I've reversed my stance on dragonborn and tieflings

JohnSnow said:

See, to me, those tieflings look cool. Diabolical? Certainly, but still cool. And a slight reimagining of appearance is par for the course with D&D races as far as I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Except I'd give them skin color that is closer to human. It doesn't have to be quite normal, just closer. Again, I prefer my tainted humans understated.

But... I can see where a clear paint job is easier and more recognizable, so no problem with the mini.

Will said:

Relique: I think the point is that folks shooting for evil and dark end up whiny broody nitwits.

Click to expand...

That is only true if you decide to play the "Woe is me! I'm misunderstood because I'm a member of a race that is evil aligned and I tend act unapproachable because of that even though I actually am nice once you get to know me" type.

Personally when I think of "dark and evil" I think of someone who is obviously evil but acts in such a way that you could never guess their motives due to the secrecy involved in what they do..

I kind of is irritated by this complain on angsty antiheroes... seems to imply worse - a preferal for stereotypical races set in stone. All evil, all dark, etc... No one different...

Voss said:

Given human prejudice already, they wouldn't stand a chance and would probably summarily wiped out.

Click to expand...

If that was true, then the "Curse of Ham" and "Curse of Cain" arguments used for the subjugation of African populations would have led to their complete annihilation, rather than their enslavement. If being involved with genocide was cause for the rest of humanity to kill you on sight, Pol Pot wouldn't have died under house arrest by natural means, nor would we have gone through the Nuremberg Trials.

There's far too much precedent showing that "utter annihilation" is more nonsensical, since humanity is more complex than you're giving us credit for.

Will said:

Relique: I think the point is that folks shooting for evil and dark end up whiny broody nitwits.

Click to expand...

I think the real point is that some elements of the anti-"evil" crowd lacks the imagination to properly handle anti-heroes, so they have to disparage people that enjoy the role as "emo," "brooding," or "angsty."

If you can't handle anti-heroes without them getting angsty, that sounds like a personal problem to me.

It's not that 'anti-evil' crowd can't handle them properly, is that the 'omfg I'm so darq' crowd have the creativity of a grapefruit, think that a cape will piss off daddy, and are about as creepy as Count Chocula.

When I see exceptions, I am very happy.

Doug McCrae said:

Doesn't everyone think that way though? It's a pretty good summary of the entire 4e forum.

A bunch of people saying "I like X therefore it should be in D&D. I don't like Y therefore it shouldn't."

Click to expand...

I seriously don't think that way, which is why I can't get bent out of shape about anything that's in 4e, or 3e/3.5e, for that matter. I have not the least expectation or even real desire that what I like or don't like should govern what is in D&D. Expecting it would be foolish, since WotC is not making the game for me. And wanting it would be almost as foolish, since what works for me doesn't work for every player out there.

So, for me, the 4e forum provides some interesting information, some intelligent comments and thoughts on the content of D&D, and a whole lot of amusement.

Will said:

It's not that 'anti-evil' crowd can't handle them properly, is that the 'omfg I'm so darq' crowd have the creativity of a grapefruit, think that a cape will piss off daddy, and are about as creepy as Count Chocula.

Click to expand...

Why do you feel the need to broadly insult an entire group because they have different tastes from yours? Is your self-esteem that low?

Okay, be honest. Who else snickered when they read this in one post...

theredrobedwizard said:

Who said anything about prostitieflings being submissive?

Click to expand...

...followed by this in the very next post...

Mercule said:

...and a tail-job wouldn't hurt, either.

Click to expand...

The Ubbergeek said:

I kind of is irritated by this complain on angsty antiheroes... seems to imply worse - a preferal for stereotypical races set in stone. All evil, all dark, etc... No one different...

Click to expand...

In a word, "No".

There is "different', as in, "I have a complex character, with subtle motivations, some literary influence, etc." Then there is "different," as in, "I'm the kind of person that shows my non-conformance to society and supreme individuality by ... dressing/looking the same as all the other people that want to irritate their parents, and going around in a brooding funk--also the same as my crowd." The latter was silly over a hundred years ago when young French intellectuals threw themselves into the Seine to drown, in reactive despair to the latest German philosopher. It hasn't improved with age.

Unfortunately, that crowd has totally ruined the environment for the three girls and two guys that want to play the angst-ridden anti-hero for other reasons, but that's the breaks.

(In case anyone missed the hyperbole, I did exaggerate slightly for effect. There could easily be twice as many reasonable angst-ridden anti-hero players out there, but I can only extrapolate from my own experience, since no one has hard data. I'll allow anti-heroes, on probation, or with demonstrated range. I'll allow angst to a known veteran player, for a heroic character--occasionally. But never the twain shall meet in my games. And if that doesn't satisfy, I can name at least three GMs in the same town that dress in black all the time, and will be happy to accommodate you. )