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

[KarinsDad]

So you're OK with killing baby orcs and goblins then?

Yup. A dead orc today is one that cannot harm the "good races" tomorrow.

You don't know fire snakes are evil menaces. You know they have NE in their alignment box. Are you OK with killing random people on the street (in your game) because they have NE in their alignment box? Maybe they're just greedy. What alignment was Ebenezer Scrooge?

Many games are "points of light". The civilized good races hole up in small areas (villages, towns, cities), the non-good race creatures outside of those areas are generally considered evil, outlaws (outside the law), etc. Is every creature that way? No. Not in most games. Can you run a game where evil creatures are sometimes good and sometimes evil? Sure. Have fun doing it.

But a game where evil monsters are killed on sight by good PCs is totally acceptable and the game designers are totally within their rights to support that type of game.

I am not claiming that Fire Snakes should be recognizable as evil menaces right off the bat, but if I make a History check and the DM tells me that Fire Snakes are evil creatures that grow up to be evil Salamanders, my good PC is going to go over there and kill them without a single moral compunction.

Same with Orcs.

There is nothing in the current MM entry for fire snakes, or salamanders, that says that they are a threat to humans in any fashion. There is no mention of banditry, man-eating, world conquering, or anything. In most cases, the only reason you run into them is because you're in their territory on the plane of Fire.

If this is the case, then why is this an important issue? Most players will never encounter them.

You are dismissing the argument because you've already labeled them "monsters" - meaning "legitimate targets" - and don't care to consider it further.

You are supporting the argument because you've already labeled them "non-monsters" - meaning "non-legitimate targets".

They are non-monsters in your game. Not necessarily everyone else's game.

 

[Savage Wombat]

OK, so we know that [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] would be OK with a Monster Manual that lists hill giant toddlers on the encounter table.

For the benefit of everyone else - I continue to find it surprising that a major publisher, interested in avoiding a negative reception, would make this particular choice.

 

[Mr Fixit]

OK, so we know that @KarinsDad would be OK with a Monster Manual that lists hill giant toddlers on the encounter table.

For the benefit of everyone else - I continue to find it surprising that a major publisher, interested in avoiding a negative reception, would make this particular choice.

What choice? Fire snakes? Somehow I doubt a fire snake entry in a fantasy bestiary is going to result in negative reception.

And as several people already pointed out, there's a difference between "baby" and a dangerous if young monster that is fully capable of independent action.

Unless you're talking about killing baby orcs and hill giant toddlers which is... rather extreme, I'd have to agree, as they are neither dangerous nor capable of independent action.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Here, let's just post the link:

Having-stats-for-every-stage-of-growth-encourages-killing-of-dragon-children

So at least we can establish that, yes, some people other than the two of us have opinions on the idea of killing sentient children of other species.

 

[mips42]

Just out of morbid curiosity (and I don't really want to read the whole thread), how did we get to the morality of fictional people killing fictional things from 'here's what the fire drake looks like'?

*Warning* opinion ahead!
FWIW, the morality of fictional people killing fictional things, IMHO, should be based on the morality of those fictional people and not necessarily those of the player or the GM.
If the killing of immature fictional things bothers you or your players, the solution is to simply not have those things in your game.
I am much more concerned about the morality of real people killing real things for "sport" than I am about this.

Be well, play on.

 

[Leatherhead]

I just read this thread, as a disclaimer my favorite monster is the Atropal. The undead stillborn godling fetus kind.

And I have to say it's quite disheartening to hear that some people have such difficulty dissociating the real world from a game of pretend. The entire point of the game to experience a character who is not yourself, doing things that you yourself would not or cannot do. Perhaps it is because I am DM more often than not, but I routinely "play" evil characters and I have no problems having them do immoral things, the same way a writer or a director would have no problems having a character in a story do evil things despite (hopefully) having moral compulsions against actually doing immoral things in real life.

However, this problem is easily remediable: If you do not wish to kill "baby" creatures because you feel it is against your characters morality, feel free to let them live and adopt them, send them to an orphanage, or another caretaker of your choice. As for any character who does not feel that way, they have stats because they are significantly more dangerous than a normal full-grown human.

 

[pemerton]

There are two issues here.

One issue is - is it "all right" to kill a child if that child is a threat to your life?

The second issue is - should a publishing company be creating fictional monsters for a game that are dangerous children to be slain?

These issues are very separate.

Sorry I coudn't XP this.

PWorth keeping in mind that "it's a game" isn't a defense any more than "it's a book" or "it's a conversation." Games are expressions of ideas, along with their mechanics. One does not automatically agree with the implications of their art (good people can write stories about evil people!), but it does still express ideas, and offers them up for criticism.

Happily, I was able to XP this!

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.

This is one of the reasons I dislike D&D's "fantasy racism" take on alignment. Even in an entirely fictional setting, I've never been truly comfortable with the idea of acting out in-character the attitude that it is perfectly okay to kill a sentient being on sight simply because they are 'inherently evil'.

I am with MarkB on tis one - I see "evil from birth"/"fanatsy racism" as a cheap cop out that undermines the moral integrity of the world.

As a fantasy trope I believe it comes primarily from Tolkien; and the connections between Tolkien's swarthy, bandy-legged, scimitar-wieding hordes and real-world ideas is not very subtle. (I don't reproduce REH's views about similar matters in my game either.)

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.

As far as I can see the people you are arguing with have asked this question of themselves, and answered it, and to some extent have done so in this very thread.

Board rules limit the full extent of any answer, but the short version is: why would I want to reproduce those parts of traditional fantasy that most undermine its integrity as art and literature? Particuarly in a game-form - RPGing - that encouages a relatively tight identification of participants with particuar personalities and actions within the game. (Unlike most boardgames, for instance.)

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.

I'm not sensing any particuar "groundswell"; these issues have been discussed for as long as fantasy RPGing has been around.

As for evaluative judgements about others' literary and artistic creations - that pretty much goes with the territory, doesn't it?

 

[KarinsDad]

As for evaluative judgements about others' literary and artistic creations - that pretty much goes with the territory, doesn't it?

Of course it does.

But, it's one thing to say that one does not like it.

It's another to say "should a publishing company be creating fictional monsters for a game that are dangerous children to be slain?"

The former is an opinion that does not impact the livelihood of game designers.

The latter is an opinion that could impinge on freedom of creativity and could affect the bottom line of WotC if enough people jumped on this particular bandwagon.

It's only a few decades back that people were trying to get TSR to shut down their doors because they had demons and devils in the game.

I would prefer that people not cross that particular line and when people start talking about the publisher doing morally wrong (OMG, the publishers created an infant dangerous capable evil monster) instead of the artistic creation being in poor taste, that's the direction that it might just go into.


And the bizarre thing about the conversation is that nobody on the "not a big deal" side is condoning heroic PC killing of harmless/good infant creatures as an acceptable heroic PC action, only dangerous/evil ones. How exactly is that bad/wrong/fun? Shouldn't heroic PCs be killing dangerous evil NPCs?

 

[Xyrlove Woodsoul]

Heck, there's no rule against making evil characters. A group can make a party of evil characters and do the most evil things imaginable. Thus, game designers aren't being risque' whatsoever creating baby monsters to be killed, compared to you can make a party of psychopaths if you want.

 

[Savage Wombat]

It's another to say "should a publishing company be creating fictional monsters for a game that are dangerous children to be slain?"

The former is an opinion that does not impact the livelihood of game designers.

The latter is an opinion that could impinge on freedom of creativity and could affect the bottom line of WotC if enough people jumped on this particular bandwagon.

It's only a few decades back that people were trying to get TSR to shut down their doors because they had demons and devils in the game.

I would prefer that people not cross that particular line and when people start talking about the publisher doing morally wrong (OMG, the publishers created an infant dangerous capable evil monster) instead of the artistic creation being in poor taste, that's the direction that it might just go into.

I consider this argument much more relevant, thank you.

You have a point about where to draw the line. I submit that, in this particular case, no one would have noticed if they'd chosen otherwise. No one was clamoring for the inclusion of fire snakes in the MM. I doubt Shemeska would have complained about misusing this classic planar monster, or that Hussar would say it was forcing setting-specific information into the core. If left out, the fire snake would not have been missed.

But by its inclusion (as a juvenile salamander), it brings in the Unfortunate Implication. It reinforces the unpleasant stereotype of D&D as a game where everything is a foe to be slain, and the players as relentless "murderhoboes". And maybe you don't care, but if WotC had chosen otherwise, would you have cared either? You don't have any actual vested interest in fire snakes being infants, right?

It has been suggested that 4e removed baby dragons from the MM because they were aware of the implications and wished to avoid them. I brought this up in the beginning to express surprise that they made the same mistake for a different monster. I don't feel that WotC should censor D&D to avoid angering MADD moms. But they already leave out potential content that they think would bring a negative image on the hobby - and in this case, no one would have noticed if they had left it out.

Thus my comment.