D&D 5E Monster Races and a quick sword thrust at the gate

If they love to Play an all evil campaign it is no Problem at all, but if they do the drizzt mob turned-into-good-guy Routine then i suggest chose Eberron as a setting, they allow humanoids being on the right side of things.

If someone at my table insists on playing a dragonborn or drow or in some cases even a halforc or tiefling (which i consider to be the least mob like because guess what, they are half human also) and it is a Setting like FR or GHK or DL then he is informed by me that many if not most of the normal Folks sees a mob in him first and will run away /try to kill him / refuse to ineract with him AND the Party will be considered evil at first glance.

Even more so in Ravenloft, there even elves or dwarves might have those Problems.

Also in e.g. FR dwarves and elves will not get along easy in my games. The least is a bit of banter, but there might even be occassionally hostility depending on local history.

Coroc said:

If they love to Play an all evil campaign it is no Problem at all, but if they do the drizzt mob turned-into-good-guy Routine then i suggest chose Eberron as a setting, they allow humanoids being on the right side of things.

If someone at my table insists on playing a dragonborn or drow or in some cases even a halforc or tiefling (which i consider to be the least mob like because guess what, they are half human also) and it is a Setting like FR or GHK or DL then he is informed by me that many if not most of the normal Folks sees a mob in him first and will run away /try to kill him / refuse to ineract with him AND the Party will be considered evil at first glance.

Even more so in Ravenloft, there even elves or dwarves might have those Problems.

Also in e.g. FR dwarves and elves will not get along easy in my games. The least is a bit of banter, but there might even be occassionally hostility depending on local history.

Click to expand...

WHy wouldn't you simply disallow the race? I mean if the party is going to have that many problems just because there's an odd ball race character in the group, wouldn't be a heck of a lot simpler just to ban that choice?

See, this is what I don't get. The player has indicated, in no uncertain terms, that he or she is interested in this character. For whatever reason. Doesn't really matter. Instead of actively punishing the player (unless, of course, the player is also in on the idea and LIKES the idea of being randomly assaulted, in which case, it's perfectly groovy) for that choice, why not actually take the time to work with that player and come up with a way to fit that character into the group and the campaign.

The way I see the OP is that there is an obvious mismatch in expectations. The DM sets up a new campaign and says that anything goes. The players come with 4 odd ball characters. They quite clearly want to play that. What's the point of rigging the game for failure (again, unless that's what the player's want, in which case, that can be very interesting too)?

What's the benefit of allowing a PC race and then going out of your way to punish the players for taking that choice?

This: "Some of my players love to play monster races like goblin,kobold and Lizard man, but regardless of what I tell them expect to be able to just walk on in to any town and city. This has lead to a few pc deaths."

...really isn't something that should happen, is it? Unless it's a very casual game where characters die all the time, or something. Otherwise, it seems one either comes up with a story to accommodate the (repeated) choice by the player(s), or just outright forbid particular races. For all the talk of "entitled players" in this thread, I'm reading a lot of "power-mad DMs" too. I write this as someone who DMs 90% of the time, though admittedly for a group of friends.

In our current collection of one shots (that's dangerously close to becoming a campaign), we have lizardmen as slaves (the degenerated ancestors of the now-extinct Dragonborn).

They are captured, kept docile with tranquilising brews and trained for various domestic tasks, from farming to fetching.

Much like you, @GameOgre , I've made it clear the role of lizardmen in the setting. Explained how the dominant society sees and treats them. Emphasised that any lizardmen characters would be considered property and, at best, be considered out-casts.

And ya know what? Folks are aok with it. It's part of the appeal. Play an outcast, something exotic, a race that's not 'off-the-rack'. And I reckon that's the crux of the issue. If a certain race or class is exotic then whatever makes it exotic should be reflected during play. If Aasimars have not been sighted for centuries, the player should expect their Aasimar character to recieve more attention than say, the human character. If Aasimar's are known from legend to be cold, brutal tyrants then said attention may lead to violence. And if Aasimar are considered an ancient enemy, then the player should expect the potential for violence to be part and parcel of their dealings with the appropriate NPCs.

Personal, I believe the problem your experiencing is one of execution - nobody likes having their characters killed off for 'no good reason' (subjective, I know...). If you're adamant with enforcing your setting's theme/fluff, be sure everyone's received the message regarding certain choices and their consequences.

Of course, the trick here is to double-up on the communication. It's one thing stating that X race is not welcomed/well received. I'd consider this a general warning. And, like most folks, I'd assume my players would have lots of other things to focus on/get excited about and as such might forget or play down such a warning. So we make sure to reinforce our warning in-game, clearly and in a manner that gives the player a chance to adapt/react without resorting to a dramatic confrontation.

For example, on approach to the gates, Filthy Peasant NPC A spies our player's character, and spits a warning. ''Your kind aint welcome round here. Be glad when they run yer through at the gates!'. Something simple, direct and on ...point (!).

Follow this in-game warning with a brief recap of the expected dangers of playing such and such a race in the setting and then, if the player insists on walking up to heavily armed individuals whose job it is to stop/slay enemies then.. well, it was their well-informed choice, after all...

Of course, saying all this, if the players really want to play a magical mix of monsters in a fantasy world where everyone gets along - and you really want to play a game where there a racial/special/whatever tensions, some of which may lead to violent consequences then simply put, you and your group want different games. Either seek a compromise or find another group.

Still.. ...a fantasy world without a healthy dollop of racism would be, to my mind, rather dull. Even going way back there's the trope of 'Elves and Dwarves do not like each other very much and have a tendency to express their mutual disdain with hostile actions'. And nobody likes goblins - not even goblins like goblins!

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] i do disallow races according to a campain, OP does not seem to be able to. I should have written also, that if my players insist they want to Play Mobsfor a Change, then i would design an all evil campaign for them. But then it is merciless Paladins and Militias hunting for them, while they have to maintain their rank in their own brutal society.

With my Group i did not have this kind of problem, because most of them like playing humans, and most of them think the demihuman part of a Group should not exceed 50%. Part of their reason for playing humans is, that some of them like good RP and they think it is much harder to RP a believable elf or dwarf and it gets worse if you are other than the core 4-5 races.

For my current greyhawk campaign even elves and dwarfes and halflings are not allowed. I did allow Humans, Gnomes, Halfelves, Halforcs and Tieflings of a lawful origin (devil descendants). The latter two being often results of war / rape rather than of love and relationship. But since all of the three are part human, they are accepted into human Society.

The Players chose to be a halfelf a Gnome and two humans, (with the Gnome sometimes being mistaken for a human child so there goes diversity )

[MENTION=6846794]Gardens & Goblins[/MENTION]

// "They are captured, kept docile with tranquilising brews and trained for various domestic tasks, from farming to fetching." //

Lol: Lizzy fetch! Who is a good Croco?

Coroc said:

[MENTION=6846794]Gardens & Goblins[/MENTION]

// "They are captured, kept docile with tranquilising brews and trained for various domestic tasks, from farming to fetching." //

Lol: Lizzy fetch! Who is a good Croco?

Click to expand...

Sadly, pretty much - 'cept with baggage and goods

TheHobgoblin said:

If you are too stupid, too mean, or just generally too crap to be able to do this... don't be a DM. Just quit. Explain that you are so bigotted and small-minded that you cannot help but force your personal preferences on everyone else and are driven to assault anyone who has preferences or ideas different from your own. You have however many other people at the table who can do the job and absolutely certainly do the job better.

Click to expand...

Probably not.

Another issue I have with this take is Human races are sort of coded as "white" while monster races have been coded as "non-white" and I hate that unintentional racism. I mean if you have magic what is so hard about a goblin wanting to be a courageous Paladin?

Chuck Ocenasek said:

Another issue I have with this take is Human races are sort of coded as "white" while monster races have been coded as "non-white" and I hate that unintentional racism. I mean if you have magic what is so hard about a goblin wanting to be a courageous Paladin?

Click to expand...

Strangely, I don't have this issue at all. Must be a personal thing.