The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
I do too, but it's what makes the DC 10 so very sad. Consider the plight of a Good Gnoll with the entry as written. They come across a band of PCs and, if they don't have initiative, they could be dead in a round. The PCs will see a Gnoll. They will want to roll a Knowledge Check and then they get the entry's DC 10 or 15. Exactly why shouldn't they kill the Gnoll on site? How could Good Gnoll societies even form if they're constantly attacked because what average Joe Farmer knows is that they are Evil and Evil needs to be killed where it's found, right?
But that is also something I might find interesting if it came up in a campaign. If everyone thought Gnolls were just evil and slaughtered a band of them, then found evidence to the contrary that this band was out protecting people, or had just defeated an evil war lord of a nearby village, that would definitely be memorable (and unexpected).
They aren't but they're often a result of that. And I agree. I personally loved games like Doom or ones where I can freely attack something and not worry that it's an immoral thing to do. I tend to worry about that sort of thing too much as is.
Like I said above, I'm not sure what I'm trying to say is making any sense. Everyone seems to be taking it in a way I don't mean or aren't really seeing any sort of issue with having the first thing known about Gnolls is how Evil they are. Everyone seems to keep thinking that I'm saying, somehow, that the Narrator can't change this. It's really not the point I'm trying to get at, but I don't know how to state it and already, I think, people have decided I'm just complaining to complain.
I still have to read and respond to your other response to my post, but if I misunderstood your point, I would definitely like to know more about your perspective so I understand what you mean. And I also appreciate that your responses here.
Just to be clear, I got that you understood the narrator can change things. I think what I was trying to say is back when I started (I began in the mid-late 80s and really cut my teeth as a GM in the 90s), the assumptions that the GM would change things was much more the default (so I think we often gave less weight or concern to the rules as written). For instance a lot of us completely ignored alignment as written, but we also weren't worried about alignment as it was officially handled, coming into 'alignment' with how we used it.
But obviously this point only goes so far. We are free to change whatever we want, but at a certain point the game isn't worth changing. So maybe the issue you are having is something here is too frequently a problem and that is the real matter.
And that's where my problem lies. The designers went out of their way to, specifically, state that there are, in fact Good Gnolls out there, but the DC checks and most of the info they provided is on the Evil ones. Now, they could have done this differently. They could have started with "while Gnolls are often known for their bloody raids, as many are known for their strong community ties and willingness to work with others" or something similar. The DC 10 would, then, reveal that there's a mix of info on Gnolls, some of it making them out to be Evil, and some of it making them out to be Good. This would, at least, allow Good Gnolls a chance to parlay with the PCs without there being a sort of "attack first, ask questions later" thing going on.
And, again, I am not saying that the Narrator can't alter what the DC check provides in terms of info based on the campaign. I am saying that if the designers wanted to emphasize there are also Good Gnolls then the entry should not read like a "why you should attack and kill this thing on site".
So is your issue that the DC for the knowledge check makes it unlikely the players will have knowledge of good gnolls? I will take a closer look at the entry to make sure I am following you. If that is the issue, I don't know I would have a strong opinion on it in either direction. Wanting a piece of information to be more readily available to the PCs seems a pretty reasonable position to me if that is the one you are taking (I'd have to look at the entry and think a bit more to know if I agree, but I certainly don't find the argument itself a bad one).
I am guessing though that if they set that information as a higher DC the reason was they wanted it to be harder to get or they felt it wasn't as widely known. I will say this: knowledge checks and monster info is a tricky thing when it comes to design. I have been dealing with that myself and it can very hard to know what information should be available on a knowledge check.
I just don't see a problem with the occasional "these things are related to demons and like to eat people" group of beings. There are very few left. Not everything has to be grey. And, as many have pointed out, it is up to the DM and easy to change if you want.
What I would do is just reskin the MM gnolls. Since I like the idea that they are created out of hyenas (I have great images of them being birthed out of one), I'd keep that but expand it to any sort of animal of the right size, with the resulting creature looking like a demonically bestial anthro version of whatever the animal was. Instead of humanoid (fiend) make them beast (fiend). Then just rename them to something else, like Ravagers.
Actually, you could make them into something like anthro darkenbeasts (2e stats) (3e description). The spell to make them isn't listed on either of those pages, but IIRC it was close enough to animate dead or create undead (except you didn't need to reassert control) that you could easily make a new spell. This way, you can have them being horrible kill-on-sight monsters but they wouldn't be a people. They'd be magical creations.
I do too, but it's what makes the DC 10 so very sad. Consider the plight of a Good Gnoll with the entry as written. They come across a band of PCs and, if they don't have initiative, they could be dead in a round. The PCs will see a Gnoll. They will want to roll a Knowledge Check and then they get the entry's DC 10 or 15. Exactly why shouldn't they kill the Gnoll on site? How could Good Gnoll societies even form if they're constantly attacked because what average Joe Farmer knows is that they are Evil and Evil needs to be killed where it's found, right?
A good gnoll or good-gnoll-society doesn’t exist outside the DMs intention to create one. If the DM creates such a society in their game world and they don’t signpost that they are good, that’s either an error or intentional. Either way the DM has total control about what information is described.
The same could be said for those bandits hiding in the woods… who also happen to be Robin Hood’s Merry Men. If the DM doesn’t indicate this to be the case how can they be surprised when the bandits get defeated?
Roleplaying is about creating stories. There is a good story in the tension between a group of unusually good gnolls being misunderstood by over zealous/paranoid farmers. Particularly when the PCs get involved. Better than Gnolls being subsumed into the mass of lukewarm anthropomorphic animal humanoids.
Posted on another forum, but might be food for thought here.
I think that the in-progress ICON RPG by Tom Parkinson-Morgan from Massif press has a good description when it talks about the difference between Monsters and Kin. The book isn't in bullet points, I just like bullet points. A lot. Bold text is in the book, not my personal emphasis.
Monsters
The creatures that stalk the halls of the ruins are a mix of mundane beasts that have been warped by the ruins’ influence, native fauna that have grown accustomed to dungeons, terrifying horrors from beyond the realms of understanding, and the remnants of the old empire, animated by the ruins’ magic.
Monsters are dangerous and beyond reasoning with. Though some have some shred of intelligence, they are motivated by hunger, pain, survival, or a supernatural desire for destruction. Monsters can’t be bargained with and have simple motivations for violence (food, territory, aggression, or survival). In many cases (but not all), monsters will fight to the death.
Kin
The ruins draw all kinds of adventurers and contenders, seeking wealth and glory, and not all of them are pure in intent. Even outside of the ruin, in the cities and towns of the world, people of all kinds plot to exploit, hurt, or deceive their fellow Kin for personal gain.
When Kin commit or threaten violence, it’s always motivated. Kin can be bargained with (even if that bargain on your end is giving up all your money or throwing down your weapons in surrender!), they’re people after all. Kin will almost never fight to the death and will often flee or surrender if their lives are threatened.
I still have to read and respond to your other response to my post, but if I misunderstood your point, I would definitely like to know more about your perspective so I understand what you mean. And I also appreciate that your responses here.
Just to be clear, I got that you understood the narrator can change things. I think what I was trying to say is back when I started (I began in the mid-late 80s and really cut my teeth as a GM in the 90s), the assumptions that the GM would change things was much more the default (so I think we often gave less weight or concern to the rules as written). For instance a lot of us completely ignored alignment as written, but we also weren't worried about alignment as it was officially handled, coming into 'alignment' with how we used it.
But obviously this point only goes so far. We are free to change whatever we want, but at a certain point the game isn't worth changing. So maybe the issue you are having is something here is too frequently a problem and that is the real matter.
So is your issue that the DC for the knowledge check makes it unlikely the players will have knowledge of good gnolls? I will take a closer look at the entry to make sure I am following you. If that is the issue, I don't know I would have a strong opinion on it in either direction. Wanting a piece of information to be more readily available to the PCs seems a pretty reasonable position to me if that is the one you are taking (I'd have to look at the entry and think a bit more to know if I agree, but I certainly don't find the argument itself a bad one).
I am guessing though that if they set that information as a higher DC the reason was they wanted it to be harder to get or they felt it wasn't as widely known. I will say this: knowledge checks and monster info is a tricky thing when it comes to design. I have been dealing with that myself and it can very hard to know what information should be available on a knowledge check.
So, to try and show what I'm getting at, here's part of the entry for Gnolls as it currently exists:
Gnolls are hyena-headed, demon-worshiping humanoids whose chilling laughter terrifies the quarry of their bloody hunts. They roam the borderlands and raid humanoid settlements, killing and eating their victims and pillaging weapons and treasure. Gnolls prefer to hunt at night, trusting the darkness and their echoing barks and laughter to disorient and terrify their prey.
Demonbound Raiders. Gnolls worship the demon lord that they believe created them from hyenas. Every adult member of a gnoll pack has undergone a horrific initiation rite binding them to this demon. In battle, they invite the demon to drive them into a destructive frenzy. Gnolls make no alliances, and in the bloodlust of battle they sometimes turn on even other members of their tribe. The only creatures gnolls don’t attack are the hyenas that follow their packs, feeding on the carrion that gnolls leave behind.
Gnolls who aren’t initiated into their demonic cult can be peaceful, and some gnoll warriors manage to turn their back on their pack and live among other creatures, conquering but never truly escaping their fiendish bloodlust.
Legends and Lore With a Nature or Religion check, characters can learn the following: DC 10 Gnolls are hyena-like humanoids that raid border settlements and slaughter the inhabitants. DC 15 Gnoll warriors worship demons and sometimes allow themselves to become possessed in battle.
The area I put in bold is my emphasis. Now, the DC 10 isn't great, but it's an average roll and what most people are likely to know. I wish it were more of a neutral knowledge check. The DC 15, however, only further encourage the line of thought that a Gnoll is something you must fight or face it attacking and killing you instead. There's no more advanced knowledge about peaceful Gnolls (despite the entry literally having it there), and while the Narrator can alter these (or anything else), by putting the info in a way that's not on the DCs the designers made sure there was no way a party could get that info. The answer to "Hey, there's a Gnoll, what should we do?" is covered in two DCs neither of which would encourage a peaceful encounter.
And how this dips into RL stuff is that certain groups have different religions, oft vilified or said to be demon worship without much cause. Then too, we all know the way humans were treated over stupid things like their appearances. Do we really want that to continue in our fantasy worlds? Even if it's "realistic" it's still so exhausting. I HATE seeing that stuff over and over and over again. I want the designers to be better than "oh this species has always been evil so let's leave it that way until enough people complain about it!"
So, to try and show what I'm getting at, here's part of the entry for Gnolls as it currently exists:
Gnolls are hyena-headed, demon-worshiping humanoids whose chilling laughter terrifies the quarry of their bloody hunts. They roam the borderlands and raid humanoid settlements, killing and eating their victims and pillaging weapons and treasure. Gnolls prefer to hunt at night, trusting the darkness and their echoing barks and laughter to disorient and terrify their prey.
Demonbound Raiders. Gnolls worship the demon lord that they believe created them from hyenas. Every adult member of a gnoll pack has undergone a horrific initiation rite binding them to this demon. In battle, they invite the demon to drive them into a destructive frenzy. Gnolls make no alliances, and in the bloodlust of battle they sometimes turn on even other members of their tribe. The only creatures gnolls don’t attack are the hyenas that follow their packs, feeding on the carrion that gnolls leave behind.
Gnolls who aren’t initiated into their demonic cult can be peaceful, and some gnoll warriors manage to turn their back on their pack and live among other creatures, conquering but never truly escaping their fiendish bloodlust.
Legends and Lore With a Nature or Religion check, characters can learn the following: DC 10 Gnolls are hyena-like humanoids that raid border settlements and slaughter the inhabitants. DC 15 Gnoll warriors worship demons and sometimes allow themselves to become possessed in battle.
The area I put in bold is my emphasis. Now, the DC 10 isn't great, but it's an average roll and what most people are likely to know. I wish it were more of a neutral knowledge check. The DC 15, however, only further encourage the line of thought that a Gnoll is something you must fight or face it attacking and killing you instead. There's no more advanced knowledge about peaceful Gnolls (despite the entry literally having it there), and while the Narrator can alter these (or anything else), by putting the info in a way that's not on the DCs the designers made sure there was no way a party could get that info. The answer to "Hey, there's a Gnoll, what should we do?" is covered in two DCs neither of which would encourage a peaceful encounter.
And how this dips into RL stuff is that certain groups have different religions, oft vilified or said to be demon worship without much cause. Then too, we all know the way humans were treated over stupid things like their appearances. Do we really want that to continue in our fantasy worlds? Even if it's "realistic" it's still so exhausting. I HATE seeing that stuff over and over and over again. I want the designers to be better than "oh this species has always been evil so let's leave it that way until enough people complain about it!"
If you look at the gather information downtime activity on AG428 it's not a significant cost to gather information before going off to do something that might encounter gnolls, you as the GM could loredump all kinds of stuff in there about gnolls that broke their demonbound link.
If you look at the gather information downtime activity on AG428 it's not a significant cost to gather information before going off to do something that might encounter gnolls, you as the GM could loredump all kinds of stuff in there about gnolls that broke their demonbound link.
Yes, but, again, that's really not the point. The point is that the designers created a species that can be just as good or evil as any other, but without Narrator intervention, what PCs should know is that it's just fine to kill a Gnoll on sight since they're likely responsible for murder, demonically powered, or both.
