D&D General DnD Stereotypes In The Home Game

[jayoungr]

Two players in my group created PCs who were half-sisters--a half-elf and a half-orc who shared the same human mother. And their characters grew up together and basically got along, or at least, had as good a relationship as an average pair of siblings would.

 

[Charlaquin]

That sounds pretty fun!


That all sounds a lot like my home game! My halflings are a bit more 4e with hints of kender, because I like gnomes more than halflings and I want them to be more different from each other, but otherwise, yeah.

Especially the nation/religions thing. There are elements of a given race having originated a faith, philosophy, or founded a nation, but ethnostates are extremely rare in my games.

Likewise, there are not really ethnostates in my games either. When I say “dwarven settlement,” I mean a settlement where dwarves are in power. There would absolutely be people of other races in a “dwarven settlement,” but dwarves would be more common there than in, say, a human-controlled settlement, and the local government is largely dwarf-run. There aren’t a ton of non-elves living in most elf communes, but it’s far from unheard of, and plenty of elves live among other races outside of those communes. Gnoll tribes do tend to be entirely gnoll, but they’re pretty hostile to just about everyone.

I also don’t divide the religions in my setting along racial lines, but some religions do have their origins bound up with a particular peoples. As an example, archfae worship is typically associated with elves, and it is the dominant practice within many elven communes. But animism is also pretty common among elves, especially wood elves, and an elf living among other peoples is likely to participate in the local religious customs. This is likely to mean celestial worship, as it is one of the most widespread religions in the world, and has been very successful at incorporating elements of other faiths to encourage conversion - if none of the celestial gods is a good analogue for your deity of choice, chances are they at least have a patron saint that is.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Two players in my group created PCs who were half-sisters--a half-elf and a half-orc who shared the same human mother. And their characters grew up together and basically got along, or at least, had as good a relationship as an average pair of siblings would.

I did something like that with a good buddy, years ago.

Also did something similar in a different group, where one was a giant Dwarf and the other was a dwarf Giant, become blood brothers due to their similar outlier status.

 

[Charlaquin]

Related to the thread topic:

I think i this is a little different. One of my goals in subverting the common racial tropes and making them in-universe stereotypes is to make them my own without changing the base lore surrounding those races. Most those stereotypes do exist, but they are literally stereotypes. Where I do go much further outside the base lore is with monsters. For example, in my setting goblin is an umbrella term for a broad variety of unseelie fae creatures (which includes the various goblinoid subtypes), and orcs are to goblins as elves are to the seelie fae. Kobolds in my setting resemble neither dragons nor dogs, but instead are very ratlike. My dragons still come in metallic and chromatic varieties, but the metals are the seven classic alchemical metals, and the colors are the colors associated with the four broadest stages of the Great Work. Most stuff stuff you think you know about aberrations is wrong, except for the broadest strokes.

 

[SpellJammer16]

3) Well I must say in my world Halfings are not hobbits... They are Kender!
After all I did read Dragonlance before ever reading that Tolkien stuff.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I... almost never use any of these tropes.

Villagers will sometimes (verbally) attack other humanoids that look strange if the village had been subject to monstrous attacks in the past, but that's all...

I tend to run things the same way. In my worlds, all these races have been around for centuries/millennia, so I don’t really see them acting the same as stereotypical IRL humans do when they meet different looking strangers.
And even IRL, humans aren’t as generally xenophobic as some posters make them out to be. There are extremes, but most people are strongly in between them. Including in the medieval era.

Two players in my group created PCs who were half-sisters--a half-elf and a half-orc who shared the same human mother. And their characters grew up together and basically got along, or at least, had as good a relationship as an average pair of siblings would.

Nice! I’ve done similar with making a new character for a campaign with a semi-rotating cast, with a human and half-elf who have a third half sibling that is a tiefling.
My buddy and I had human and half-orc Tharashk cousins for a while, as well, in an Eberron game.

Likewise, there are not really ethnostates in my games either. When I say “dwarven settlement,” I mean a settlement where dwarves are in power. There would absolutely be people of other races in a “dwarven settlement,” but dwarves would be more common there than in, say, a human-controlled settlement, and the local government is largely dwarf-run. There aren’t a ton of non-elves living in most elf communes, but it’s far from unheard of, and plenty of elves live among other races outside of those communes. Gnoll tribes do tend to be entirely gnoll, but they’re pretty hostile to just about everyone.

I also don’t divide the religions in my setting along racial lines, but some religions do have their origins bound up with a particular peoples. As an example, archfae worship is typically associated with elves, and it is the dominant practice within many elven communes. But animism is also pretty common among elves, especially wood elves, and an elf living among other peoples is likely to participate in the local religious customs. This is likely to mean celestial worship, as it is one of the most widespread religions in the world, and has been very successful at incorporating elements of other faiths to encourage conversion - if none of the celestial gods is a good analogue for your deity of choice, chances are they at least have a patron saint that is.

Yeah that sounds a lot like nations and faiths in my worlds.

 

[Oofta]

I don't really have much of an opinion on how other people run their games. Orcs are not the creations of Gruumsh, not hard wired to be chaotic evil? Maybe they have more flexibility than the hard lines indicated in the MM? Go for it! I do think FR is kind of "mushy" at times, but it's just a personal preference. I don't want to anthropomorphize non-human races, I want them to be distinct. That goes for elves just as much as orcs. I don't want elves to be humans with pointy ears and a long life span.

As far as depth, I only have so much time to document and explain my game. The more I have to balance in my head space when coming up with campaign concepts the better off I am. For example, in a previous campaign gnolls were a big problem in the region. They had a slightly different origin (an evil comotose god that had been defeated by Thor long ago), but everything else was things I could just pull in from various sources without having to retcon. The more powerful versions are so obsessed with blood lust that even while dying they still strike out.

Or take orcs. The orcish priest (forget what they're called) has a spell list that fits the base assumption, other leader-type orcs have features that just fit the canonical description of orcs. The goblin captain(?) is a coward that sacrifices other goblins to protect himself and so on.

I can read the fluff on the monster and be done, as can my players. That frees up conceptual space for a bunch of other fluff. I accept that "orcs are evil" is just one of many simplifications in D&D. I just don't see a lot of gain from diluting the nature of the races. In addition I view the alignment of MM entries and the fluff of where they fit in as a core rule. I don't see a need to change it because the PCs will always need bad guys to fight.

Also, where does it end? Are demons no longer evil? Are ghouls suddenly Fallout ghouls, just victims of some magical energy that transformed them?

Not sure any of that helps explain much of anything. For me having a world where basic assumptions are easy to grasp makes the stories flow more easily for me. The complexities I do add stand out more.

 

[DWChancellor]

An interesting trope that no one has brought up is the undead.

I threw my PCs for a total loop in my last (3 year campaign) when they encountered a lawful good paladin... vampire. They had recruited a (previously full) demigod to help them "free" a village under the dominion of the vampire. Their first hint something was wrong was when the paladin rebuked her former god and caused him to radically diminish.

I bent the "rules" on undead because most of the world had been converted very rapidly by extraplanar shenanigans. Gosh, it was incredibly fun working around that. The lowby undead they'd fought previously were mindless abominations so when they found something intelligent...

And that's why I love tropes and usually leave them be.

 

[BookBarbarian]

1) Dwarves and Elves are racist toward each other

2) Half-orcs whose parents love each other are a rare exception, or even just nonexistent.

3) Halflings are just hobbits.

4) Villagers will literally attack “ugly” races on sight, even if they aren’t doing anything threatening and are well groomed and dressed. Ugly here means “monstrous” or otherwise very very not human (anything from Gnolls to Dragonborn)

Stout Halflings are a little hobbity but that's as far as I've gone with any of these.

The one I often get is if I'm playing a barbarian he must be stupid, despite the fact that he speaks, reads, and writes in 3 different languages.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't really have much of an opinion on how other people run their games. Orcs are not the creations of Gruumsh, not hard wired to be chaotic evil? Maybe they have more flexibility than the hard lines indicated in the MM? Go for it! I do think FR is kind of "mushy" at times, but it's just a personal preference. I don't want to anthropomorphize non-human races, I want them to be distinct. That goes for elves just as much as orcs. I don't want elves to be humans with pointy ears and a long life span.

As far as depth, I only have so much time to document and explain my game. The more I have to balance in my head space when coming up with campaign concepts the better off I am. For example, in a previous campaign gnolls were a big problem in the region. They had a slightly different origin (an evil comotose god that had been defeated by Thor long ago), but everything else was things I could just pull in from various sources without having to retcon. The more powerful versions are so obsessed with blood lust that even while dying they still strike out.

Or take orcs. The orcish priest (forget what they're called) has a spell list that fits the base assumption, other leader-type orcs have features that just fit the canonical description of orcs. The goblin captain(?) is a coward that sacrifices other goblins to protect himself and so on.

I can read the fluff on the monster and be done, as can my players. That frees up conceptual space for a bunch of other fluff. I accept that "orcs are evil" is just one of many simplifications in D&D. I just don't see a lot of gain from diluting the nature of the races. In addition I view the alignment of MM entries and the fluff of where they fit in as a core rule. I don't see a need to change it because the PCs will always need bad guys to fight.

Also, where does it end? Are demons no longer evil? Are ghouls suddenly Fallout ghouls, just victims of some magical energy that transformed them?

Not sure any of that helps explain much of anything. For me having a world where basic assumptions are easy to grasp makes the stories flow more easily for me. The complexities I do add stand out more.

That’s a great explanation of why keeping the traditional tropes in place helps you and your group have a better game. Thank you!

I hadn’t thought about the monsters, bc custom monsters is just an assumed part of my DMing workload. (Which is part of why I avoided DMing during the 3/.5 era)

I’m not sure what you mean by “where does it end”, though? Slippery slope arguments very, very, rarely hold up, and this seems like no exception to me, if I’m reading it correctly.

Seems like...it ends wherever it needs to end for the group, DM, and/or campaign, right? I mean, if I make a world where Devils can be redeemed...so what?

Stout Halflings are a little hobbity but that's as far as I've gone with any of these.

The one I often get is if I'm playing a barbarian he must be stupid, despite the fact that he speaks, reads, and writes in 3 different languages.

Hah! Yeah, and I mean, Conan was definitely super dumb, right?