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

[KarinsDad]

A fire snake is whatever the game designers wrote it to be. It has no real world existence.

The designers could have chosen to make it something other than the underage offspring of a sentient race, and you would have been none the wiser.

This is the point you keep deliberately avoiding.

I'm not avoiding it. I've discussed it before.

The burden of proof of a designer creating an "underage offspring of a sentient race" being an unacceptable thing is up to you. You are the one who is bothered by it.

Many of the rest of us are ok with the design. You are the one who doesn't want it.

There could be art drawn on a wall in my neighborhood and everyone in the neighborhood is fine with it except one person who is offended by it. The person offended has to prove to the local authorities that it is in bad taste or an eyesore or whatever, it is not the burden of the people who are ok with it to defend it. You should take your concern to WotC and maybe they won't add it in 6E.

There is nothing about the "story" of salamanders that requires them to have smaller counterparts that are easier to kill. Why include them?

Because they have been in the game system for 30+ years?

A better question is: Since they have been around so long, why NOT include them?

They even have their own wiki entry: Fire Snake

I think you are merely defending an imagined attack on your preferred playstyle.

Nope. I could care less. But when someone comes up with an argument that is based on emotion, I tend to question why.

Your point has nothing to do with the fictional game and everything to do with real world people (such as yourself and D&D girl) having some moral thing in the back of their heads. Really not much different than the people who wanted D&D banned because it had demons and devils in it, but just less intense.


Ok, story time.

Back in about 1984 or so, I was at lunch with a friend, telling him about a FRPG that I had designed. After lunch was over and we were walking out, a woman came up to me and asked "Were you talking about Dungeons and Dragons?". I replied "No, we were talking about a similar game that I designed. But if you'd like to pick up a copy of Dungeons and Dragons, I can tell you where you can get one.". She replied "Did you know that people who play Dungeons and Dragons are devil worshipers?". I replied "Of course, do you want to join our game?". She went white and raced away.

 

[Savage Wombat]

The burden of proof of a designer creating an "underage offspring of a sentient race" being an unacceptable thing is up to you. You are the one who is bothered by it.

As I have pointed out many times, WotC has already addressed the comment of "underage offspring of a sentient race" by deliberately removing the stats for baby dragons from 4e and 5e. So it's not up to me, as it's already been ruled upon. And I question your statement that the burden of proof lies on the one offended.

 

[KarinsDad]

As I have pointed out many times, WotC has already addressed the comment of "underage offspring of a sentient race" by deliberately removing the stats for baby dragons from 4e and 5e. So it's not up to me, as it's already been ruled upon.

There are 31 wyrmlings in the 4E compendium and currently 10 wyrmlings in 5E. In 3.5, the definition of a wyrmling is 0 to 5 years of age.

So what exactly are you calling a baby dragon? Was there actually a baby dragon at some point? Or are you calling a wyrmling a baby? If so, then WotC did not do too good of a job at it and this part of your argument is not supportable.

And I question your statement that the burden of proof lies on the one offended.

If the person offended is in the minority and most people are not offended and some people cannot even understand why the person is offended, then generally yeah, that's how it works.

Just because you are offended does not mean that the majority should bow down to your wishes.

 

[Imaro]

As I have pointed out many times, WotC has already addressed the comment of "underage offspring of a sentient race" by deliberately removing the stats for baby dragons from 4e and 5e. So it's not up to me, as it's already been ruled upon. And I question your statement that the burden of proof lies on the one offended.

Uhm... wyrmlings were still in 4e.

 

[Boarstorm]

Uhm... wyrmlings were still in 4e.

But were hatchlings?

 

[Imaro]

But were hatchlings?

3.5 didn't have hatchlings... the youngest age category was wyrmling...0-5 years

 

[Savage Wombat]

There are 31 wyrmlings in the 4E compendium and currently 10 wyrmlings in 5E. In 3.5, the definition of a wyrmling is 0 to 5 years of age.

So what exactly are you calling a baby dragon? Was there actually a baby dragon at some point? Or are you calling a wyrmling a baby? If so, then WotC did not do too good of a job at it and this part of your argument is not supportable.

As I said when I first mentioned it, that was what I was told. While I may be mistaken - the fact that you only this time around even brought this up tells me how much you're actually reading my arguments.

If the person offended is in the minority and most people are not offended and some people cannot even understand why the person is offended, then generally yeah, that's how it works.

The fact that you think that tells me a LOT about you and how you think.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Over the generations of D&D, many gamers and writers have become disgusted with the idea of assuming all non-human monsters are enemies and valid targets. It's why most critters are engaged in some sort of actual villainy, like banditry, to make it OK to fight them. There's nothing in the entry suggesting that fire snakes do anything to humans - it's just an assumption posters are making "because they're evil monsters".

For the record I wouldn't expect a PC to kill anything (fire snake included) unless they were engaged in some nefarious deed. My games often feature negotiation between PCs and evil individuals or groups, brokering whatever deals they can to avoid open combat. But, then my favorite campaign setting is Planescape where often you have to deal with enemies nonviolently. In my mind, if the PCs are killing fire snakes, then the fire snakes started it somehow.

I would be wary of any PC who attacked something because "it's evil" in this context.

If any of my players had a problem with fire snakes, though, I would leave them out of the game.

 

[KarinsDad]

As I said when I first mentioned it, that was what I was told. While I may be mistaken - the fact that you only this time around even brought this up tells me how much you're actually reading my arguments.

So, since I did not fact check what you wrote previously, I didn't read your arguments? I'm supposed to remember some sentence that you wrote pages and days ago?

So let me get this straight. You come onto this thread and start claiming how awful underage offspring of a sentient race in the Monster Manual is, you claim that WotC supports that position, and then we find out that you didn't check your facts at all. And somehow, now, I didn't read your arguments because I did not fact check them until now.

The fact that you think that tells me a LOT about you and how you think.

Yes, I think that if someone is offended, the rationale of their argument will sway me one way or another. The burden of proof and logic of that argument is theirs to make, not the majority of the people who are not offended.

If you really had a seriously robust argument here, I suspect that more people would agree with you. Since they are not, is the problem with the logic and strength of your argument, or is the problem that most people do not agree with your ideas, or is the problem that the moral fabric of society declining?


The bottom line of this discussion is that you think that fictional wyrmlings and fire snakes are babies and many other people do not. Hence, your argument doesn't hold much weight with many people. No matter how much you try to convince them, other people view them as newly hatched, but still dangerous and evil monsters (like Aliens), not babies. That is where your logic fails to convince. Instead of telling other people how they think wrong and how they do not read what you write, maybe you should go off and try to come up with some new logic to beef up your POV.

 

[Savage Wombat]

So, since I did not fact check what you wrote previously, I didn't read your arguments? I'm supposed to remember some sentence that you wrote pages and days ago?

Yes, that's what I think. You didn't read the comment or think about it until I'd said some variant of it for the fourth time. Demonstrating that you only argue with what you think I'm saying, not what I'm saying.

If you really had a seriously robust argument here, I suspect that more people would agree with you.

I suspect more people do agree with me - they're just not bothering to post in a thread about fire snakes. We pointed you to the massive debate on this very topic on the GitP forum.

The bottom line of this discussion is that you think that fictional wyrmlings and fire snakes are babies and many other people do not.

No, the bottom line is that when another poster agreed with me about the potential problems of slaying juvenile sentient creatures, you belittled her opinion and dismissed her argument in a very insulting way.

Dragons are not real.

This is only a game.

Step away from the caffeine.


It's pretty sad when political correctness finds its way into gaming like this to this level. Next, every dungeon will have to have latrines. Then, men and women's latrine. Then, men, women, and monster latrines.

Since then you've been trying to defend your side as an actual debate point instead of a knee-jerk reaction.