D&D 5E Rename the Monster Manual

[Horacio]

You were doing fine up to here.

Oh thanks!

But the remaining of the post is also valid...

Specially the part of not being sure if it's a real subject or not, and not being the good judge for that...

On another note I REALLY love Anthology of Antagonists as a name for a book.

Indeed, the name is rad

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I propose the title:

Mordenkainen's Manual of the Maltreated and Morally Misunderstood

 

[Olrox17]

I'm surprised the Dungeon Master's Guide wasn't included on the call for change

Is calling somebody a Dungeon MASTER even ok nowadays?
Edit: before somebody takes this and runs with it, I'm being sarcastic here.

 

[Horacio]

I'm surprised the Dungeon Master's Guide wasn't included on the call for change

Well, in IT the subject of master is indeed hot... I could tell you some tales about the long flame wars on the master-slave terminology on databases or the master branch on Git...

 

[Li Shenron]

"Creatures manual" would be fine.

I wouldn't say there is an issue of ethics with the traditional name, but certainly there is an issue of clarity. I have almost always DMed with casual gamers, beginners or children, and I cannot count how many times someone new to D&D asked me "why there are elves or angels in the monster manual, they're nice folks!"

 

[R_J_K75]

Its fine. No need to change the name. PHB, DMG and the MM arent called the core rule books for nothing. Change this and then whats next?

This is not a sarcastic question but honestly is changing the book name "Monster Manual" the best use of anyones resources? Im sure theres more important things in the world that need to be considered first.

 

[Sadras]

Care to explain why ? Is it because you feel that the creatures included in the book really are best described as "monsters"? Is it because of tradition?

Initial pushback is because the proposed change is coming from a sense of moral outrage.

 

[Mercurius]

Fair enough.

Care to explain why ? Is it because you feel that the creatures included in the book really are best described as "monsters"? Is it because of tradition?

Because there's absolutely nothing wrong with calling fantasy creatures "monsters." It's a game. It's fantasy. It's language. And it is D&D vernacular: a "monster" is simply a creature that the PCs might encounter (if we want to be technical, "creature" is more accurate).

Here's a quote from the 1E Monster Manual, way back in 1977:

The term "monster" is used throughout this work in two manners. Its first, and most important, meaning is to designate any creature encountered — hostile or otherwise, human, humanoid, or beast. Until the encountering party determines what they have come upon, it is a monster. The secondary usage of the term is in the usual sense: a horrible or wicked creature of some sort. Thus, a "monster" is encountered during the course of a dungeon expedition, and it is discovered to be an evil high priest, who just might turn out to be a monster in the other sense as well. Note, however, that despite this terminology, humans (and such kin as dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, and halfings) always use the matrix for humans when attacking, even if such humans were encountered as "monsters" in the course of an adventure. ​

​

​

Spoiler: A bit more...

After re-reading your OP, I'm fairly certain its satire, but I don't want to spoil the fun. Keep at it, @The Mirrorball Man

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

This is not a sarcastic question but honestly is changing the book name "Monster Manual" the best use of anyones resources? Im sure theres more important things in the world that need to be considered first.

No reason why you couldn't change that name AND fight climate change at the same time. It's not as if changing that name would prevent you from doing more important things.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Why not just have the Monster Manual flavor text written from the perspective of an unreliable narrator?