General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Anyone else notice that if you play a 'monster race' in 4e...
A lot of the 'roleplaying info' text assumes that you will play your character as a 'noble and good rebel'----opposed to the racial type? For instance---all the examples of playing a Drow (from the FR Player's Handbook) indicate that the PC opposes the Drow races evil tendencies.
But what if you want to play a bad ass evil Drow who goes back to Menzobarrenzan every once in awhile and reports back to your Matron Mother?
__________________ Here's to hoping that Paizo's 3.75 will allow me to avoid 4e for as long as possible...
I noticed that too, but then again how would you explain a loyal drow hanging out with a bunch of surface dwellers and not slaughtering them or subjugating them or working counter to everything they want.
But what if you want to play a bad ass evil Drow who goes back to Menzobarrenzan every once in awhile and reports back to your Matron Mother?
2 Step process
1. Check the the DM, and feloow players, if such a character would be appropriate for the campaign.
2. If the DM agrees that the concept of workable in the campaign play your drow, if not, modify the character appropriately or choose another concept.
The rulebooks are written on the assumption that the players will be playing unaligned or good characters, with those playing pcs from typically evil races as outcasts from thier society. There is nothing stopping you from playing a drow as an evil character if it fits the game style of the group you are in just as there is nothing stopping you playing an evil halfling.
Neither myself nor my DM have any problems playing evil PC's. I am just commenting on what appears to be WoTC's assumptions regarding the 'Nobility' of PC's.
__________________ Here's to hoping that Paizo's 3.75 will allow me to avoid 4e for as long as possible...
Neither myself nor my DM have any problems playing evil PC's. I am just commenting on what appears to be WoTC's assumptions regarding the 'Nobility' of PC's.
The core game is based on the idea that you will generally be playing heroes, not anti-heroes. The core races are generally good and noble.
Besides, this is just flavour text. Ignore it if it gets in the way.
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
The assumptions are pretty clear in the PHB. They assume you will play heroes. There's a reason that the evil gods are in the DMG after all.
There's nothing stopping you from acting against those assumptions, but, the base assumption is that you are the "good guys". So, that is why you don't find rules for going back to talk to your matron mother.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
A lot of the 'roleplaying info' text assumes that you will play your character as a 'noble and good rebel'----opposed to the racial type? For instance---all the examples of playing a Drow (from the FR Player's Handbook) indicate that the PC opposes the Drow races evil tendencies.
It's not just the races. I forget the name now, but the "Shade Swordmage" Paragon Path in the FRPG assumed you were a rebel one.
__________________ I don't "tell stories" when I play D&D. I adventure. Afterward, when the gold is counted and the bodies piled high, we may tell stories about how it all went down. Or not.
Just seems like 4e is planting the 'You are a good guy, so play a good guy' angle harder than anything in 3/3.5. Many of the PrC and race descriptions in 3/3.5 relished being evil (or at least naughty)---and almost none of the base races/classes had any 'Dudley Do-right' language.
__________________ Here's to hoping that Paizo's 3.75 will allow me to avoid 4e for as long as possible...
I really don't think the idea is new to 4E. A monster race PC that was mixed in with a group of " good guy" races was assumed to be different from his cultural norm as a default. 4E is just coming out and stating the obvious to players who fail thier insight rolls.
Do you HAVE to play that way? Nope. A neutral or evil game can work fine if thats what the group wants to play. The important thing for a regular adventuring party to stay together is that they share common goals. Its important for the group to be in agreement about the type of game being played.
Here is an example of NOT being on the same page. We started a GURPS game some years ago. The setting was near future with some psionics and magic thrown in. The players were told that they would start the game as convicted criminals and the first session would be our escape during a transfer. We were very excited about the game and had fun creating our characters. After the initial escape scene we began our plans to continue the glorious evil career path that got us imprisoned. The GM was upset with us and we we couldn't figure out why.
As it turns out, his intention was that we would create unjustly imprisoned characters but he never came out and told us Big failure to communicate = bad game.
Just seems like 4e is planting the 'You are a good guy, so play a good guy' angle harder than anything in 3/3.5. Many of the PrC and race descriptions in 3/3.5 relished being evil (or at least naughty)---and almost none of the base races/classes had any 'Dudley Do-right' language.
Yes and no. Besides the obvious Paladin parts, there was certainly the implication in most publications that groups were good, or at least neutral. Outright evil groups were certainly not considered the norm.
Look at books like PHB 2 and you'll see that "mostly good" was generally considered the way most people would play. Even the races are described in mostly good terms - elves, dwarves, halflings = all good. Only humans were really described as being from all sorts of stock.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Well, the default assumption of the game is that PCs are Heroes, and Evil doesn't suit them. It's spelled out pretty clearly in the in the PHB, so while the aforementioned "racial rebel" is not terribly original, it's well in line with paradigm.
Quote:
But what if you want to play a bad ass evil Drow who goes back to Menzobarrenzan every once in awhile and reports back to your Matron Mother?
Do what you've probably always done, in every edition of the game: talk to your GM. That's a great concept, but I've never known a GM who would simply allow that one right out of the gate without some discussion first.
Part of it is certainly the emphasis placed on teamwork in 4e. The best way to survive a dangerous encounter is to be able to work together like a well-oiled machine. The classic "evil PC" as someone who might betray the rest of the party is probably not encouraged because such a character can do so much more damage by being recalcitrant, treacherous or simply untrustworthy. The group interface is more reliant on everyone doing their share, and one guy playing selfish in combat or skill challenges can wreck it for everyone (including himself).
Yes, I know, "just because a character is evil doesn't mean he can't trust the rest of the party and encourage them to trust him," but that's an approach that requires experience, careful play and knowledge of your fellow players. Given that 4e is very much aimed to be new player-friendly, I can see why that's downplayed. I wouldn't be surprised if the attitude is "If you're clever enough to play an evil PC without actually disrupting the game, then you're clever enough to do it without written encouragement."
__________________ -------
Ethan Skemp
CCP NA/White Wolf Publishing
I really don't think the idea is new to 4E. A monster race PC that was mixed in with a group of " good guy" races was assumed to be different from his cultural norm as a default. 4E is just coming out and stating the obvious to players who fail thier insight rolls.
Do you HAVE to play that way? Nope. A neutral or evil game can work fine if thats what the group wants to play. The important thing for a regular adventuring party to stay together is that they share common goals. Its important for the group to be in agreement about the type of game being played.
Here is an example of NOT being on the same page. We started a GURPS game some years ago. The setting was near future with some psionics and magic thrown in. The players were told that they would start the game as convicted criminals and the first session would be our escape during a transfer. We were very excited about the game and had fun creating our characters. After the initial escape scene we began our plans to continue the glorious evil career path that got us imprisoned. The GM was upset with us and we we couldn't figure out why.
As it turns out, his intention was that we would create unjustly imprisoned characters but he never came out and told us Big failure to communicate = bad game.
My group once had a similar situation. HERO system but everyone was supposed to start in jail and the game started with a jailbreak. Turns out only one of the characters decided to be falsely imprisoned and the rest were actually guilty of various crimes. It worked out ok, but as you said things like that sometimes do need to be clearly spelled out. Not everyone works on the same assumptions.
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
Neither myself nor my DM have any problems playing evil PC's. I am just commenting on what appears to be WoTC's assumptions regarding the 'Nobility' of PC's.
Yeah, they seem to be assuming that the PCs are "heroes" or something. Strange.
I noticed that too, but then again how would you explain a loyal drow hanging out with a bunch of surface dwellers and not slaughtering them or subjugating them or working counter to everything they want.
1) Political expediency. "It's easier for us to send along one of our agents to work with them than a much more costly duplicate effort, especially since it will just take one agent to steal the documents we want once the surface-dwellers sack the fortress where they're being kept."
2) The enemy of my enemy is my friend. "We are too busy fighting off the illithid to mount our own assault at this time. Go with them and steer them into defending our interests as early as possible, and not just their own."
3) Wolf in sheep's clothing. "Those idiots tell tales of Drizzt. If they want to assume you're another traitor like him, let them. They will give you access to the corridors of power, and when the time is right, you will make them very sorry indeed."
4) Diplomacy. "We cannot afford another war with the surface-dwellers, not now. If they realized our weakness, they would fall upon us and end us. You will be a token of our friendship and show them that we are not their enemies any more. Not until we have recovered our strength, anyway."
5) Espionage. "The sibyls say one of this group will sit upon a throne of his own one day. Find out who it will be and, if they will not be our friend, make sure his stay is very short indeed."
If good does not have to be stupid, evil shouldn't have to be, either.
Just seems like 4e is planting the 'You are a good guy, so play a good guy' angle harder than anything in 3/3.5. Many of the PrC and race descriptions in 3/3.5 relished being evil (or at least naughty)---and almost none of the base races/classes had any 'Dudley Do-right' language.
There are a lot of good reasons for that.
1) It immunizes you (you as a gamer and WOTC as a company) to a large degree to accusations that you're creating a pencil-and-paper 'murder simulator' (to just Jack Thompson's words about video games) if you can point to language that assumes your're playing a noble hero. Sure, there's not a lot of 'gamer hate' these days but all it takes is a slow news day plus a stupid kid and we'll be right back in the BADD ole days.
2) It's hard to design adventures for evil characters, and the adventures that would be easy to write usually range from uncomfortable to unwritable for a lot of people.
3) In my personal experience, the players that relish playing evil characters all the time are not people I want to hang around with. Almost universally they have unsavory attitudes, opinions and mannerisms. They can usually spout off a whole raft of reasons why they do it that paint them as mature edgy roleplayers who don't like being penned in by a false and arbitrary set of rules but after playing with them for a time, it becomes apparent that it's because a significant part of them is out for revenge fantasies on their pet obessions, or they really like fantasies of hurting people. I'd just as soon the rules didn't encourage them in this.
1) It immunizes you (you as a gamer and WOTC as a company) to a large degree to accusations that you're creating a pencil-and-paper 'murder simulator' (to just Jack Thompson's words about video games) if you can point to language that assumes your're playing a noble hero. Sure, there's not a lot of 'gamer hate' these days but all it takes is a slow news day plus a stupid kid and we'll be right back in the BADD ole days.
2) It's hard to design adventures for evil characters, and the adventures that would be easy to write usually range from uncomfortable to unwritable for a lot of people.
3) In my personal experience, the players that relish playing evil characters all the time are not people I want to hang around with. Almost universally they have unsavory attitudes, opinions and mannerisms. They can usually spout off a whole raft of reasons why they do it that paint them as mature edgy roleplayers who don't like being penned in by a false and arbitrary set of rules but after playing with them for a time, it becomes apparent that it's because a significant part of them is out for revenge fantasies on their pet obessions, or they really like fantasies of hurting people. I'd just as soon the rules didn't encourage them in this.
1) Is somewhat true. Though sometimes I think that more people have problems with the fantasy aspect. I know people who when you explain D&D and Cyberpunk to them think that Cyberpunk is better because it doesn't have witchcraft...
2) I think that's a matter of perspective. Just look at standard adventures and substitute humans or elves for orcs. The most fun I ever had was an all evil campaign revolving around a thieves' guild split. I played a honorable assassin/psionicist who followed every order to the letter and nothing more or less.
3) I believe that is stereotyping and not necessarily true. Sometimes an evil campaign can be fun as long as everyone leaves it at the table. Now, stereotypes exist for more than one reason and there are those people out there who fit that.
3) in my personal experience, the players that relish playing evil characters all the time are not people i want to hang around with. Almost universally they have unsavory attitudes, opinions and mannerisms. They can usually spout off a whole raft of reasons why they do it that paint them as mature edgy roleplayers who don't like being penned in by a false and arbitrary set of rules but after playing with them for a time, it becomes apparent that it's because a significant part of them is out for revenge fantasies on their pet obessions, or they really like fantasies of hurting people. I'd just as soon the rules didn't encourage them in this.
1)
If good does not have to be stupid, evil shouldn't have to be, either.
Those are all good reasons, but for the most part only temporary ones. For an evil character to work in/with/for a group of noble good guys for an extended length of time (like the length of a multi-year campaign) would constantly require the evil character to find new reasons to justify his stay, since the group will require him to do things that contradict his values on a regular basis. The other options are that he has to change his values, the rest of the group has to compromise theirs, or he has to assume the leadership of the groups objectives and make sure the rest of the group doesn't realize they are for sinister purposes.
This can be cool, but defiantly not for every group. It requires a certain level of role-playing maturity.
)---and almost none of the base races/classes had any 'Dudley Do-right' language.
Big failure to communicate = bad game.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
