D&D 5E (+)What Ubiquitous DnD Tropes Get It Totally Wrong?

[Charlaquin]

The MM they define humanoid: "They have language and culture, few if any innate magical abilities (though most humanoids can learn spellcasting), and a bipedal form. "

They speak and they're bipedal. Doesn't make them human any more than manuals are masculine.

Those things are true of humanoids but they are evidently not the whole of the definition of humanoid because a lot of non-humanoid creatures meet that description.

 

[Oofta]

Those things are true of humanoids but they are evidently not the whole of the definition of humanoid because a lot of non-humanoid creatures meet that description.

Just quoting the rules. Anything beyond that is a ruling and up to the DM.

P.S. I am going to respond to your other longer post eventually. Probably.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just quoting the rules. Anything beyond that is a ruling and up to the DM.

And according to the rules, a creature is not a humanoid if it lacks the humanoid creature type.

P.S. I am going to respond to your other longer post eventually. Probably.

Cool, I appreciate the discussion.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

If demons have free will then they shouldn’t have fixed alignments either, and that just wouldn’t make any sense IMO.

Imo, that requires some assumptions about both free will, these beings, chaos, and evil. Mortals arent born a blank slate. They already have characteristics. Exemplars are at least in this way the same. They are just not a mix. They are pure. That doesnt mean no free will. Mortals are specimens of a mixture of tendancies. Demons are too. Why should pure evil not have choices? If their identity and essence of their being is evil thats not so much a fllack of free will at play. Its a will that WILL not be anything but chaotic evil. Its easy to get cause and effect backwards on this. They arent slaves to the will of evil. They ARE the will of evil. They still have freedom of choice. They will make many free will choices not strictly related to chaos or evil. But if the matter at hand is relevamt to those they WILL choose evil. Not that they have to. They WILL. Its who they are.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Evil isnt their master. Its them. They might choose to do good under the same rationale that you might WILLINGLY cut off your arm to escape a sinking ship or might donate a piecebof your liver to save your child (not a good act for a demon but self destructive and mistakable as good)

 

[Oofta]

And according to the rules, a creature is not a humanoid if it lacks the humanoid creature type.

But it's still your ruling whether some creatures are more human based on being humanoid. An ape may be closer genetically (assuming it applies considering "magic") than say a lizard man.

So a "beast" in some ways is more similar to human than a scaly humanoid. In other ways they will be less so.

To me the generic classification doesn't really mean a lot.

 

[Charlaquin]

Imo, that requires some assumptions about both free will, these beings, chaos, and evil. Mortals arent born a blank slate. They already have characteristics.

I don’t know that I agree with this, but fortunately I don’t think it’s crucial to the argument.

Exemplars are at least in this way the same. They are just not a mix. They are pure. That doesnt mean no free will. Mortals are specimens of a mixture of tendancies. Demons are too. Why should pure evil not have choices? If their identity and essence of their being is evil thats not so much a fllack of free will at play. Its a will that WILL not be anything but chaotic evil. Its easy to get cause and effect backwards on this. They arent slaves to the will of evil. They ARE the will of evil. They still have freedom of choice. They will make many free will choices not strictly related to chaos or evil.

Is freedom of choice the same thing as free will, though? In a deterministic world free will can’t exist but people can still be said to make choices.

But if the matter at hand is relevamt to those they WILL choose evil. Not that they have to. They WILL. Its who they are.

If demon WILL NOT choose to behave contrary to its nature, can it truly be said that it CAN choose to do so? I would argue no. And if it can’t choose to behave contrary to its nature, can its will truly be said to be free? Again, I would say no. Perhaps it could be said that they have... constrained will? Limited will? But not free in my assessment.

 

[Charlaquin]

But it's still your ruling whether some creatures are more human based on being humanoid. An ape may be closer genetically (assuming it applies considering "magic") than say a lizard man.

So a "beast" in some ways is more similar to human than a scaly humanoid. In other ways they will be less so.

Depends on the setting, really. At any rate, all humanoids have something in common that human-looking outsiders do not: they are all native to the material plane.

To me the generic classification doesn't really mean a lot.

Ok, but then it’s you who is choosing to ignore a commonality that exists between humans and orcs that does not exist between humans and demons (or orcs and demons). Your claim that orcs are no more human than demons are is demonstrably not supported by the text.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't have a problem with non-human creatures not being human.

Neither does anyone else.

Stop assigning positions to people that they aren’t advocating.

 

[Oofta]

Neither does anyone else.

Stop assigning positions to people that they aren’t advocating.

Huh? I mean ... what? We have @Charlaquin arguing that orcs are like humans because they're humanoid. Other people are saying that it's racist to label orcs as evil and that the classification has a basis on colonialism.

I never said anything about what you specifically think.