Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Centaurs and Minotaurs

As a Dragonlance junkie, it’s interesting to see how they’ve pulled back the damage on the minotaur to make it more workable as a player race (I imagine that working with the Volo races gave them a better baseline). The Hybrid Nature mechanic is interesting here, especially given the number of Fey Ancestry races that we’ve seen so far (who aren’t both Humanoid and Fey), as well as the planar-descended races.

 

[plisnithus8]

But your players characters, evil or otherwise, can't think of ways to "nerf" a minotaur captive other than sawing off it's horns? A bound captive with cladding fixed to it's horns would probably do the trick, no maiming required. Probably a lot less time and effort to boot. Not to mention magical solutions, as we are playing D&D after all.

I would think cutting off the horns would be the first thought; thinking through other options may not be something they have time for or consider worth time if they had it.
As for cutting off horns being time-consuming and full of effort, it seems like swinging a sword at a horn would be much easier and less time consuming than trying to think of what spell might work (plus having to use a spell slot, etc.) or trying to find something to cover it and then bind it to the horn so it won't come off and then hope that it would prevent an attack (and then potentially losing the resources of the padding and rope).

Is there a moral dilemma? Sure. But not cutting them off isn't more expedient.

 

[Dire Bare]

Are the Monstrous Adventurers in Volo's Guide monsters or people? I think the answer can be both. It seems like you use the word "monster" to define something that is not a person and then say it's not easy to judge where the line is drawn. If that's the case, why bring up monsters in this discussion?

<snip> It feels like you are saying it is hard to judge what a monster is and that evils don't need to compared, but then it seems like you make that judgement and comparison. I'd rather let the players explore that themselves.

There is a difference between an animal and a human being. Yet, human beings are animals. Monsters are fictional, but there is a real difference between a monster and a person. And yet, some fictional creatures cross the blurry line and others are seemingly both at once. In the real world, categories are rarely absolute or binary, and they aren't anymore so in fiction, as much as we might like things to be clear, simple, and absolute.

I'm at a loss to help you further understand the difference, blurry as it is, between a monster and a person. To me the concepts are as simple as the difference between an animal and a person, despite some creatures in the Monster Manual crossing or blurring the line between the two.

Why bring it up? You can do things to animals you should not do, ethically, to people. You can do things to monsters that you should not do to people. In the real world, that's often how we justify committing evil upon others, is to "dehumanize" them, to consider them other than or less than human.

 

[plisnithus8]

There is a difference between an animal and a human being. Yet, human beings are animals. Monsters are fictional, but there is a real difference between a monster and a person. And yet, some fictional creatures cross the blurry line and others are seemingly both at once. In the real world, categories are rarely absolute or binary, and they aren't anymore so in fiction, as much as we might like things to be clear, simple, and absolute.

I'm at a loss to help you further understand the difference, blurry as it is, between a monster and a person. To me the concepts are as simple as the difference between an animal and a person, despite some creatures in the Monster Manual crossing or blurring the line between the two.

Why bring it up? You can do things to animals you should not do, ethically, to people. You can do things to monsters that you should not do to people. In the real world, that's often how we justify committing evil upon others, is to "dehumanize" them, to consider them other than or less than human.

In a fictional world such as D&D, to make absolutes that proclaim some things are okay in regards to humans (just one a multitude of the player race options) different than animals and monsters is opinion.
Sometimes you have substituted "person" for "human." Mechanically, because this is a game, "person" is not something that exists. Human does exist, but I believe you have it meaning something different than person. The word animal is used ambiguously - "beast" being the mechanical term. Even the term "monster" is ambiguous since humanoids are considered a type of monster (and we've already mentioned the Monstrous Adventurers such as Orcs in Volo's Guide; plus elves and others are one of the entries in the Monster Manual).

You may believe that humans have a right to cut off a rhinos horn. Others may disagree. I don't need you to help me understand the difference between a monster and a person.

But again, this is pretty far off my initial point which is: It really shouldn't be unheard of for an evil PC to consider doing something evil like cutting off a minotaur's horns.

I don't want to hijack this thread with more off topic conversation so will refrain from more responses.
If you'd like to continue, I'd be happy to respond if you want to make a different thread.

 

[Satyrn]

I skipped from the first page of this thread to the last . . .



. . . This was not the direction I expected the conversation to go.

 

[Dire Bare]

I would think cutting off the horns would be the first thought; thinking through other options may not be something they have time for or consider worth time if they had it.
As for cutting off horns being time-consuming and full of effort, it seems like swinging a sword at a horn would be much easier and less time consuming than trying to think of what spell might work (plus having to use a spell slot, etc.) or trying to find something to cover it and then bind it to the horn so it won't come off and then hope that it would prevent an attack (and then potentially losing the resources of the padding and rope).

Is there a moral dilemma? Sure. But not cutting them off isn't more expedient.

Is the best tool to chop off some horns a sword or a saw? You are going to have a hard time taking off a creature's horns with a sword. Granted, we are playing a fantasy game and not a realistic farm sim . . . but, unless your ranger has a vorpal sword . . .

And really, *gasp*, we might have to use a spell slot?!?! Spells, and spell slots, are tools to solve problems, both in and out of combat. Ethically transporting a captive is a problem worthy of a spell.

You're spending a lot of effort to say, "Meh, cutting off part of a sentient being's body so as not to inconvenience the party is NBD." If you disagree that such an action would be inhumane, well, OK. We disagree. But, IMO, such an act is inhumane and evil, to be avoided by virtuous and "good" PCs. And also probably even to be avoided by evil and selfish PCs, at least those smart enough to want to avoid unnecessary negative consequences to their actions. Especially since there are alternatives. There are always alternatives.

Of course, we started with minotaurs as PCs, not as adversaries. Evil adversaries that captures the PCs would certainly have no problems chopping off their horns. Even well-intentioned adversaries might feel it is the best call. But that isn't something I would do to a PC, nerf their character. Unless we were working the act into a backstory, or playing a purposefully "dark" game, or if healing magic would easily solve the problem. And I would expect a well-roleplayed PC minotaur to feel violated, affronted, and perhaps even shamed over the loss of its horns, perhaps planning vengeance on the "monsters" who maimed it.

 

[Dire Bare]

In a fictional world such as D&D, to make absolutes that proclaim some things are okay in regards to humans (just one a multitude of the player race options) different than animals and monsters is opinion.
Sometimes you have substituted "person" for "human." Mechanically, because this is a game, "person" is not something that exists. Human does exist, but I believe you have it meaning something different than person. The word animal is used ambiguously - "beast" being the mechanical term. Even the term "monster" is ambiguous since humanoids are considered a type of monster (and we've already mentioned the Monstrous Adventurers such as Orcs in Volo's Guide; plus elves and others are one of the entries in the Monster Manual).

You may believe that humans have a right to cut off a rhinos horn. Others may disagree. I don't need you to help me understand the difference between a monster and a person.

But again, this is pretty far off my initial point which is: It really shouldn't be unheard of for an evil PC to consider doing something evil like cutting off a minotaur's horns.

I don't want to hijack this thread with more off topic conversation so will refrain from more responses.
If you'd like to continue, I'd be happy to respond if you want to make a different thread.

Dude, if you haven't figured out that the discussion over "animal", "monster", and "people/person" has nothing to do with mechanics . . . I guess we are done. If you can't see the difference, and how that affects what you can ethically do, yeah, we're done.

 

[Parmandur]

So, Crawford has been posting pictures on Twitter of Medium Centaurs from Dragonlance and Al'Quadim sourcebooks:

"Given all the centaur excitement, here's some D&D history. Centaurs have had a variety of cultures and sizes in D&D. The generic Large version is in the "Monster Manual." Medium varieties appear in Dragonlance (pictured) and Forgotten Realms books as far back as 1990. #DnD" https://t.co/5Ktp4HpXFE

"D&D has both: Large and Medium centaurs. We get to have our centaur cake and eat it too. Also, here's another Medium centaur, this time from the Forgotten Realms—a desert centaur from Al-Qadim." https://t.co/E0ivjvfqVa

I get a strong, strong vibe, together with the return of the Krynn Minotaurs, that this says something interesting about some product in the pipeline...View attachment 97566View attachment 97567

 

[CM]

Can we have an explanatory video where the cartoon centaur exclaims "I'm a monstrosity!" please?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

So, Crawford has been posting pictures on Twitter of Medium Centaurs from Dragonlance and Al'Quadim sourcebooks:

"Given all the centaur excitement, here's some D&D history. Centaurs have had a variety of cultures and sizes in D&D. The generic Large version is in the "Monster Manual." Medium varieties appear in Dragonlance (pictured) and Forgotten Realms books as far back as 1990. #DnD" https://t.co/5Ktp4HpXFE

"D&D has both: Large and Medium centaurs. We get to have our centaur cake and eat it too. Also, here's another Medium centaur, this time from the Forgotten Realms—a desert centaur from Al-Qadim." https://t.co/E0ivjvfqVa

I get a strong, strong vibe, together with the return of the Krynn Minotaurs, that this says something interesting about some product in the pipeline...View attachment 97566View attachment 97567

In the case of minotaurs, they are explicitly not the ones from the MM. These minotaurs are Krynn minotaurs, which are a race of civilized people who are physically smaller and less monstrous, and whose lore has nothing to do with other minotaurs. The ones in the MM are an entirely different species of hulking monstrosities. So it makes sense that they could have completely different stats (although I'm not totally satisfied with the stats they gave them), and the Krynn minotaurs work as 1st level PCs (or NPCs), while the others are multi-HD menaces.

In the case of centaurs...well that just isn't really the case. Sure, here are some pictures showing smaller centaurs. But where is the lore behind that? Are we talking about there actually being multiple types of centaurs on an individual world? Or are we saying that Krynn centaurs (for instance) are smaller than the MM centaurs? How about the Forgotten Realms ones? Okay, well then where are the MM centaurs? If both types are galloping around on the same world, we need some lore that tells us about that. It's kind of a big deal. Or should we assume they are taking the "runt" centaur angle for PC usage? (Which I vehemently detest, and means they won't get used in my games if it is the case, and I'll have to fight the urge to bring up the dumbness of the runt centaur design every time centaurs come up in discussion. Ain't nobody got time for that.) They need to tell us this stuff!

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Ah. I kind of suspected you would try to pull off something ridiculous like this.

Since no character build ever uses any weapon damage expression less than d6+modifier, having a d6 natural weapon is entirely and utterly insignificant.

That does not mean it's unreasonable.

At low levels, that is. Check out my other thread.

"Try to pull off" what? Comparing unarmed strikes to unarmed strikes?

Somehow I'm not finding any character builds in the rules. Or do you mean the character builds that people who are heavily focused on the mechanical aspects of character design online? Because that's one way to play the game, but it's certainly not the way.

A lot of our campaigns take place in cities and towns, where most of the local laws prohibit the drawing of steel first. So unarmed combat (and thus natural weapons) come into play a lot. Admittedly, if you're playing the APs or combat-focused adventures, then they may be less of a benefit, but it still provides a potential off-hand attack.

I'll check out your other thread, though.