasonable fictional examples like Aliens where nobody gets their panties in a bind over killing the aliens in their pods. What makes fictional D&D different than fictional movies? Why should we handcuff the game designers in this fashion when we do not handcuff movie makers in this fashion?