D&D 5E Gnolls: Playable or Not?

[Dualazi]

You state this like you are disagreeing with me, but it further supports my point.

Gnolls aren't included because these are specifically the Forgotten Realms Gnolls as opposed to the Eberron Gnolls or the Nentir Vale Gnolls, the later of which would naturally be a PC race. Similarly, Orcs and Goblins are perfectly fine because these are not Lord of the Rings Orcs and Goblins, but Forgotten Realms ones.

Similarly, the Elves are not the Hellboy ones, the Dwarves are not the Elder Scrolls ones and the settings of WarCraft and Game of Thrones do not get a direct influence on what is and is not included in the book.

I.e. the post I was responding to wasn't making a good point, regardless of whether the poster was being sarcastic or not.

My mistake then, reading comprehension fail.

 

[77IM]

Or.. you know... you could you know... possibly figure out how to compartmentalize one fictional world from another?

The OP asked for my opinion, and I gave it. In my fictional world, goblins, orcs, gnolls, etc. are too inherently evil to be playable.

I'm well aware that in World of Warcraft, goblins and orcs are cute and cuddly green dudes with orthodontic problems, but I've compartmentalized my fictional world from theirs.

I use PJ's LotR as an example that clearly portrays a monstrous race as monstrous. If you were in my gaming group and wanted to play a gnoll, I'd point to this portrayal and say, sorry, gnolls are like those guys but even worse.

 

[Parmandur]

If this were a generalized player resource (‘this’ meaning Volo’s), I’d agree wholeheartedly with you. It’s not. It’s explicitly an FR resource...

Not a difference anymore, and not entirely accurate: two Greyhawk characters are referenced in Volos Guide in the previews we have, this is a book with relevance to the multiverse, thanks to Elimenster.

 

[Jester David]

I've allowed gnolls in the past. And probably will again. I dig them, and rare gnolls in my world can find a place in a party.
My current campaign in that world has rather set-up gnolls as the antagonists. So I'm not lamenting their absence.

As I said in the now vanished thread, I can understand Mearl's reasoning for omitting gnolls. There's only so much room for races, being a book that has to cover three or four broad topics. There's a lot of "evil humanoid" races that could become PCs: gnolls, goblins, orcs, kobolds, hobgoblins, gith, lizardfolk, kenku, ratfolk, etc. Gnolls and orcs share a narrative overlap as CE burly warriors: it seems preferable to just include one and other different races (goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds) rather than have gnolls and orcs but no goblins or kobolds. Variety.
And there's a couple good reasons to go orc over gnoll: gnolls worshiping demons, being more feral, gnolls happily eating humanoid races, and orcs being more common in Warcraft and LotR.

If someone really wants to go gnoll, there's the Kobold Press book. Or they could reflavour the orc.

 

[Beleriphon]

Drow are normally neutral evil.

And more specifically in FR that's the ones from Menzoberrenzan. There is supposed to be a surface colony that has to to with Vhaeraun or Eilistraee. That's I think in 3rd Edition FRCS.

 

[Corpsetaker]

And more specifically in FR that's the ones from Menzoberrenzan. There is supposed to be a surface colony that has to to with Vhaeraun or Eilistraee. That's I think in 3rd Edition FRCS.

During 2nd edition they were chaotic evil. Most female drow in Menzo are chaotic evil because Lolth is a chaotic evil goddess. Yes there are good drow who worship Elistraee.

 

[GreenTengu]

The OP asked for my opinion, and I gave it. In my fictional world, goblins, orcs, gnolls, etc. are too inherently evil to be playable.

I'm well aware that in World of Warcraft, goblins and orcs are cute and cuddly green dudes with orthodontic problems, but I've compartmentalized my fictional world from theirs.

I use PJ's LotR as an example that clearly portrays a monstrous race as monstrous. If you were in my gaming group and wanted to play a gnoll, I'd point to this portrayal and say, sorry, gnolls are like those guys but even worse.

I think you need better primer to the warcraft world. Orcs and especially goblins are hardly as unrationally friendly as d&d dragonborn.

It is something Lord of the Rings and by extension d&d absolutely fails at-- the simple idea that you have a whole damn population of people and thus you have the depth and diversity of a whole population. And maybe there are reasons to come winto conflict with them that can be hardly resolved without violence. Yet, at the same time, maybe there arewaspects of them to admire and respect. The "other" isn't necesrarily simply comprised of the worst of your own culture.

All human conflicts.throughout history had this complication. Why can't a fictional scenario in a fantasy world carry the same.

Even Tolkien himself regretted the way he portrayed goblins and orcs upon retrospect because he felt it was wrong to say that any people were beyond the "grace of god". Had he written his setting into the future it is likely without sauron, the orcs (goblins weren't distinctly different) would have simply merged with humanity as a whole as all others did.

But neither WarCraft nor Lord of the Rings is Forgotten Realms or GreyHawk.

Neither is your personal homebrew world.

 

[77IM]

Ah, but as a D&D customer, my opinion does influence the products Wizards creates, including a hypothetical "playable gnolls" product. All of our opinions (in aggregate) matter much more than the accumulated lore of FR, Greyhawk, or whatever.

What I'm trying to say, is that I prefer that evil humanoids be portrayed much more evilly. There's a spectrum of portrayals of evil humanoids -- from the hideous darkspawn (Dragon Age) on one end, to Maleficent's bumbling henchmen (Sleeping Beauty) on the other. I prefer the more overtly monstrous end of the spectrum, which, as a consequence, disqualifies them as player characters.

It sounds like you prefer to imagine gnolls and their ilk somewhere closer to the middle of the spectrum, where they might be redeemed enough to become PCs. Is that right?

 

[77IM]

It is something Lord of the Rings and by extension d&d absolutely fails at-- the simple idea that you have a whole damn population of people and thus you have the depth and diversity of a whole population. And maybe there are reasons to come winto conflict with them that can be hardly resolved without violence. Yet, at the same time, maybe there arewaspects of them to admire and respect. The "other" isn't necesrarily simply comprised of the worst of your own culture.

All human conflicts.throughout history had this complication. Why can't a fictional scenario in a fantasy world carry the same.

A fictional scenario CAN work that way, but that's not what I want when I play D&D.

...Except when I DM for my children. They are 5 and 7, and actually we play No Thank You, Evil, rather than actual D&D. But the approach I take in those games is very much as you describe, and my children (and most children, in my admittedly limited experience) naturally play along: they WANT to resolve conflicts peacefully, reach an understanding, and redeem villains. They don't want to believe that some people are just bad.

When I play D&D, though, I'd rather not fight people at all, I'd rather fight monsters. So the more evil the monstrous humanoids are, the less culture and individuality they have, the less we have to worry about morality. They're not just "humans in funny suits." The fact that they are intelligent just makes them scarier monsters.

I don't feel this way about every campaign. For a long time, I've wanted to play an all-monster game, in which the monstrous races really are just "humans in funny suits," intentionally. But in general, for D&D-style gaming, I'd rather bring the righteous smackdown without having to consider all the real-world consequences.

 

[tom.zunder]

Kobold Press

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk