D&D 5E We Would Hate A BG3 Campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, this is highly unlikely. Both in Antiquity and the Medieval Period, there was an outright expectation that there could be Incredibly Weird Things in areas sufficiently far away to be exotic. In Antiquity, that could literally be "the other side of Greece." In the Middle Ages, it was closer to "the far edge of Europe," likely due to the lingering effects of the Roman Empire linking Europe together.

And we aren't just talking like, people with weird eyes or funny skin tones. We're talking literal dog-headed people. Including--I am not joking--medieval iconographic depictions of an actual Orthodox saint with a dog's head. (Specifically, St. Christopher.) They had absolutely no trouble believing that a man with a dog's head, coming from a nation of dog-headed people, had served in the (pre-Christian) Roman Legions before receiving baptism and eventually being martyred.

The "everyone is either intensely curious or intensely fearful" thing is part of the false Dung Ages fable. Modern pop-history has swallowed, hook line and sinker, 15th century Italian propaganda about how their period of history was totally THE turning point from "darkness" (even though you can find "renaissance"-like flowerings of art and literature hundreds of years earlier in other countries) into "enlightenment."


It really isn't nearly as unlikely as you'd think. One of the genuine, actual effects of what is called "the" Renaissance was that it really did represent a fundamental shift in the West's zeitgeist regarding the nature of reality. Prior to the Renaissance, even very learned men were quite willing to accept fully supernatural explanations for things. E.g., the medieval "scientific" experiment which claimed to demonstrate spontaneous generation (via mice "spontaneously" being generated from stored grain). This worldview existed right alongside empiricism for at least two full millennia, from the time of Socrates to the time of Newton--because he, himself, was one of the last great alchemists, despite also developing differential calculus, being the father of modern optics, and establishing the nigh-unquestionable laws of physics for almost two centuries after his death.

This fundamental shift in how we see reality--in our very understanding of what "reality" itself is--cannot be overstated. To the typical medieval person, the idea that magic was real and productive wasn't even a hypothesis, it was a self-evident fact. The dark forest wasn't simply frightening because humans don't like dark places and predators live there. It was supernaturally frightening.

I mean, for God's sake (literally!), St. Augustine laid down the official Catholic doctrine of what werewolves were. Because, unlike witches, werewolves were considered to be at least theoretically real. (Witches, on the other hand, were known to not be real. It was officially Catholic doctrine that witches did not exist, and claiming they did was actually heresy! Yet another of those lovely, pernicious modern myths about what Medieval people thought or believed.)

Point being: To a truly medieval mindset, the idea that the forest outside of town had fairies in it wasn't silly superstition. It was objective fact. Even if you never saw any fairies yourself, you believed the people who said they did. So seeing a person with horns, or a talking cat, or any number of other supernatural things? Probably a bit spooky in some cases, but hardly worthy of losing your mind over. You had too much stuff to do to worry about that.
A lot of good points…and…educational and interesting. And:

What do you think a real world European settlement in the 1100s would do if they encountered a person with horns and a tail?

I don’t care how anyone plays it. A city full of only tieflings sounds cool! I may create one.

I just can’t get my head around telling other DMs they are failing if they make other choices. Especially in light of them reporting they and their group are having fun.

I mean I take no joy in other people’s disappointment, but that is such an individual thing. It’s not a moral imperative to work in every possible race including custom ones.

I essentially do because I don’t have as much lore established (I have kids, full time job, tons of pets and like to make terrain) so I only have time to develop so much.

I justify things fairly easily without tearing down a lot of work. But it is different in different campaigns! That is fine.

I indeed find your post here educational and interesting. I don’t however care if a DM is trying to be historical and fails. Their vision is their vision.

It’s not a moral failing to have certain classes or races excluded as long as it is clear from the start and allows a person to make a choice without wasting their time.

How is this different than say the DMs use of house rules? I don’t like a particularly house rule heavy 5e. Should I be super upset about it—-or move along? Should I push for change and see myself as wronged if the DM declines? I don’t. I may think that looks janky…nah…I will not spend my time that way…and move along.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

And there is no lack of internal consistency in a world in which, "over there", killer kangaroos (or whatever) are to be found. So why does introducing such things on a whim undermine consistency?

What I posted has everything to do with what is being discussed. Introducing new stuff on a whim (a player's whim, a GM's whim, a collaborative whim) doesn't reduce the internal consistency of things. That's my point, and (part of) @AbdulAlhazred's.
It doesn't reduce internal consistency to you. It may to others, and their feelings on the matter are no less valid than yours.
 

The implication of this seems to be that the players of non-Dragonborn PCs are not allowed to perform actions that might lead to them being seen as spies, or prophets, or of interest to local MUs. Or anything else that would change the social dynamics from a sort of "status quo" in which the PCs make few ripples on the world.

I would not want to play with that sort of GM. (And the last time I did, around 25 years ago now, I left the game because of it.)
I don't see how this is the implication of what I wrote.

A dragonborn. A walking dragon. A talking lizard. In my mind it will attract a lot more attention than a human in my human-centric campaign.

Also, you are inferring quite a lot about how I run my games without much information to go by. I'd prefer it if you didn't pass judgement on me as a GM, if for nothing else than for the sake of keeping this discussion civil.
 
Last edited:

Burn all wizards!

Halflings all steal

Unusually strong people are clearly in league with Satan!

Make everyone's game experience uncomfortable and full of harassment and discrimination!
A good snapshot of ONE of the games I am running and where the players are enjoying themselves immensely.

Except for the part about the players game experience, which you know nothing about.
 

Yet people were literally burned at the stake for being witches due to superstition.
Correct!

By civil authorities.

Witchcraft was a crime. It wasn't a heresy itself (though it might accompany heresy.) The Catholic Church officially banned the Malleus Maleficarum. Heck, the Inquisition itself, notorious for its rather open attitude toward any sign of heresy, extremely rarely investigated witchcraft, even when it could.

There's a reason the witch burnings/trials/etc. happened in the Renaissance and "Enlightenment," not in the Medieval Period. "Witchcraft" prior to the Renaissance was primarily herb-lore and folk-healing (think "traditional Chinese medicine" today)--something practiced by uneducated serfs and peasants. The Renaissance, which saw a significant expansion of reading, writing, and access to materials, transformed "witchcraft" into elaborate ritual systems and the like--"Hermeticism" and similar. And it was exactly that transformation that helped make the witch scares as horrific and dangerous as they were.

Witchcraft was, and had been, a civil crime going all the way back to ancient Rome. I did a report on this (Science, Witchcraft, and Religion in the Early Roman Empire) for my Latin classes. Literally the exact same behavior could be seen as (what we would call) "science" in one context, and as dangerous and subversive "witchcraft" in another, and as pious and noble "religion" in a third. Apuleius, author of The Golden Ass, successfully defended himself against a (purely civil!) charge of witchcraft by basically saying that he was a curious scientist investigating claims.
 

But in most D&D worlds are not! Even if they can wildshape or polymorph. So why are Dragonborn going to make such a difference of impact?
The modern standard D&D world is a Mos Eisley Cantina style omni-melting pot where every heritage rubs shoulders with each other with nary an issue not caused by direct villainous action. Is this the only type of world that would be considered acceptable?
 


True, but they also don't have to not be based on own (human) reactions, history, and assumptions, and part of some people's sense of verisimilitude and, yes, setting integrity (I'm sticking with that term) may be that those attitudes will be reflected.
So... you're agreeing with me then? I'm wondering since you said "but" instead of "and"... :confused:

So you wanted a game to happen and made a choice to run one.

What there coercion? Were there threats?

If no, you were not forced. You could have said no.
Coercison: "If you don't we won't have a game!"
Threats: "You don't get pizza then!"

;)
 

I explained exactly why it would bother me. There is reason.

In order for a player to play a dragonborn, I'd have to give that PC and that PC alone(since the others are playing normal races) like +6 to strength, +4 to con, +5 to int, +4 to wisdom, +4 to charisma, resistance to weapons, and more.
I must have missed that post, so I apologize.

Though to be honest I find this a bit hyperbolic. Does every tiefling get the powers of Asmodeus as well? Is every elf literally immortal unless killed, and innately magically powerful, especially if they visited the Undying Lands?

I really don't see how you "have" to give out all these crazy bonuses. The blood is thin. That's a pretty stereotypical plot point, isn't it? That the powers of ancient days are long gone. Hence, for example, why I gave the alternative suggestion of playing a lizardfolk character who is trying to awaken a connection to dragons, or who believes he has one (whether or not he really does), or similar sorts of things.
 

So... you're agreeing with me then? I'm wondering since you said "but" instead of "and"... :confused:


Coercison: "If you don't we won't have a game!"
Threats: "You don't get pizza then!"

;)
I'm saying it could be like @ECMO3 says, or it could be the other way. If that's what you're saying too, then yes I agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ezo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top