Anyone else notice that if you play a 'monster race' in 4e...

[iwarrior-poet]

A lot of the 'roleplaying info' text assumes that you will play your character as a 'noble and good rebel'----opposed to the racial type? For instance---all the examples of playing a Drow (from the FR Player's Handbook) indicate that the PC opposes the Drow races evil tendencies.
But what if you want to play a bad ass evil Drow who goes back to Menzobarrenzan every once in awhile and reports back to your Matron Mother?

 

[Jeremy757]

I noticed that too, but then again how would you explain a loyal drow hanging out with a bunch of surface dwellers and not slaughtering them or subjugating them or working counter to everything they want.

 

[Phaezen]

But what if you want to play a bad ass evil Drow who goes back to Menzobarrenzan every once in awhile and reports back to your Matron Mother?

2 Step process

1. Check the the DM, and feloow players, if such a character would be appropriate for the campaign.

2. If the DM agrees that the concept of workable in the campaign play your drow, if not, modify the character appropriately or choose another concept.

The rulebooks are written on the assumption that the players will be playing unaligned or good characters, with those playing pcs from typically evil races as outcasts from thier society. There is nothing stopping you from playing a drow as an evil character if it fits the game style of the group you are in just as there is nothing stopping you playing an evil halfling.

Phaezen

 

[iwarrior-poet]

Neither myself nor my DM have any problems playing evil PC's. I am just commenting on what appears to be WoTC's assumptions regarding the 'Nobility' of PC's.

 

[Fifth Element]

Neither myself nor my DM have any problems playing evil PC's. I am just commenting on what appears to be WoTC's assumptions regarding the 'Nobility' of PC's.

The core game is based on the idea that you will generally be playing heroes, not anti-heroes. The core races are generally good and noble.

Besides, this is just flavour text. Ignore it if it gets in the way.

 

[Hussar]

The assumptions are pretty clear in the PHB. They assume you will play heroes. There's a reason that the evil gods are in the DMG after all.

There's nothing stopping you from acting against those assumptions, but, the base assumption is that you are the "good guys". So, that is why you don't find rules for going back to talk to your matron mother.

 

[Irda Ranger]

A lot of the 'roleplaying info' text assumes that you will play your character as a 'noble and good rebel'----opposed to the racial type? For instance---all the examples of playing a Drow (from the FR Player's Handbook) indicate that the PC opposes the Drow races evil tendencies.

It's not just the races. I forget the name now, but the "Shade Swordmage" Paragon Path in the FRPG assumed you were a rebel one.

 

[iwarrior-poet]

Just seems like 4e is planting the 'You are a good guy, so play a good guy' angle harder than anything in 3/3.5. Many of the PrC and race descriptions in 3/3.5 relished being evil (or at least naughty)---and almost none of the base races/classes had any 'Dudley Do-right' language.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I really don't think the idea is new to 4E. A monster race PC that was mixed in with a group of " good guy" races was assumed to be different from his cultural norm as a default. 4E is just coming out and stating the obvious to players who fail thier insight rolls.

Do you HAVE to play that way? Nope. A neutral or evil game can work fine if thats what the group wants to play. The important thing for a regular adventuring party to stay together is that they share common goals. Its important for the group to be in agreement about the type of game being played.

Here is an example of NOT being on the same page. We started a GURPS game some years ago. The setting was near future with some psionics and magic thrown in. The players were told that they would start the game as convicted criminals and the first session would be our escape during a transfer. We were very excited about the game and had fun creating our characters. After the initial escape scene we began our plans to continue the glorious evil career path that got us imprisoned. The GM was upset with us and we we couldn't figure out why.

As it turns out, his intention was that we would create unjustly imprisoned characters but he never came out and told us Big failure to communicate = bad game.

 

[Hussar]

Just seems like 4e is planting the 'You are a good guy, so play a good guy' angle harder than anything in 3/3.5. Many of the PrC and race descriptions in 3/3.5 relished being evil (or at least naughty)---and almost none of the base races/classes had any 'Dudley Do-right' language.

Yes and no. Besides the obvious Paladin parts, there was certainly the implication in most publications that groups were good, or at least neutral. Outright evil groups were certainly not considered the norm.

Look at books like PHB 2 and you'll see that "mostly good" was generally considered the way most people would play. Even the races are described in mostly good terms - elves, dwarves, halflings = all good. Only humans were really described as being from all sorts of stock.