Consequences of playing "EVIL" races

[DammitVictor]

Sorry, not buying this.

People aren't responsible for their own behavior? Okay.

A DM could outright tell a player to choose a different race, or just say to the player "if you're hell-bent on doing this, go ahead, but on your head be it - you've been warned".

See, and one of those options is a firm hand on the DM screen, and the other is passive-aggressive bitchcraft. I think it's reasonable to treat one of those courses of action with much more respect than the other.

Also, if you warn the player in question you're going to do something... that's still you choosing to do it, and even if you warned them about it, you're still responsible for being able to justify your own behavior. This isn't some kind of esoteric game theory or progressive ideological screed, it's literally just the basic moral responsibility that should be expected of any functional adult.

You're also assuming the 'immediate murderous bigotry' is going to come from the DM or the setting. IME it far more often comes from the other PCs, either overtly (they shun or attack or even kill it) or covertly (they hang it out to dry at some key moment in a combat and let the enemies kill it).

Well... one... I've never seen that. And two, I don't care because if it's PC versus PC, the players are on even footing and can't just bring in more and more support until they "win".

Three, if they're attacking people who've never made a hostile move toward them, and aren't known to have hurt anyone else, they need to double-check the "alignment" space on their character sheets.

 

[Helldritch]

That's an interesting claim. I'm sure you have an equally interesting source to back it up.

Of course. P.190 of the DMG 1e. and P. 192 of the same book. Interstingly enough, no humanoid in that table. (it was probably in the DMG 2ed). I do remember there was a table in a Dragon Magazine that included them but I don't remember which one and the name of the article.

I don't know why you feel the need to keep reminding me that you're going to do whatever you want. I already know you're going to do whatever you want, including ignoring any logic or evidence that doesn't fit your narrow, baseless worldview.

Have fun with that. Or not. Do whatever you want.

Far from me to want to antagonize you. If I did that, I am truly sorry you felt that way. And my world view is quite open, large and tolerant thank you. My logic may not be always flawless like Spok but I do try to be as logical and open minded as possible.

I would like to point out that you are the one that tries to tell us that a humanoid (or any evil race) should be playable in every games. That is far from the norm. This is what me and many others on this forum are trying to tell you. Now as I said, in a world like Eberon, it is quite normal to play a goblinoid or an orc. In fact, my players in Eberon in the time did it and we had a lot of fun. But in other worlds, it will complicated to play a humanoid (if not downright impossible.) I would not allow a player to impose his or her views on the world I have built on me. Nor would I try to impose my view on another DM's world. Try to open your mind and see our point of view. In the worlds we are playing (either Grey Hawk or another world we built ourselves) your point of view and your hopes would not be in accord with the world in question.

 

[DammitVictor]

I would like to point out that you are the one that tries to tell us that a humanoid (or any evil race) should be playable in every games.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying that the way NPCs treat humanoid PCs in their campaigns is a conscious decision on their part, which they should take responsibility for, and that perhaps they should spend some time in consideration so they can make that decision purposefully for the good of their players.

I think allowing humanoid monster PCs is generally a good idea, and I do allow them in most games; likewise, I think prohibiting monster PCs in general is also a good idea, that it's generally the norm for most games, and I also do it sometimes myself. Hell, my last (only) 5e game was outright humans only.

I think allowing monster PCs in game and then making it impossible to play through cartoonishly unrealistic NPC reactions is passive-aggressive bullying. Admittedly, I am not often my best self when dealing with people attempting to intellectually justify abusive behavior, especially the abuse of authority.

That is far from the norm. This is what me and many others on this forum are trying to tell you.

It might be, but it's not what you are actually telling me. What you're actually telling me, over and over and over again, is that you're going to keep doing whatever you want to your players in your own game because of "muh realizm", while stubbornly refusing to accept there's nothing "realistic" about your NPCs' behavior.

By all means, actually tell me that games that allow humanoid PCs aren't the norm. I will shrug and agree with you.

Try to open your mind and see our point of view. In the worlds we are playing (either Grey Hawk or another world we built ourselves) your point of view and your hopes would not be in accord with the world in question.

Except for the fact, already proven in this thread-- not by me-- that those worlds weren't written that way and you are trying to impose your own values upon them while denying any responsibility for doing so.

 

[Panda-s1]

I mean the obvious thing to do RP wise to have a goblin or troll character or whatever be accepted is for the character to be clearly be rich and generous with their money, or else to clearly be muscle for the cleric (provided that the cleric follows a good or neitral deity), or to clearly be themselves a cleric of a good deity

great, play a real world stereotype to justify your character

 

[Eltab]

But then, if the Dungeon Master is the author of the setting then it is the DM who decided that humanoids would be treated this way by "civilized" folk -- I will guarantee you they made this decision 30 seconds after seeing the player's character sheet -- and thus it goes back to the fact that they designed their homebrew world this way, and the question: why?

What is the payout on that guarantee? I want to collect.

When I homebrew a world, I will tell the players before character creation if there is anything out-of-bounds, not after I get their finalized character sheet.

 

[DammitVictor]

When I homebrew a world, I will tell the players before character creation if there is anything out-of-bounds, not after I get their finalized character sheet.

If you're telling your players that something isn't acceptable before the game starts, and you're not allowing them to play it, then nothing I have said in this thread applies to you in any way.

 

[Lanefan]

People aren't responsible for their own behavior? Okay.

Au contraire - they're exactly responsible.

You-as-player bring in something nobody wants to have around, it's on you when it dies or gets run off or whatever. You seem to want to (somewhat unfairly, IMO) transfer that responsibility on to the DM.

See, and one of those options is a firm hand on the DM screen, and the other is passive-aggressive bitchcraft.

Conversely, it's just as plausible to say one of those is a DM being an inflexible hardass and the other is a DM trying to accommodate a player.

Also, if you warn the player in question you're going to do something... that's still you choosing to do it, and even if you warned them about it, you're still responsible for being able to justify your own behavior. This isn't some kind of esoteric game theory or progressive ideological screed, it's literally just the basic moral responsibility that should be expected of any functional adult.

You're yet again assuming the bad stuff is going to always come from the DM.

And sometimes it will. Doesn't even have to be race-based. If we're in the Kingdom of Carta and that kingdom is at long-standing war with the Monarchy of Tewys, and you-as-PC decide to wrap yourself in the flag of Tewys and parade around in the main city of Carta, what do you think is gonna happen?

But yes, often the players-as-PCs sort this out among themselves...

Well... one... I've never seen that.

Oh, I have. Seen it, done it, been on the receiving end of it.

And two, I don't care because if it's PC versus PC, the players are on even footing and can't just bring in more and more support until they "win".

99% of the time they don't need to.

Three, if they're attacking people who've never made a hostile move toward them, and aren't known to have hurt anyone else, they need to double-check the "alignment" space on their character sheets.

As player, I've been in this position. 3e game, my PC is a Ranger with a side of Cleric who I've for ages played as an upstanding noble goodly sort who has no use for evil nor the type of creatures who tend to be such.

And sure enough, someone brings in a half-Dragon. My response boiled down to "I've trained half my life on how to kill things like this and now you expect me to run with one?!"

But in it came, and I gritted my teeth.

And sure enough, it ended up killing another party member, and then refused my challenge (a thrown gauntlet; only time in my life I've ever been able to have a PC do this!). I'd have been quite justified in doing all sorts of things at that moment, but I knew I was outnumbered by the half-Dragon and his pals and so cooled my jets.

Next time in town, my PC left that party and never returned. (the half-Dragon didn't last much longer, perma-dying in, I think, its next adventure)

 

[Zhaleskra]

I think one thing we may be missing is that not all settings are intended as "kitchen sink" settings. Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer; those are all enabled to be "kitchen sink" settings. There is some argument to be made that Forgotten Realms is as well.

That aside, there are two other potential problems. 1. A GM who decides to get their hands on as much content as they want without concern about their own attention span in order to enable a "kitchen sink" setting (I was one such GM with Planescape). 2. Players who either a.) show up with a character that was forbidden from the game lead in the first place and expect the GM to allow it, or b.) don't know the setting rules and want to play the character "because it's cool". Yes, this is intentionally over simplified.

I didn't like the idea of "Native" Outsider races.

 

[DammitVictor]

You-as-player bring in something nobody wants to have around, it's on you when it dies or gets run off or whatever. You seem to want to (somewhat unfairly, IMO) transfer that responsibility on to the DM.

I want to say that this is exactly backwards, and that you are excusing the Dungeon Master and the other players from their moral responsibilities both for their own behavior in-game, and from their moral responsibilities out-of-game to communicate acceptable playstyles before an unacceptable PC hits the mat.

But if I'm being fair, this is also something a player should check before playing such a character, without needing to be told.

If I were going to be unfair, I'd retort, "so the hobgoblin shouldn't have worn that dress, eh?"

Conversely, it's just as plausible to say one of those is a DM being an inflexible hardass and the other is a DM trying to accommodate a player.

A DM who "allows" a player to make a PC and then prevents them from engaging in the game isn't accommodating jack naughty word. The player who gets told "no" has a little less fun with a different character; the player whose character is being persecuted is going to have a lot less fun until the PC either dies or the player figures out what the DM isn't willing to tell him directly.

You're yet again assuming the bad stuff is going to always come from the DM.

One, the Dungeon Master has the most, theoretically unlimited, capacity to impose the bad stuff.

Two, I'm not discounting your personal experience, but again... I've never seen this coming from the other players. (Except one time, that might have been why another PC put ground glass in my thri-kreen's soup in the first session. He never told anyone why, and that group never played together again.) I've never seen a dozen pages of people bleating and beating their chests over their right as players to murder the other players' characters without provocation.

And this is largely because if this were PC action we were discussing, everyone would recognize it for exactly what it is.

And sometimes it will. Doesn't even have to be race-based. If we're in the Kingdom of Carta and that kingdom is at long-standing war with the Monarchy of Tewys, and you-as-PC decide to wrap yourself in the flag of Tewys and parade around in the main city of Carta, what do you think is gonna happen?

In real life? They're going to be torn to pieces.

In D&D? Absolutely nothing. Dirty looks. Someone might spit on them.

You realize that this is my go-to example for why the policy of running monster PCs out of the game doesn't have anything to do with realism, and that I brought it up myself in my first or second post in this thread?

(a thrown gauntlet; only time in my life I've ever been able to have a PC do this!).

Just a side note, but that is so cool and I am totally jelly.

 

[Helldritch]

I think one thing we may be missing is that not all settings are intended as "kitchen sink" settings. Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer; those are all enabled to be "kitchen sink" settings. There is some argument to be made that Forgotten Realms is as well.

FR is more or less a kitchen sink. It depends on the region you are. Do not bring a goblin player in Cormyr but it would be acceptable in Zenthil Keep. It really depends on where you are and the type of campaign the DM wants to make.

Ravenloft is more humanocentric than other setting but with the way the dread realms work, I can accept a lot of thing in that setting.

Plane Scape and Spelljammers are the best kitchen sink I have seen so far. Eberron is a close second. The games we had in the Plane Scape were unforgettable. Bashram, the Bariaur ranger being mounted by the gnome Goldilock the slinger still makes me smile (and who else would have made a cleric with an 18 dex.?).

That aside, there are two other potential problems. 1. A GM who decides to get their hands on as much content as they want without concern about their own attention span in order to enable a "kitchen sink" setting (I was one such GM with Planescape). 2. Players who either a.) show up with a character that was forbidden from the game lead in the first place and expect the GM to allow it, or b.) don't know the setting rules and want to play the character "because it's cool". Yes, this is intentionally over simplified.

To case #1
There is nothing wrong to have as much content as possible on the game you want to play. In fact, I do encourage my players to read the source books (if they can read english) as much as possible. If by their reading they can bring things to the table that I failed to notice or didn't think of, great! If the content is read by both players and DM, it helps a lot in creating a cohesive campaign as the players will be a lot more implicated in the campaign creation. Not everything rests on the DM's shoulders.

To case #2a
This have not happen to me in ages. I stopped allowing characters that were not made at my table a long time ago. This leads to too much debates. With the standard array, it is a little less problematic but still run the risk of weird magic items or combinations that would not be allowed at my table. (i.e. I restrict multiclassing to a maximum of one additional class.)

To case #2b
This happens a lot more than I would like to admit. If the campaign is in Greyhawk or in my Dunadoria world, do not expect to do anything but the basic races. On other worlds, depending on the world and sometimes the region that the players are starting, then anything is debatable as long as the back story makes sense. Want to play the son of an emissary of Obdul in the city of Silverymoon or Waterdeep? Ok, but find me some damn good reasons for it to have happened. If the player can come up with something remotely good, I am ready to accept it. He might suffer a bit for it, but his actions will speak for him. It will be a fine thread to walk but if the character is trusted by his fellow adventurers; they will vouch for him and it might works. But it won't be easy. Want to do the same in the lands of Vaasa but as an emissary of some strong orc tribe? A lot more chances for it to work but do not venture into Damara, there is a price for your ears in that kingdom... Want to do it in Eberron? No problems. You might even be the jet set star of the city of Sharn...