Consequences of playing "EVIL" races

[Doug McCrae]

DMs need to ask themselves whose fun they are improving by responding this way, instead of either being more accepting or simply telling the player to choose a more appropriate race for their character.

Part of this may be down to the longevity of the campaign world and its relationship to the players. Some GMs create new worlds for each campaign, with a particular group of players in mind. In that case the world should be tailored to the players, especially if it's a low prep game. (This is how my groups have always played.) Other GMs however have a single long-established campaign world that may have existed for decades. Their current group of players may be relative newcomers to this world.

 

[DammitVictor]

Part of this may be down to the longevity of the campaign world and its relationship to the players. ... Other GMs however have a single long-established campaign world that may have existed for decades. Their current group of players may be relative newcomers to this world.

Well, just because someone needs to ask themselves if they're really justified in (saying no/nerfing something/attacking PCs) doesn't necessarily mean that the answer is "no".

I mean, I'm a pretty permissive DM when it comes down to it, but when I run Dark Sun, I expect my players to bring Dark Sun characters-- no Gnomes, no Paladins, and if you cast arcane magic in public, you better pray the lynch mob gets you first. (And yes, I'm still salty about that sidebar in 4e.)

And the thing is? None of the established D&D campaign settings were written the way people are trying to run them-- The Complete Book of Humanoids for AD&D 2e was written for them, random tables in the AD&D 1e DMG had encounters with humanoids in metropolitan areas, and while it's clear they're not even second-class citizens and don't enjoy legal protections, their existence is at least conditionally tolerated.

This is canon. Dungeon Masters who run it differently are changing it for their own purposes.

Homebrew is a different story, of course. Homebrew is homebrew.

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?

Hence my post. DMs have all of the authorship and the authority in their worlds, but the title of this thread and many of the comments within it are worded to shirk the responsibility for it onto their players.

And, seriously, what is with all this passive-aggressive nonsense? If you only want certain races in your game, make a list; when players ask to play something else, refer them back to the list. Allowing the player to bring an unwanted character into your game and then punishing them for it is petty and childish.

 

[dragoner]

Adventurer is already bad in some languages, then add in things like Rogue or Thief, so those are criminals. Then was does Paladin do, burning villages of humanoids like medieval SD, just for the precious XP? Hero also, who is that? Pavlov, or some childish fantasy, how do we all conform to that? Too many heroes are broken people. Stuff needs to be laid out at start of game.

 

[Longspeak]

Playing the bad guy is playing a bad guy. Even if that bad guy happens to be a good one stuck with the reputation of his race/culture....

As a DM I would and will enforce what would be the logical reaction of the people your character will encounter. It might not be to your liking. But logic will there.

I agree with this in principle, but in play it's just no fun (for me, or the other players in my experience) to hammer it every scene. That's why I use my rule of not making a thing about it until it's time to make A Thing about it. I don't want to ignore it, but I don't want it to eat up a lot of screen time, either.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Another thread got me thinking about traditional evil races and the consequences of playing them. In the other thread a gold dragon was attacked by a drow and then killed. Is/ should there be problems with playing evil races in your game? In my games monsters are monsters and villagers will hire PCs to kill them if they come into town. On the other hand how do you accord your friend who wants to play a drow or bugbear and walk into town. I'm sure this has been done before, but interested in thoughts not about playing lawful good, but about how to play and give the players what they want, but at the same time have the DM put parameters on the world.

I have seen where you can play in the outskirts of society where the roadside inn caters to anyone with coin or a nation that is more lawless and has some elements like slavery so other races are tolerated. I see in FR where Waterdeep is supposed to be very cosmopolitan and everything is accepted.

I'm not sure if this is Hasbro selling books and making FR allow these races since players want to play them or if I'm being a gronard and applying some sort of bias by not allowing them.

I dont think this site is the site for the conversation you are looking to have. Im just gonna be frank about that. No offense to anyone meant. I just foresee this conversation crashing and burning before it really gets the chance to legitimately spread its wings.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In the World of Greyhawk, "humanoids" such as orcs and goblins are allowed in some predominantly human areas, seemingly including the "free cities" of Greyhawk, Dyvers and Irongate. This is from the 1983 boxed set:

The various races of humanoids have generally been driven into the least favorable areas - mountains,​

barrens, marshes and swamps, and forests... Only Iuz, the Horned Society, and portions of the Great Kingdom allow the more civilized humanoids to dwell amongst the humanfolk, at least to any large scale. The large free cities are also known to allow various sorts of humanoids free access to their precincts.​

Otoh the 1st edition Player's Handbook suggests that all PC half-orcs can pass as humans:

Some one-tenth of orc-human mongrels are sufficiently non-orcish to pass for human... it is assumed that player characters which are of half-orc race are within the superior 10%.​

 

[Bohandas]

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

 

[Helldritch]

And the thing is? None of the established D&D campaign settings were written the way people are trying to run them-- The Complete Book of Humanoids for AD&D 2e was written for them, random tables in the AD&D 1e DMG had encounters with humanoids in metropolitan areas, and while it's clear they're not even second-class citizens and don't enjoy legal protections, their existence is at least conditionally tolerated.

This is canon. Dungeon Masters who run it differently are changing it for their own purposes.

The 2e complete book of humanoid was built around the principle that it will be a group of humanoid. Nothing to add to that. More than this and this is homebrew.

The random tables in the 1ed included humanoids. Those were assumed to be brutes smuggled in by criminal organisations or infiltrators or escapted prisonners hidding in the sewers, coming up at night to way lay poor peoples or adventurers. We see a group of orcs infiltrating the town in the: "Desolation of Smaug" movie. There is nothing new under sun. Doing anything (or implying) other than that is, again, homebrew. The humanoid invader; that is canon. Not the other way around. In evil countries, like the Great Kingdoms, the humanoids are mercernary and thus acceptable city encounters. These encounter tables were simple (all purpose) guidelines, not an almighty rule set in stones. It is stated that if something is impossible to encounter in the zone, treat the roll as the next result on the table.

I have nothing about a party of humanoids. I had a few over the years as a change of pace. If you want a humanoid, this is the type of campaign you want.

Of course there are worlds where an orc, a golin and even a minotaure is acceptable. In these worlds, go ahead. Do what you want. But in other, long established worlds, be prepare to have a brief existence in the first town you'll visit.

 

[DammitVictor]

The random tables in the 1ed included humanoids. Those were assumed to be brutes smuggled in by criminal organisations or infiltrators or escapted prisonners hidding in the sewers, coming up at night to way lay poor peoples or adventurers.

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

These encounter tables were simple (all purpose) guidelines, not an almighty rule set in stones. It is stated that if something is impossible to encounter in the zone, treat the roll as the next result on the table.

These were explicitly urban encounter tables for settled, civilized areas.

Of course there are worlds where an orc, a golin and even a minotaure is acceptable. In these worlds, go ahead. Do what you want. But in other, long established worlds, be prepare to have a brief existence in the first town you'll visit.

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.

 

[Lanefan]

If you, the DM, have to enforce the consequences of the player's decision, they are not really the consequences of the player's decision. They're your decision, they're your consequences, and you are responsible for them in both senses of the word.

Sorry, not buying this.

When considering the "consequences" of playing a "monster" race in D&D... even before you examine whether or not immediate murderous bigotry is actually the most realistic response (and no, it still isn't), DMs need to ask themselves whose fun they are improving by responding this way, instead of either being more accepting or simply telling the player to choose a more appropriate race for their character.

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".

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).