D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

[CreamCloud0]

I'm okay with a PC that doesn't necessarily run into a burning building to save the orphans but that just makes them neutral, not evil. If you don't torture, murder innocents, don't burn down that tavern to get the BBEG, then why say you're playing an evil PC? That and I'm pretty up front that I prefer heroic campaigns, they're just more fun for me to run.

okay but this was my point, you're dismissing those characters as 'Not REALLY Evil', you're specifically excluding them from evil alignment as a whole and thus boogeymanning what qualifies as evil,

 

[Oofta]

So what you are saying is that there are creatures that pass for dragonborn in your world.

There's a difference between "treating with caution and suspicion" and simply attacking. If a drow is going into the tavern it's going to cause a commotion but that doesn't mean you attack. This goes double when they are part of a non-drow party who vouch for them.

And honestly the really exotic races like Plasmids are easier. They just claim to be from far off Djelibibi or wherever and are too exotic to be a problem. Look in medieval manuscripts for what people actually thought people from far off lands were like.

A lone solo drow, possibly. But if Joe Exotic rolls into town with his pet tigers people may decide he's a twit - but there's a huge difference between that and wild tigers. And a key thing is tigers don't talk. If a tiger headed person walked into town, smiling at people and being free with their money then people would look suspiciously - but attacking would be foolish and there's money to be made. And if they walked in with a group of people who vouch for them (and are heavily armed and not worth fighting)?

And I don't think that the reactions you describe are realistic. I think they are hard line xenophobic and there are going to be a range of reactions.

If a tiger walks into a village in India, they kill it. I may feel bad for the tiger, I may wish that they could have sedated and relocated the tiger, maybe set up more protected areas for the tiger to live. But I don't really blame the villagers, they're protecting themselves. I think aggressively defending yourself against a species (sentient or not) that has always, every single time, proved itself to be an imminent danger to life and limb to be a logical act. It has nothing to do with my "approving" of the behavior, I just think it's human nature. As far as a drow going into a village, in many cases it was Drizzt by himself in the books. Second, if the rest of the party is unknown, that may just mean that they're in league with a homicidal maniac. Guards may not attack on sight but they're not going to welcome them in with open arms either. I don't want to deal with it.

If you want to allow any race you want, go for it. Antagonism against species that in every instance in recorded history have only appeared to murder everyone in sight is just one of many reasons I have a curated list of species.

 

[Oofta]

Clearly we are self-loathing DMs.


Perhaps. I can't say stranger things have happened IRL--there are no other sapient species on this planet, to my knowledge--but the idea that a particular group could be a hated enemy, but some specific person among them could be friendly, has much precedent in both history and fiction. Othello was a "Moor," explicitly quite dark of skin, in an age when dark-skinned people were vilified in England (the dawn of the chattel slave trade, to be precise)--and yet here is a genuinely noble, heroic "Moor" character, depicted as respected by his subordinates and trusted by his superiors.

I could certainly understand folks having a negative reaction if they, personally, have been subjected to violence from a reptilian being. But given how quickly humanity has adapted to all sorts of non-sapient beings so long as they act peaceably, I find the "bigotry would mean you'd always be hated, feared, and subject to constant violent attack" response at least somewhat implausible. Some folks will surely be hateful, fearful, even violent. Some will be inconsiderately curious instead, asking hurtful questions or behaving in unkind ways. A lot will likely simply be fearful and avoidant; outright attacking a creature you consider dangerous is not, generally, something undertaken lightly. A rare few may even be genuinely respectful, whether out of a "worthy enemy" perspective or an attempt to make things better or the like.

If the party is essentially always on the move, that would probably make things a lot harder. But if they're able to return to the same places on the regular, then a true rapport can be developed, which could lead to some really awesome roleplay moments over time, e.g. I have an image in my head of...

Spoiler

A reptilian character is minding his own business, perhaps whittling or preparing rope or the like with the help of a new joiner, and a grizzled old tradesman walks by, saying, "Heard ya saved Ol' Miss Taggart, an' her granson. Pity ya lost the pigs...take summa this coin an' get some new ones a'fore ya come 'round these parts agin."

"Absolutely. Thank you, Master Cooper." He holds the pouch to his chest tightly. "It shall be done as you say."

New hire says, "Wow, you really let him talk to you like that? Guess for a...guy like you, gotta take the jobs you can get, huh?"

"Certainly not. I have known Master Cooper three summers. He just spoke more words to me than in the entire year before today. He also thanked me, in his way, and most important of all, he trusted me. To earn so high a prize is worthy of the risk we took. I shall have to write a song of it, for when I leave these lands."

This is, obviously, a daydream and not something one can plan, let alone expect. Things like this must arise naturally from a context. But I really do love this kind of thing, where there are mixed and muddy reactions and human(oid)s being disappointingly human...only to then build toward something noble and beautiful over time. To show that it is possible to appeal to the better angels of humanity's nature.


This, too! Both Antiquity and the Medieval Period had some WILD ideas about what people were like just a few hundred miles to the east or south or whatever!

Just a side note, but until the slave trade of Africans became a big thing having a different color skin was not a big deal. As for the rest, I explained above.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

okay but this was my point, you're dismissing those characters as 'Not REALLY Evil', you're specifically excluding them from evil alignment as a whole and thus boogeymanning what qualifies as evil,

I mean, that's why I have repeatedly referred to "unrepentant evil," and various other phrases meant to indicate knowing, sincere, genuine commitment to doing evil for evil's sake with zero interest in or amenability to change.

And, before you ask, yes I know of characters that are like this, and not just in crappy fanfiction either. Zenos Galvus, crown prince of Garlemald in Final Fantasy XIV, is just such a character. Walter White, from Breaking Bad, does not start off as a character like that, but the whole point of the show is that he is becoming that kind of person. (I didn't watch it, it's not a show I have any interest in watching--it has excellent actors in it, like Giancarlo Esposito, so I'm sure it's worthy of the praise it gets, but it's definitely not for me.)

For the record, I treat Good in a similar way. You can be a right bastard and still be merely a very unpleasant Neutral--and you can be a genuine sweetheart and still be merely a very pleasant Neutral. Good and Evil are a step further.

To give another example of a character I would be happy to run for--so long as it doesn't cleave in one very specific direction--the "Well-Intentioned Extremist" or otherwise self-righteous and dangerous person. They cause harm, do things that are probably evil, but they are truly sincere about wanting to do good. They're just mistaken, or misled, or too zealous. The "don't take it in that direction" angle, naturally, is what TVTropes would call "Then Let Me Be Evil"--namely, the process where a character who thought they were doing good realizes they were actually really evil...and thus decides "well screw it, then I'll be evil!" Because that would be precisely the process of becoming unrepentant evil--knowing, intentional, embraced evil.

Of course I would also generally prefer that my players keep squicky content to a minimum, but that's a horse of a different color. Not "don't do that," but rather "I know these tools can be used well, but pretty please, don't overuse them, preserve their gravity by using them judiciously."

When every character has an "I was orphaned when my parents burned to death in a fire" backstory, it loses its impact and can become painfully off-putting or even narmy. Tragedy is like dark color in a painting. Without any at all, you get dull, washed-out nothings. With too much, you get a meaningless black swathe. Darkness needs light for contrast. Something a lot of creators over the past 20-25 years have forgotten, unfortunately.

 

[Oofta]

So, who’s on the other side of that issue? @EzekielRaiden has adopted the most extreme position, but even he is arguing that only a good-faith discussion is required.

They've also stated that there is never a good enough reason, or at least that no one has ever provided one that they deem worthy.

 

[Oofta]

okay but this was my point, you're dismissing those characters as 'Not REALLY Evil', you're specifically excluding them from evil alignment as a whole and thus boogeymanning what qualifies as evil,

Yes, I decide what is evil in my campaign. If a PC is about to torture someone to get information I point out that I consider torture evil. They're still free to do what their PC would do, but I reserve the right to make that PC an NPC. I don't care what alignment they have on their character sheet, I only care about what they say and do in context of the game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If a tiger walks into a village in India, they kill it. I may feel bad for the tiger, I may wish that they could have sedated and relocated the tiger, maybe set up more protected areas for the tiger to live. But I don't really blame the villagers, they're protecting themselves.

A tiger is a wild animal not a person - and if a pet tiger on a leash walks into a village the response is different. It is literally impossible to hold a conversation with tigers. Meanwhile a drow is an intelligent humanoid. They might be the monsters under the dark - but they can talk and can say things like "I come in peace" or "I would like to trade gold for food".

I think aggressively defending yourself against a species (sentient or not) that has always, every single time, proved itself to be an imminent danger to life and limb to be a logical act.

And I think that you are implying that the drow are not a sapient species, capable of working with people.

It has nothing to do with my "approving" of the behavior, I just think it's human nature.

As is curiosity and seeking the exotic.

As far as a drow going into a village, in many cases it was Drizzt by himself in the books. Second, if the rest of the party is unknown, that may just mean that they're in league with a homicidal maniac.

If it is even possible for the party to be "in league with" the drow without being enslaved then that is 100% proof positive that there are times when drow are not "an imminent danger to life and limb" - after all it would be impossible to work with a drow under those conditions. So anyone with two braincells to rub together will, at that point, realise that drow do not actually match the myths. How they respond will vary.

Guards may not attack on sight but they're not going to welcome them in with open arms either. I don't want to deal with it.

That's evident.

If you want to allow any race you want, go for it. Antagonism against species that in every instance in recorded history have only appeared to murder everyone in sight is just one of many reasons I have a curated list of species.

As I say "if in every instance in recorded history they have only appeared to murder everyone in sight" and they are part of an unmurdered party then it is evident that either (a) they are not a drow or (b) someone has been tampering with the historical record and you can't trust the record. Both of these should induce scepticism, not a call to murder every drow in sight.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Depending on the setting, certain heritages may have to deal with some "We don't serve their kind here" business. If the player can accept that, perhaps frequent occurrence, and providing a plausible to me reason can be found for their presence, then it is up to the player what they play.

Tieflings commonly have this issue. They are likely going to have to deal with fear and prejudice in some areas. If the player is ok with that, then by all means go for it.

 

[Oofta]

A tiger is a wild animal not a person - and if a pet tiger on a leash walks into a village the response is different. It is literally impossible to hold a conversation with tigers. Meanwhile a drow is an intelligent humanoid. They might be the monsters under the dark - but they can talk and can say things like "I come in peace" or "I would like to trade gold for food".

And I think that you are implying that the drow are not a sapient species, capable of working with people.

As is curiosity and seeking the exotic.

If it is even possible for the party to be "in league with" the drow without being enslaved then that is 100% proof positive that there are times when drow are not "an imminent danger to life and limb" - after all it would be impossible to work with a drow under those conditions. So anyone with two braincells to rub together will, at that point, realise that drow do not actually match the myths. How they respond will vary.

That's evident.

As I say "if in every instance in recorded history they have only appeared to murder everyone in sight" and they are part of an unmurdered party then it is evident that either (a) they are not a drow or (b) someone has been tampering with the historical record and you can't trust the record. Both of these should induce scepticism, not a call to murder every drow in sight.

I've given my logic and reasoning. Much like magic, multiple sapient* species don't exist and certainly species that are only ever seen when they come from the underdark to go on murder sprees don't exist. Therefore I've made what I think I think is a logical conclusion.

Even if they weren't killed on sight, they would certainly face pervasive discrimination which is something I simply don't want to deal with.

But this is bordering on areas that are verboten on this forum and I don't want to discuss it any more. It's only one aspect of why I have a curated list in the first place.

*Technically humans are sentient and sapient which makes them SENSAP[1] ... but ugh.

 

[nevin]

]

A tiger is a wild animal not a person - and if a pet tiger on a leash walks into a village the response is different. It is literally impossible to hold a conversation with tigers. Meanwhile a drow is an intelligent humanoid. They might be the monsters under the dark - but they can talk and can say things like "I come in peace" or "I would like to trade gold for food".

And I think that you are implying that the drow are not a sapient species, capable of working with people.

As is curiosity and seeking the exotic.

If it is even possible for the party to be "in league with" the drow without being enslaved then that is 100% proof positive that there are times when drow are not "an imminent danger to life and limb" - after all it would be impossible to work with a drow under those conditions. So anyone with two braincells to rub together will, at that point, realise that drow do not actually match the myths. How they respond will vary.

That's evident.

As I say "if in every instance in recorded history they have only appeared to murder everyone in sight" and they are part of an unmurdered party then it is evident that either (a) they are not a drow or (b) someone has been tampering with the historical record and you can't trust the record. Both of these should induce scepticism, not a call to murder every drow in sight.

or your DM has fallen prey to the same black and white thinking that historically has led to the hate the new guy problem that has always existed in the real world. which leads quite easily to the take the new guys stuff and then kill the new guy so we dont have to deal with him later. Lots of DM's have black and white monster races that drive thier campaigns. The stories would be better if they didn't do that but it's been a staple of D&D since the beginning.